<p>In regards to people who said that the SAT / ACT doesn’t matter - look, as fair as it would be for colleges to literally get to know every single student and accept everybody who qualifies for their school and look past discrepancies like poor standardized tests…well, it’s logistically impossible. Although it would be fair to accept every qualifying student, America isn’t fair. The original poster’s girlfriend should have known that the SAT was a huge factor in determining who gets their applications seriously considered. She should have studied harder if she wanted to gain acceptance to these schools. She took the test twice, indicating that it most likely wasn’t a negative fluke or an illness.</p>
<p>Now, I don’t mean any of this in a negative way. There is nothing wrong with the Texas state flagships. They’re a lot cheaper for her, she’ll get the same degree, she’ll get nearly the same education, and she / her parents will have more money to spend on graduate school.</p>
<p>Also, it is admirable that this girl has so much community service and so much talent in music and dance. However, it is important to recognize that these schools are academic institutions. There are plenty of kids with comparable accomplishments that happen to have higher test scores than she does. Again, as qualified as she may be in every way but her test scores, America is not fair. Plus, what does it matter? One should complete community service for love of the community and play an instrument for love of music. This is why they are not the primary factors to getting an application through the door (although once there, applications are considered holistically) - test scores, the easiest quantitative way to sort applicants, get one through the door.</p>
<p>Again, if the original poster’s girlfriend truly wanted to get into these top schools, she should have studied for her standardized tests harder, like so many other students do. If she truly tried her hardest and still only achieved these scores, then she should be realistic with herself and not waste the money on applications to them. I’m not saying that because she won’t necessarily be able to handle the workload or work rigor; I’m saying that because of the nature of college applications.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I feel like this thread may have turned into a bashfest on the girl. Her choice to apply to the most prestigious universties in America is shortsighted, but there is nothing condemnable about going to a state university, where she will succeed and enjoy herself.</p>
<p>IMO- Applying to 20 colleges is way, way too much. I mean, the entire Ivy League and top LACs? That is a lot of work;they all have detailed applications a. I give her credit for finishing them all (and Im not being sarcastic about that. Im being dead serious). </p>
<p>She certainly has ECs and passion for them. That could say loads with strong essays and interviews.The biggest thing that I see are her test scores, the objective stuff.</p>
<p>Her standardized scores are no where near the 50% range for the Ivy League, or top LACs. She should try and retake both the SAT and ACT- she might be able to do better on one compared to the other. </p>
<p>Admissions at all top schools are very unpredictable, but this is what I say</p>
<p>Harvard- High Reach
Princeton- High Reach
Yale- High Reach
Brown- High Reach
Dartmouth- High Reach
Columbia- High Reach
Cornell- High Reach
UPenn- High Reach</p>
<p>Duke- High Reach
Notre Dame- High Reach
BC-Match
Tufts-Match
Georgetown- High Reach
Wellesley-High Match
Smith-High Match
Wesleyan-High Match</p>
<p>Middlebury-High Match
Williams- High Reach
Amherst- High Reach
Bates-High Match</p>
<p>Also, what I see that is dangerous about this list is there really is no Safety school. She should really try and apply to a safety that has rolling admissions so she is at least guaranteed something. </p>
<p>I wish her the best of luck, and I am intrigued to see the results. </p>
<p>Why are you guys getting into a debate over the meaning of one’s standardized testing scores in a chance thread? The SAT is a decent indicator of intelligence and preparation, and there isn’t anything I can think of that is more fitting for college admissions. If you criticize something, propose an alternative.</p>
<p>Anyhow, the reality remains that, with those scores, the OP’s girlfriend has a negligible chance at top schools.</p>
<p>silverturtle- Because some people wants to argue that test scores are more important than grades, and even with studying, they can only increase ‘slightly’. Yes, I’m talking about kameronsmith.</p>
<p>Now kareronsmith, I don’t know why I even bother but here goes. Also, are we in a court room? Did you really take this debate seriously to that extent? Pretty funny that you would take a real life situation and relate it to an online discussion board, IMO.</p>
<p>And in reference to what we’ve been arguing about, was a hardworking student with a not too well test score BUT studied hard to increase it. Now, you said scores can’t be increased miraculously with studying? That’s a FALSE statement from what I’ve witnessed. On that same note, you were talking about lazy students so my mind automatically thought ‘2.0 GPA lazy’, not ‘3.7 GPA lazy’. In what kind of world does a 3.7 GPA goes under the lazy category? Anything above a 3.0 is pretty good, and above average. My 2000 and 2300 examples are pretty realistic- it’s actually 300 points apart. Now with the GPA, we’re talking about lazy and hardworking, so a 4.0 and 2.0 is what we’re looking for. Maybe a 2.5, but that’s pushing it. Just remember that in the real world, outside of this discussion board full with people with high standards, a 2.0 equals a ‘C’, which is average. Your perception of a bad GPA or a GPA of a lazy student, being a 3.7 says more than enough.</p>
