<p>undecided, both my boys went to this event (the first when it was called SHIP). We needed a safety for ds1, and A&M would qualify. My dh was deadset against it, but I told him to suck it up and keep his negativity to himself (I should add we bleed burnt orange). Amazingly, after the two-day event, we all got in the van, looked at each other and said, “We liked it!” I hope your dad changes his mind and attends with you and embraces the idea of looking beyond those top-tier choices. Feel free to have him PM me, if you like. I can talk to him about what we saw that changed our minds and why having options is a good thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An unhooked sub-2100 applicant has 0% chance of getting into any of these schools, so this discussion is largely academic.</p>
<p>Apply, get rejected by all three but make sure you apply to a few match schools as well (behind his back if you have to, he’ll be grateful you did after he starts eating crow).</p>
<p>^^ Disagree, maybe 1 or 2%, but your advice is spot on.</p>
<p>
That’s a ridiculous exaggeration. ~40% of the freshman class at Williams has a sub-2100 SAT or ACT equivalent. Princeton and Yale are lower, at 20-25% sub-2100, but still far from 0% chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you plan your college schedule carefully, you may be able to fit two unrelated majors in without too much difficulty.</p>
<p>However, actual linguistics departments are not all that common, so if that is important to you, you may have to check colleges for them, or for similar courses in other departments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those are mostly “hooked” candidates in that 20-25% pool. The OP isn’t going to fall into the hooked pool, so 0-2% is pretty much right on. A slightly higher chance at Williams.</p>
<p>Great that your dad is coming around! Keep us updated on how it goes.</p>
<p>
You believe that nearly 20-25% of the entire freshman class are hooks with subpar stats? And nearly 40% for Williams?</p>
<p>There are many non-hook acceptances who don’t have lower SAT scores. My verbal SAT was 500, which was in the bottom 1% at Stanford when I applied. I was accepted without having any hooks. I was also accepted to MIT, Brown, and Cornell with the same stats, which was all but one of the colleges to which I applied.</p>
<p>If you look at the SCEA threads, they tell a similar story… there are several sub 2100 SAT acceptances without hooks, although I’d expect the vast majority of the lower SAT group to not be the type that posts on CC forums . I believe many of the top colleges place far less emphases on stats than the majority of posters on this site. For example, a few weeks ago I analyzed the posted Stanford RD decisions. The accepted posters had a lower median SAT that the rejected posters, as well as a lower GPA, class rank, course rigor, and anything else associated with stats. Instead the accepted posters shined in other ways such as having better ECs, awards, unique backgrounds and experiences, or just generally came across more as amazing people. All of these things can contribute more than whether your SAT is 2090, like the OP, or 2190.</p>
<p>Beware small data pools, self selected. Most kids at tippy schools don’t get 500 x 3.
Were your M and W so low?
And when was this?</p>
<p>OP how competitive us your hs? And can you give us a hint of the hs demographics and rural v urban?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do believe this. As I said, the OP’s chances are better at Williams, as 40% of the class is probably not hooked. But at Princeton, about 17% of the incoming freshman class are athletes. Legacies, 2.5% of the applicant pool. About 19% are URMs. I think the bottom 25% also has a few students who have done something truly spectacular from an EC or other perspective (Science Olympiad gold medal, started a successful and unusual business, writers/actors/artists who have achieved significant success with a larger audience, homeless student who fought their way to valedictorian, etc.). That is certainly another kind of hook, but you can’t find any statistics on those students. </p>
<p>Now not all of those hooked students are in that bottom 25%, for sure. And there is some overlap between the groups. But that is still a significant pool of candidates who are desirable to Princeton for reasons other than test scores, grades, and traditional ECs. So those who are competing for slots based on test scores, grades, and more traditional ECs have to be very, very good to be considered. The OP falls into none of those hooked pools as far as I can tell.</p>
<p>
The comment that triggered this discussion mentioned a 0% chance. You don’t need a huge sample size to disprove a 0% chance or even a very low % chance in the range we have been discussing.</p>
<p>All standardized tests related to math and science were near perfect. Math and SAT I & II were 800. SAT II Chem was somewhere in the 760-800 range. I don’t recall the exact number. While those tests may have pulled my SAT stats up, my UW HS GPA was in the bottom 3% of the Stanford freshman class at the time I applied (several years ago), and my class rank was similar. There was no question that I was in the bottom stat quartile overall at all of the schools I mentioned at the time I applied. Nevertheless, I was accepted without hooks, while most of my classmates who applied had far superior stats and were rejected. One of my classmates who was a national merit finalist/winner (don’t recall which) and likely had near perfect stats went so far as to publicly blame me for his rejections, using logic along the lines of a limited number of spots per school, and I had taken his spots.</p>
<p>
Part of the difference in opinion may relate to different definitions of hooks. I am not counting ECs that are impressive on a state/national level a hook, nor am I counting things like overcoming difficult circumstances. I agree that if you are just a well rounded student with typical ECs, awards, and nothing that really sets you apart from the tens of thousand of other applicants, then it’s unlikely that you’d be accepted to a highly selective school, regardless of stats. And if you have weak stats, then it’s extremely unlikely to be accepted.</p>
