<p>Lol wow you Penn guys never let up do you? He's not a prestige whore by the way. Plain old whore, possibly. Prestige whore, never.</p>
<p>I think it should be pointed out again how much I rule, in case anyone here had forgotten.</p>
<p>And just think, all of my stats are better than EAD's and I still barely got into Penn.</p>
<p>Ever heard that stats don't tell the whole story Johnny or did you perhaps fail Statistics 101 at good ol' Penn CAS as I suspected? You haven't read my essays or my recommendations so your claim of being a better applicant than me lacks sufficient ground.</p>
<p>Besides, its not like my scores/grades are weak. I could have retaken my 2200 SAT I composite, which I still think is decent since I got 700+ on all the sections, but I never bothered because I got a 35 ACT(equivalent to ~2350 SAT I) and being the intelligent human being that I am, I looked at the websites of all my prospective colleges and realized that they weigh both tests equally. Furthermore, I have 4 SAT II's in 4 different subject areas that are 700+ so I don't really see that as hurting me in any way. As for my grades, they are decent considering I took an incredibly hard courseload which included 10 AP classes and 2 college courses. </p>
<p>If your stats were truly "better" than mine in high school Johnny, the subjective portions of your application must have been significantly lacking to have been deferred ED or waitlisted RD or whatever "barely" getting into Penn means.</p>
<p>2200 is 'okay'. Especially if you're asian. Junior year a bunch of us had dilemmas as to whether we should retake our 2300-2350's. I kid you not. Looking back it was retarded. But I think most of us would've retaken a 2200 asap. Oh yea, and they might claim ACT are weighed "equally" with SAT. But if 90 applicants use SAT's and 10 use ACT's, I think a higher score on your SAT will help more than beating 9 kids with ACT's. (I took ACT too by the way- it's a joke and colleges know it has score choice which doesn't really help in the 'worth-much' factor).</p>
<p>My understanding is that most Ivy schools (Penn included) apply a conversion to ACT to get to an SAT score and that they then consider you in the same way as anyone else who has that same SAT score. Penn swears up and down that they don't discriminate against ACT vs SAT but people refuse to believe them for some reason.</p>
<p>A lot of people I think both overestimate how much they consider SATs in general (that's why people are so bitter when others with lower SAT scores get in) and how much time they spend weighing things like how many times you took the SAT or whether ACT has score choice. YOU care a lot more about this stuff than they do - they have a life. SAT to them is just a rough yardstick of whether you'll be able to do the work at Penn and is just one aspect of your overall app. </p>
<p>ACT is not a joke - if you got a 34 ACT this converts to a 2260 SAT and your odds of getting a higher (0r lower) score than 2260 on the next SAT are no better than someone who took the SAT before and got a 2260. The conversion tables are based on large samples of people who took both tests and are considered highly reliable statistically (your SAT score is very highly correlated with your ACT score ). If the ACT's were consistently easier then the conversion equivalent would just be lower. Saying they are a joke or easier means you don't understand how statistics work. Of course a particular person might do better on one test than the statistical prediction but this means nothing.</p>
<p>Even for Asians (especially for Asians) retaking anything above say 2200 (assuming a reasonably even score distribution - not 800M 700 CR &W) really is a waste of time - they don't like people with 770s any better than they like 740s - it's perfectly clear you can do the work at that level (people with 2000 can do the work also - that's why they let some of them in too) so other factors are what decide. It only makes you look to them like another stereotypical overachieving Asian applicant of whom they have tons already. You'd be a lot better off doing some non-stereotypical EC (one NOT involving playing classical music on the violin) than studying for those last 100 SAT points. If you are "too perfect" it just sends a message to them that you will probably spend the next 4 years locked in the library - they want a certain # of kids like this (they need a certain % of high SAT people to make their averages come out competitive once they are done taking all the low SAT athletes, URMs, etc. ) but their appetite for this type is really pretty small compared to the illusions of people who think that its only about grades and SAT scores.</p>
<p>"2200 is 'okay'. Especially if you're asian."</p>
<p>What? Loser...</p>
<p>Mallomar - with all respect (I have no idea what you got) Truazn was not bragging or saying that people with less than 2200 are not okay in the sense of not being good people or that Asians are smarter than everyone else (I'm not Asian). Instead, he was giving an idea (a fairly realistic one) of the kind of minimum score you need to have an "okay" chance at Penn , especially if you are Asian and you don't have some other hook. He was only speaking the truth and unfortunately the truth involves a real double/triple standard - one for Asians, one for URMs, athletes, legacies, etc. and one for everyone else. Penn admits to the double standard but swears that there is no triple standard (Asians need to be higher scoring than other people in the everyone else category) - I think the reality is that it does exist, even if it is not the result of intentional discrimination. There's a case in the courts now of some Chinese kid who got rejected at Princeton even though he has 2400s, etc.. If you think about it, "holistic" admission is a great way to hide discrimination - it's not that you are Asian, it's just that we don't like you "holistically". That's basically the history of holistic admission - it was a way of keeping down the # of Jews (the original "overachieving minority") without coming out and publicly saying it outright which even 60 years ago would not have been acceptable.</p>