No, I don’t take it that seriously; I just think proper grammar should be used whenever possible. Yes, that includes online discussion boards.</p>
<p>Regarding your other points, remember the <em>context</em>. In the context of Ivy league admissions, a 2.0 “lazy” student doesn’t have a chance. However, I do think a 3.7 is a more reasonable example. Often, in the case of students with a 3.7, the only thing separating them from a 4.0 is a certain degree of laziness. I don’t mean this to disparage them: in fact, that’s me.</p>
<p>My point is this: I prefer students who are naturally good reasoners (as indicated by SAT scores), even if they have a couple of Bs, to students who have taken school too seriously and slaved away for a 4.0, despite lacking innate reasoning skills.</p>
<p>how is the school even letting her do this? i mean she has no safties what so ever and nothing about her really sets her apart from the thousands of other kids applying. It is highly likely that she wont get into any of those schools. They are a crapshoot even for people with amazing stats. I would suggest that she seriously consider taking at least half of those schools off of her list and add some safeties!!!</p>
<p>@Kameronsmith I’d abstain from the debate. It’s clearly off-topic and your opponent doesn’t seem to possess the skills necessary for an intelligent debate.</p>
<p>How is a 4.0 and a 2.0 the difference between a “lazy” student and a hard-working student? You do not receive a 75 in a class as a result of laziness, you receive that when you fail to understand what is taught. A lazy student might receive an 85 rather than a 90. If you are going to argue that a “C” is average outside of these boards, then you might as well acknowledge the actual 2009 National Mean Scores for the SAT straight from College Board.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As you can see, the average national SAT score is closer to 1500, not 2000. Your juxtaposition of two potential applicants, one with a 4.0 GPA/2000 SAT and one with a 2.0 GPA/2350 SAT will show nothing. The discrepancies in GPA are of much larger magnitude than the discrepancies in the SAT scores.</p>
<p>In regards to OP’s stats, my initial presumptions would be that either her school inflates grades heavily, and thus does not accurately reflect her intelligence, or that she has supplanted her lack of intelligence with extreme diligence and the SATs merely show she did not have strong reasoning/critical thinking skills to begin with.</p>
<p>With strong legacy or other hook such as superstar athlete, it definitely is possible. You guys have to realize that at the top schools - HYPS etc., it is way more about hooks than anything else. Sure you need some decent grades and scores, but reality is, when dealing with that category of school, an ACT 30 and 3.5 gpa with a parent who is an “active” alum is way better than a 36 ACT / 2400 SAT 4.0 kid with no connection or hook whatsoever. That is the reality. It’s more about your “hook” at the very top schools than anything else. Any honest ad com person will openly tell you that. We just had a student at my H.S. with relatively low scores and a medium average get into Stanford with nothing special, except the fact that his parents and grandparents went there and are very active alums. Yet, the current top kid in the class who had a 2380 SAT and just about a 4.0 index was rejected at Stanford. If you have strong legacy or something else going for you, like an excellent athlete, you have a shot at HYPS, MIT etc with even average scores!!! Approx 35-50% of the kids at HYPS have some legacy. If you think they all got in because of great test scores and grades, you are wrong. It’s crazy that many of us here at cc chance ourselves back and forth based on test scores and grades and ec’s, when in reality the most important factor is probably legacy or some other strong hook, especially when applying to the top schools. Good luck to all.</p>
<p>Not on an adcom. Yes, an alum of an Amherst grad; my dad. I may go there (if accepted), but more interested in a larger school. I never said anything about “poor” grades or scores. Never said anything about poor scores discounting grades or scores. Indeed, poor scores and/or grades would certainly cause even some well connected applicants, with or without hooks, to get rejected.<br>
Anyway, If you disagree with those stats, check Yale, for example. The numbers are accurate; not a lie. I know it hurts for many of us to bust our butt, get the high index, get great test scores, only to see the kid with just “good” numbers get in because of some hook, which is usually legacy based. But even though many of us may not like that, it’s the way it is and always will be.<br>
P.S. If you question any of this, read the book about top school admissions, which I believe is titled “The Price of Admission.”
Ask yourself this question, all ec’s and other things basically being equal, would you rather be an SAT 2300 / 3.9 with no hook or a 2100 / 3.5 with a family that has legacy, has been active and generous alums etc… The answer should be obvious.
Great schools will always have enough smart applicants. Great schools don’t need smart applicants (2400/4.0); there are plenty of them out there. But great schools stay great with money, which is used to attract talented professors and build buildings. If you really disagree with any of this, tell me why.
