<p>1:16
2320
top 1%/370
submitted mid Nov
shoe size 12
middle of alphabet</p>
<p>@CuzImASenior: I’m hesitant to recalculate the averages. For this data to have any validity, it needs to be as close as possible to a simple random sample. As this discussion continues, we are moving further and further away from that requirement. Some people are posting to try to enhance the argument, while some are trying to disprove it, creating a very significant bias in the sample. Predictably, the majority of the 5:35 group has also stopped posting.</p>
<p>^ weird. because i like talking to people who are telling me i’m not going to get in somewhere with no facts to back it up?</p>
<p>i’m just saying. that’s what this is doing to 5 35 people.</p>
<p>ps sorry i’m feisty</p>
<p>sarah!-</p>
<p>You could stop reading the board. No one here is trying “tell” you that you won’t get in. Everyone on this board is an anxious high school student who is eager to get in, and, predictably, is looking for hints that correlate to their admissions decision.</p>
<p>It’s all in good fun, really.</p>
<p>I love how the numbers dude assumes that 1:16ers are those that were accepted when all he has to back it up are SAT averages. I just went to look at the naviance stats for my school and the average SAT for the accepted students was 2215 while the average SAT for the waitlisted/rejected students was 2250 (including two 2400’s). Obviously, SAT’s aren’t everything.</p>
<p>@motion12345: First, I’m a girl; I love how people assume that “dudes” are always the ones doing the math. But anyway, the analysis was of course only speculation, and there’s a chance that it means absolutely nothing. As seebo said, we’re all just nervous and thus trying to draw conclusions. Obviously SAT scores are only one factor in holistic admissions decisions. Maybe we’ll see how much scores actually do/don’t matter tomorrow at 6pm. I apologize to sarah! and the rest of the people at 5:35 whom I may have upset :(</p>
<p>I hate that 1:16 time speculation cause it seems so true.:/</p>
<p>It’s not that that made me angry. It was the fact that you assumed that the majority of 5:35ers stopped posting because we all have lower SAT scores and a generally weaker profile that angered me and that your theory was correct.</p>
<p>@motion: Thank you! I’ve been reading this whole thread wondering why the 116 time group was the group that was automatically admitted, just because they have a higher SAT average, especially since that is not as important to Duke as other factors are.</p>
<p>@PI: Thanks for the apology, and it was just annoying that after your analysis, everyone automatically assumed 116 was the admittees. </p>
<p>I, like everyone else, is on edge about this, but I really don’t think this 116 v. 535 thing is helping anyone…</p>
<p>SATs do not show the whole picture and Duke is known for being extremely holistic!!
<em>fingers crossed</em></p>
<p>And people stop dissing 314159…she is just as anxious as we are!! And she was just trying to help!!</p>
<p>DUKE would never give hints before their declaration!!! We may be smart but we aren’t smart enough to outsmart Duke!!</p>
<p>Calm down people!!! Just few hours left…ok not that few…we’ll know if our hypothesis were of any good or not!!</p>
<p>To 314159: Which SAT did you use for me? Not sure if I posted my retake but my final score was 2280. (I’m a 5:35 person.)</p>
<p>@motion: I’m sure that everyone on this forum has very strong profiles. Whether or not the speculations are correct, the forum is still bothering the 5:35ers for obvious reasons, as sarah! mentioned above. I hope that we do all get in, and I think that everyone here deserves it.</p>
<p>@jenx: I don’t have the combined users/data anymore, only the numbers in my calculator. There was a 2280 in there though.</p>
<p>@akshat: Thank you! I analyzed the data because I myself was curious and thought some people on here may be interested. I didn’t mean to upset so many people!</p>
<p>@314159: Okay, thanks!</p>
<p>Sadly for me, I’m thinking this 1:16 = admitted thing is holding true. Oh well, now I won’t be blindsided if I am rejected. And if I am admitted, it will be a VERY pleasant surprise!</p>
<p>^^ No problem!! Lets drop this discussion and start afresh on some new thread which has a ban on wild hypothesis!! :P</p>
<p>If we do see a correlation tomorrow, next years applicants will be well informed! </p>
<p>For anybody who finds this as entertaining as I do:
ACT: 32
GPA: 3.9/4.4
Region: Southwest
Surname: Beginning of the alphabet
Favourite colour: Yellow
Time: 5:35</p>
<p>We have already decided to put up our time with our decisions in the decision thread, to help future applicants!!!</p>
<p>NOW WE HAVE TO GRACEFULLY EUTHANIZE THIS THREAD TO AVOID ALL THE UNNECESSARY ADDED PARANOIA !!!</p>
<p>Did anyone who received a likely letter receive a 5:35 submission time? Just curious.</p>
<p>Besides region, could be based on other factors they used to separate the application upload time. Perhaps they just read some first and put those all in one storage, and the ones they read after were put into a separate application “stack.” No reason for anyone to be worrying at this point.</p>
<p>This brilliantly funny. </p>
<p>PS I’m 1:16.</p>
<p>Personally, I think if there is a correlation between the two admit times it would be that the 1:16 are admits and waitlists while the latter are rejections. This has to be the case because there are just way too many 1:16s to all be admits.</p>
<p>Please read through the whole thread before you post new theories…we’ve seen the same theories being disproved multiple times.</p>
<p>And for those that say, “Duke wouldn’t this mistake, they’re too smart, too careful,” I disagree. They’re humans too. For example, Chicago made a technical error in sending out their admission decisions this year (had <<first name=“”>> <<last name=“”>> code in the email instead of the applicant’s actual name).</last></first></p>
<p>But Swagger you are missing a point!!</p>
<p>Chicago did that mistake this year…and from what I have heard Duke has this time thing for quite a few years!!! And if there was a correlation it would be a proven statement by now OR Duke would have done away with the loop-hole!!!</p>