My Chances at Tech

<p>Ok, so as of yesterday I made the decision to attend Georgia Tech. I'm 110% sure. But I just want some advice.....everything on my resume is pretty good, except for my SAT score. For instance, I have a 4.0, ranked 2nd in my class, was a Social Studies major at Governor's Honors last summer, have been a Page for the US House of Representatives, done plenty of community service, President of NHS and FBLA, and have passed 6 AP's--3 with 4's and 3 with 5's. BUT---my SAT score is an 1880. That's just a little bit lower than the 25 percentile admitted, so give me your opinion. I want to make sure that I won't be denied at early action. </p>

<p>I'm taking the SAT once more in October that will count towards early action, and I'll study my butt off for it.</p>

<p>You should be very competitive for admission even with your current stats. Although your SAT is below average, the rest of your application is exceptional. If this was your first time taking the SAT and you plan on studying you will likely increase your score. Good luck!</p>

<p>You will 99% sure get in. GT loves govenors honors.</p>

<p>I don’t know how you can say “99%” with an SAT score 200 points below average. However, I agree that Governor’s Honors + 4.0 UWGPA makes a very strong case for admission.</p>

<p>If you have Govenors honors, good grades,good extracurriculars, and an 1880. You will most likely get in. I had an 1840, good grades, ok extracurriculars and I got in last year. I have never met anyone in govenors honors who has not get into Tech with good grades and ok SAT scores.</p>

<p>Of course, you haven’t met everyone, probably just people who were admitted (that you met at Tech) or a small sample of people you know when you went.</p>

<p>To tell someone that they’re “99%” in is a strong statement. That basically says “Tech is a safety, don’t apply to any other colleges” which is not true. With an 1880, Tech isn’t a safety for anyone, even if you cured cancer and have two Nobel Peace Prizes. The fact of the matter is that with a first quartile SAT score, he’s automatically a slight reach. Some reaches get in. I wouldn’t misconstrue that to mean that every similar student is automatically accepted.</p>

<p>Well, I’m taking it one more time next month, so hopefully I can get it over 1900 or 2000. I also live in rural South Georgia, and it seems that they are more lenient. For instance, last year there was this guy in my school that probably had a 3.8ish and had Quiz Bowl as his only ec and got in. And yea…UGA is my backup, they automatically admit salutatorians and valedictorians in Georgia. But I must go to Tech! Haha</p>

<p>Are you a boy or a girl? That makes the biggest difference at Tech.
If you’re a girl, you’re pretty much guaranteed admission with stats like those, if you’re a guy, i wouldn’t be COMPLETELY confident - you would still have a good chance though (:</p>

<p>Tech doesn’t really care that much about SAT scores. Grades are a much more important factor. And for a Salutatorian with great extracurriculars, tech is a high match. Maybe not for early, but definitely for regular.Honestly, GHP is pretty much an automatic in if you were not a art or music major since the process to get in is very rigorous.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is not true. Georgia Tech and all other public institutions are prohibited by law from discriminating amongst applicants on the basis of gender. The statistics of the male and female matriculates is very similar. On average, female matriculates have slightly higher GPA’s and slightly lower SAT’s and vice versa. If Tech were cutting female applicants slack I imagine the male/female ratio would be improving at an even faster pace than it is. =) I think you will also notice by the involvement and academic success of women at Tech, that they are far from “sub-standard.”</p>

<p>Well I just personally know of quite a few people who have gotten into tech, and I can say that the boy’s sat scores and grades are much higher than the girl’s. I’ve known girls who have gotten in with 1700’s and terrible essays (without legacy), and guys who have gotten waitlisted with SAT scores in the 2000’s and rigorous schedules. At least this is what I’ve noticed with the people at my high school (and I live in Georgia so many people apply there).</p>

<p>Acceptance Acceptance rate SAT SAT GPA
All Colleges 6,363 48.28% 1412 2079 3.92
All Colleges (male) 4,128 46.38% 1423 2087 3.91
All Colleges (female) 2,235 52.24% 1391 2064 3.95
All Colleges (in-state) 2,318 47.42% 1398 2065 3.98
All Colleges (out-of-state) 3,523 56.69% 1424 2090 3.89
All Colleges (international) 522 25.13% 1394 2063 3.91</p>

<p>Females in 2010 had a 23 points lower SAT average, and a 0.04 higher GPA average. That doesn’t sound like a lower standard to me.</p>