Very good luck to you.</p>
<p>Your post displays a troubling degree of cynicism, especially considering your age. I really hope you don’t care it with you throughout your life, as it can render intelligent people such as yourself bitter and keep society from profiting from their ideas.</p>
<p>
Schools do <em>not</em> publish these statistics, so it is often based on conjecture.</p>
<p>
The fact remains that the majority of students at these schools are <em>not</em> legacies, nor <em>URMs</em>. It is fully possible to get in through working hard and being passionate, no matter who your parents are.</p>
<p>
The book is written by a WSJ reporter. Yes, it is mostly accurate when it comes to details—but the fact remains that he has a motive: to sell papers and to sell a book. Which narrative is going to sell more? “There’s not really any secret and anybody who works hard can get into Ivies.” or “The upper class is cutting the rest of us down in unforeseen ways! Buy the book to find out how!”</p>
<p>
2300, hands down. That other kid with a 3.5 frankly has little chance of getting in. Also, remember that not all “hooks” are legacies. Others include URM, being a top athlete, doing something exceptionally rare.</p>
<p>
Yes, they need money, but there are two ways they go about getting it. The first is by, of course, appeasing alumni and attracting their checks. But a second way is simply by trying to attract tomorrow’s leaders and “best graduates” — if people have already done amazing things in high school, chances are they’ll do amazing things in their future and have the corresponding monetary rewards (some of which would, more often than not, go to their alma mater).</p>
<p>not a cynic. really don’t care that much, but enjoy the banter.
don’t think I’ll ever have more than 50 posts here.
just enjoy life, parties, girls
life is short - enjoy it!<br>
Don’t have time (or the desire) to dissect posts like you did above.
I will not dissect your post.
You do not respond to my comment that you incorrectly claimed I said something about poor grades being discounted by a hook. So at least we can agree on that point.
Regardless, I understand your comments.
I did not say it is impossible to get into any schools.
I did not say all hooks are legacy based. Certainly, outstanding athlete, and “decent” grades/scores will probably trump most any connection.
But you and I can agree to disagree on the importance of generous alumni.
Great schools do not stay great with tuition dollars. It’s major giving from alum, etc that truly advance a school on every level.
If you believe that the 2300 4.0 kid has a better shot than the 2100 3.5 kid whose family has been significant contributors for many years, then we can disagree and that’s cool.
In fact, I would say that it’s not even close. The 2100 3.5 whose family has given something along the lines of say serious money every year for several years will get in all day long most anywhere. But you won’t find that kid here. He/she does not need to exercise his chances versus others. He/she does not need to stroke their ego or vicariously inflate their potential by looking at how other people have scored.
Tomorrow’s leaders may be great admits, but many of them may not be that generous.
A generous alum, whether a leader or not, has shown that he is willing to give. No substitute for actual experience; and his / her children are also likely to be generous.
Not talking about the $500 a year giving alum here; instead the much more substantial type.
Maybe the percentage of alum admits is exactly correct.
Anyway, this is my opinion.
p.s. don’t be a cynic - go with the flow - live for the moment
I wish you good luck. (I just finished my last application. Applied to a bunch of schools in or around Boston. - will take the best one I can get. Don’t want to leave the state - too many hot ladies around this town!!!</p>
<p>While I don’t necessarily think standardized test scores are the best indicator of intelligence, the real problem for the OP is that those scores shed some serious doubt on the quality of her school (which then make make her grades seem less impressive), especially because it’s a school that doesn’t send a lot of people to top schools anyway. Someone ranked #4 in their class at Andover would be able to get away with the “I don’t test well” claim more than someone from some random school, since the quality and rigor of that curriculum in known, so the rank would still mean a lot. I would not be surprised if the adcoms were worried about her ability to handle the workload at their schools.</p>
<p>Also, as a random note, I think nk9230 is being very optimistic or wrongly informed when they label Tufts, Wes, and Middleburry as matches instead of reaches – these scores are well below their mediums. (This might be true of the girls schools as well, but I don’t know those as well).</p>
<p>20 colleges total?What about Ut Austin.It is a very good university,and she is 100% to get in because of the 10% policy in Texas and she is much better than top 10% of her class.</p>
<p>Is it because the UT Austin is too close?Because many people always think that universities close to them is not as good as the same peer universities which are far fromthem.Whatever the reason is, i think your gf didn’t make a wise dicision.</p>
<p>this is crazy…these schools are in like top 50 best schools in US…there are by no means any sort of matches or safeties in applying to 20 schools…tell her to get some safeties… EC’s can go a long way but not if she can’t meet academic standards…1890 will put her probably at the bottom 50% or even lower considering these schools</p>
<p>ahhahaha
Is this a joke?
job experience: dog-walking, lawn-mowing. I’d suggest adding dish-washing and window-shopping. haahah
(from first page)</p>