<p>Here's my stats:</p>
<p>4.0 uW GPA ... as many ap and honors classes as I could have possible taken</p>
<p>2160 SAT: 690 M ; 700 CR ; 770 W</p>
<p>US HISTORY AP - 4 / Eng. Language AP - 4 / Calc BC - 5, and AB SubScore - 5</p>
<p>just looking at my numbers..how do I compare to most Cornell applicants? [sorry just curious if I have a chance]</p>
<p>check out this thread for your chances: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=126317%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=126317</a></p>
<p>KingsFan0421 , SAT scores are mediocre Cornell Standard... do u have any ec's or SAT-2's???</p>
<p>My friend got into Stanford engg with 2120, so theres no saying whats good and whats bad.</p>
<p>Havaldaar, ur friend might have had stellar ec's</p>
<p>You'll find that 2160 is somewhere near the average for accepted Cornell students.</p>
<p>"My friend got into Stanford engg with 2120, so theres no saying whats good and whats bad."
Yes there is: a 2400 is good, a 600 is bad. There ya go.</p>
<p>hmmm not really pugachev, i know a whole lotta guys who got rejected with 2400.</p>
<p>""My friend got into Stanford engg with 2120, so theres no saying whats good and whats bad."
Yes there is: a 2400 is good, a 600 is bad. There ya go."</p>
<p>From your P.O.V. maybe, but its all subjective. The Cornell admissions people might prefer people who have done lots of varied ecs or who are eccentric.</p>
<p>"hmmm not really pugachev, i know a whole lotta guys who got rejected with 2400."
....and how does that prove a 2400 is not a good score? Obviously a 2400 doesn't make up for being convicted of rape, but that doesn't make it not a good score. </p>
<p>"The Cornell admissions people might prefer people who have done lots of varied ecs or who are eccentric."
Thats probably true, but your blanket statement is still inaccurate.</p>
<p>pugachev...it's like this...2400 is important but its not VERY important...if i have Siemens Westinghouse scholar who got 2300 and a guy with 2400 i would chose the former... All decisions are cumalative</p>
<p>"Thats probably true, but your blanket statement is still inaccurate."</p>
<p>You have definite proof, that the whole universe agrees about, that 2400's definitely good and 600's defintiely bad?</p>
<p>2400 is obviously good, but for someone who's not used to getting great scroes 600 might be really good.</p>
<p>Havaldaar, 600 is the minimum possible...even if u get all wrong...u still get 600...nobody...i repeat nobody..will be happy with all wong</p>
<p>i thought the lowest possible was 200 or something? ... maybe that was the old sat...</p>
<p>In that case I apologize pugachev.</p>
<p>"You have definite proof, that the whole universe agrees about, that 2400's definitely good and 600's defintiely bad?"
I don't have to have this proof you're asking for. You said "so theres no saying whats good and whats bad." Do you really think that a 2400 has no inherent positive quality associated with it and a 600 has no inherent negative quality? Apparently not as you say "2400 is obviously good."
The implied objective of an SAT test is to get as high a score as possible. Thus, by getting a 2400, you have succeeded to a greater degree than someone who gets an 1800. Reinterpret the objective of an SAT however you want, but the intellectual world will almost certainly agree with my point of view. </p>
<p>Arjun-I'm not making any argument concerning the comparitive importance of the SATs in college admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Ah yes of course sir, I'm sorry, we non-intellectuals sometimes forget who we're arguing with.</p>