<p>Regarding the boys’ stats vs girls’ stats. Has it occurred to anyone else, and I know it has, that more boys apply to Tech than girls do, so they are fighting for slots as opposed to the less number of females who apply. Its really not about stats or the ratio of boys to girls; it is about the ratio of males that apply to females that apply.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not quite sure what you’re getting at. It seems clear to me from the data above that both genders are fighting for the same slots.</p>

<p>I’m not saying that everything I say is right, I’m just saying that this is the trend I’ve seen from the people who apply TO GEORGIA TECH from the schools around me. </p>

<p>Regarding what majord posted… I never thought about it like that and now that you’ve mentioned it that does make sense. It would explain the 3/5 girl/boy ratio and why (in my opinion) it’s easier for a girl to get in that it is a guy.</p>

<p>InPursuit is correct, coolcat. They cannot engage in discrimination in the admissions process. UGA was successfully sued several years ago for giving extra points in their admissions formula to minorities [University</a> of Georgia (UGA) Racial and Gender Quotas Struck Down July 24, 2000](<a href=“http://www.adversity.net/education_1_uga.htm]University”>http://www.adversity.net/education_1_uga.htm) . A female student in Michigan successfully sued U Mich for undergrad admissions several years ago as well <a href=“http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/research/expert/intro.html[/url]”>http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/research/expert/intro.html&lt;/a&gt;
Here are other discrimination/diversity lawsuits
[The</a> Major Affirmative Action Cases - A Current Legal Overview](<a href=“http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/descriptions/making_the_case/legal/legal_overview.cfm]The”>http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/descriptions/making_the_case/legal/legal_overview.cfm). This was before your time, but addressed the fact that schools wanting to improve diversity (race, sex, etc) cannot engage in discrimination, reverse discrimination or what have you, to achieve this goal. Students must be “otherwise qualified” for admission. They cannot first consider gender, race, disabilities, etc.</p>

<p>And just curious, how would you know that the females wrote “terrible essays”?</p>

<p>OP- can you take the ACT? That might be easier for you</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If Tech had “female” and “male” slots, and females competed against females, and males against males for those slots, then the statistics for admitted females would be very different than the statistics for admitted males. But they’re not, so even if gender is factoring into the decision, it’s apparently not a significant factor, and definitely not “the most important factor” as someone claimed.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You’ve probably seen a dozen or so applicants, and for those applicants, you don’t really know things like SAT score, GPA, essay quality, etc. Many people lie when telling you their SAT score and GPA. So you’ve probably noticed a girl that you assumed wasn’t intelligent admitted and a guy that you assumed was qualified not admitted, and you’re trying to rationalize that. Either that, or you’re perpetuating a myth that you’ve heard from somewhere else. Regardless, the facts are against you. If we want to use unverifiable, small sample size data to prove a generalization, I can come up with dome real interesting insights.</p>

<p>There was a good deal of press about “looking for male/female applicants differently” . It is discriminatory and illegal in public institutions such as Ga Tech. Private institutions can and do tend to use differing criteria to put together their classes each year. The statistics have caught the attention of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating.
Heres an article on gender bias in admissions
<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/25/opinion/la-ed-gender25-2010jan25[/url]”>http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/25/opinion/la-ed-gender25-2010jan25&lt;/a&gt; Be sure to read this part:

</p>

<p>btw, here’s and interesting read about legacy, coolcats. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1001578-does-legacy-really-matter.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1001578-does-legacy-really-matter.html&lt;/a&gt; Legacy is a possible consideration for private schools, not public schools. IN fact, this article addresses a lawsuit against UNC for a legacy accusation <a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/[/url]”>http://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/&lt;/a&gt; The statements you made above about gender bias, legacy and essay writing-- just don’t make any sense.</p>

<p>[Georgia</a> Institute of Technology :: Undergraduate Admission :: Conditional Acceptance Offer](<a href=“Blow the Whistle! (404 error: page not found) | Undergraduate Admission”>Blow the Whistle! (404 error: page not found) | Undergraduate Admission)</p>

<p>Conditional acceptance is only award to legacies and children of major donors (which are usually the same thing). Look at the URL: admission.gatech.edu/legacy/</p>

<p>Edit: but to add, Conditional Acceptance is actually not an acceptance. You’re rejected from Tech but are basically given a guaranteed transfer if you complete certain requirements at another university. Regardless, this does show that legacies are treated differently.</p>