<p>Data, we’ve been speculating about components/factors in admissions for a long time- including some long arguments about transparency, capriciousness (in good and bad forms,) and “chances.” There are varying levels of perspective, research and emotions. Some have unique angles. Most of us, I daresay, have both our public opinions and ones that are less clearly describable, that we leave unsaid, waiting. I have to question how you can claim your 500 W put you absolutely in the bottom of a matriculated group, when you made “near perfect” in the other areas. </p>
<p>It is not uncommon to see a high-performing (quant and qual) stem kid who isn’t as strong in CR. When the rigor is there, the writing is solid and reflects the sort of intellectual and personal attributes a top college wants and needs, the lower CR may not have the decision weight it would seem to, when one purely looks at stats. Add in geo diversity, which is powerful. The rigor of the hs and competitiveness of the pool applying from there. Some unique need the college had, some seemingly small piece of the app that triggered all the right emotions in all the reviewers. The wild cards.</p>
<p>An “unhooked” sub-2100 has a chance. But it rests on the personal strengths (I’ll include his intellectual quality in there) that are evident in the app package. Rests on the reasons, with a pool of thousands of better-stats kids, you would “want” him. What drives adcoms to seriously consider him. It’s not predictable, moving forward- and not always strictly identifiable, looking back. Wild cards. Not just the usual targets, AA, legacy, athletes. Not some seemingly obvious things like Olympic Athlete or name listed among authors of a scientific paper.</p>
<p>Here’s my suggestion: tell him that you’ll apply to only those four schools, as long as he agrees that if you don’t get into any of them you can live at home for free for the next year if you don’t get into any of them, at which point you can apply to a new list. That will let him think about how confident he really is.</p>
<p>I’d go ONE STEP further…</p>
<p>the agreement should include that if the student doesn’t get into one of those schools, the dad will pay for a month-long all expenses trip to Europe AND let the kid live at home for free the rest of the year. </p>
<p>Is your dad an immigrant?</p>
<p>My H got into Harvard with a SAT in the 1300’s, so it wasn’t hard back then. Now, his app wouldn’t likely get a second-glance.</p>
<p>^1300’s back then is before the recentered scores. I know my 730 Verbal translates to an 800 now. So he might well still be in the running.</p>
<p>I live in a suburban top ranked public school. I am white. I work almost full time during the summers with kids at a day camp, it is volunteer work. In between working with the kids, I help maintain the property. It is an environmental area. I also play music for varsity orchestra and city orchestra. I have played for fundraisers with that. I am in NHS, French HS, Math HS. I will have 11-12 APs by the time I graduate. I take my math through Stanford EPGY instead of the public school. I was done with everything our public school had to offer a year ago. I am not sure if I am top 10% because I was just below that when the year ended. But my uwgpa is 3.73. All my courses have been AP or preAP where ever possible. </p>
<p>And I need financial aid. I have younger siblings, but foster sibs sometimes too. I also have an older sibling in college right now. So money is a big consideration.</p>
<p>And, you have overcome challenges?</p>
<p>Your dad will need to fill out the CSS Profile for each school that requires it, unlike the Fafsa, which is a one-time thing. Geo diversity is the worst wild card, in that they can only take so many from a school or local area. I get the impression your father is not just asking you to focus your apps, but to work as hard as you can to maximize your potential. Your actual app package will matter- how you present yourself. But, I think we’re with you here, because you do seem a smart kid. (Btw, the fostering may be a neat thing to somehow include.)</p>
<p>The colleges you name are all good, many of us know kids happy and productive at them. One thing I note is that you are interested in non-stem areas, but your weaker score is CR. So, you need to work around that.</p>
<p>In the end, what best empowers a kid, as you move through college and into young adulthood, is the fit of the college, how it satisfies many needs, what it specifically offers you. You sound adaptable. But, if there are serious reasons you might prefer TAMU or Rice or a Rhodes over a Williams, I hope Dad will consider that.</p>
<p>I think there are three things his father needs to understand</p>
<ol>
<li><p>His son’s SAT scores are not as strong as his due to recentering.</p></li>
<li><p>While his son’s grades and scores are impressive they are not exceptional and from what he said neither will the rest of his application. </p></li>
<li><p>Selective schools have become MUCH more selective since he went to school. Often many times more selective. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Each of us knows what it is to be proud of our children. I am impressed that the OP is aware of his position. With his scores he can go to a myriad of wonderful schools, there is absolutely no reason to limit his choices and likely court disaster. I wonder if there is a GC that could help the OP’s father to understand. I would be tempted to apply to one reach school that Dad feels he should get into, one to two matches that the student would be happy applying to and at least one safety. If he has any savings tell dad he’ll pay for the applications other than the one reach. Good luck. You have a few months before it becomes imperative you get your applications in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are all hooked.</p>
<p>I stand by my assertion: An <em>unhooked</em> sub-2100 applicant will not get into any of those three schools.</p>
<p>I tend to agree, Soze. My daughter will be applying to Columbia (she knows its a reach) in the fall. She has a 3.75 uw gpa, 4.4 weighted, IB diploma, 2110 SAT, average ECs, very good writer (so she might impress on her essay), blond hair, blue eyes. No hooks whatsoever. I’d say her chances are definitely less than 5%.</p>