<p>Interesting, the only Asian who ever got into Penn from my school had an SAT score in the 1300s. Didn't really have a hook but then again he applied early. And it wasn't personal, by the way, my score is above 2200, but I'm not going to Penn so it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>Applying early doesn't make up for really low SAT's. The kid with 1300s must have had something that caught their eye, something that you didn't necessarily know about - a convincing sob story about hardships overcome is often worth a lot - it makes you a sort of "honorary minority" and helps to explain away low scores (it's hard to study for the SAT's if you are living in a homeless shelter). This is not the kind of story that most people would advertise around school, in fact the kind of thing you would try to conceal as much as possible.</p>
<p>I know at least 6 Penn early admits with SATs in the 1300s. They're great and they deserve to get in (that's not my call, but I respect them so I say it.)</p>
<p>Yea sorry guys- wasn't bragging or demeaning a 2200 (awesome score). But from my experience (perhaps it's limited to my area?), a 2200 for the stereotypical asian with no amazing EC's (besides math team, science olympiad yadad...) is not outstanding by any stretch of the imagination.</p>
<p>This is not to say that a 2200 is any less qualified than someone with a 2300. But in the context of a highly competitive high school like Thomas Jefferson or Sty or Hunter, Exeter, etc., I'm sure it's a dime a dozen for asians scoring 2200+. And I definitely agree that to a certain extent, EC's will make up for a <100 point gap. (But let's face it- I don't think colleges will unequivocably equate someone with a 2350+ and someone scoring a 2200).</p>
<p>^Thats true. I mean, if you go 750, 750, 750 vs 800, 800, 750, colleges won't care. If you are like me and went 800, 770, 680(CR), it isn't as good. I mean, you have to look at the break down, and not the total score. Missing a question or two on the SAT does not mean you are not as smart as the perfect scorer, it just means you aren't careful enough to catch an error when you have a 5 hour test 8 AM on a Saturday morning.</p>
<p>An Asian with absolutely nothing that stands out about him with a 2400 composite SAT I is no different than another Asian with a 2200 composite SAT I with nothing that stands out about him as well. Both will get rejected on the fly at places like HYPSM.</p>
<p>Anyway as venkater has stated, the breakdown means everything with regard to SAT I scores. I would prefer my 2200(760M,720CR,720W) over venkater's 2250(800M,770W,680CR) just because upon a cursory glance, all my scores would be viewed as being reasonable or "good enough" by a Penn adcom but venkater's CR score will stand out like a sore thumb over his other two magnificent scores since it doesn't have a "7" in front of it.</p>
<p>Also regarding the everlasting SAT vs. ACT debate, I can tell you based on both personal experience and reliable sources that Percy Skivin's analysis is right. It's definitely harder to get a 35-36 on the ACT than a 2300+ on the SAT I if you just go by percentiles. You can only miss about 6 questions on the entire ACT test to get even a 35 while you can potentially miss about 10-15 questions on the SAT I and still get a 2300 composite depending on where your mistakes were section-wise on the test.</p>
<p>EAD: An Asian with absolutely nothing that stands out about him with a 2400 composite SAT I is no different than another Asian with a 2200 composite SAT I with nothing that stands out about him as well. Both will get rejected on the fly at places like HYPSM.</p>
<p>Truazn: I don't think colleges will unequivocably equate someone with a 2350+ and someone scoring a 2200).</p>
<p>One of you is wrong - I think EAD is closer to being right. If you have 2 people , one w/2200 (evenly distributed) and one w/2350, they are going to look at the other stuff in the application to decide - the SAT just isn't going to be the deciding factor. That's why this board is filled w/ rejected and disappointed 2350s and admitted 2200s and below.</p>
<p>What if 2 applicants have exactly the same everything else, except one is 2200 and one is 2350? (First of all its impossible because everyone is different - they are going to find something that they like better about one person than the other.) It's still the same answer - as EAD said, if you are from an overrepresented school in an overrepresented area (NE) and you're an overrepresented group (Asian) and there's nothing special in your EC's or profile (just the usual math prizes that on a URM would be considered earthshaking), they are going to reject you both.</p>
<p>i basically read only the 1st page, so i have no idea wht the rest of the thread is about, i would just like to say a few things:
1st- penn can't be a one trick pony, cuz i knew about penn's rep b4 i knew about wharton
2nd- why does it matter if we write PENN. just wanted to know so i know y i shouldn't make tht mistake, cuz i have made it. i just don't see what's wrong w/ writing PENN
3rd- wht school u go 2 doesn't essentially matter, but wht u get out of it. even if u went 2 a state school, like penn state, if u can selll urself and u know what to do, u'll get hired. so, i don't understand y ppl chose a school because they think they'll earn a lot more.</p>
<p>Answer to question 1: a lot of Penn's international name recognition comes from Wharton, just like Cornell's comes from engineering</p>
<p>Answer to question 2: writing PENN makes it seem like an acronym, like MIT. It's kind of low class.</p>
<p>Answer to question 3: If you go to Harvard you will get a lot more interviews than if you went to UMass. I'm not saying that everyone from Harvard is successful or taht everyone from UMass is poor, but the person coming out of Harvard has a huge head start. The rest is what you make of it.</p>
<p>question 2: ok, i understand the acronym part, but y does it make is low class? i mean PENN is on school sweatshirts. </p>
<p>question 3: i think it all depends on the individual. i'm sure there r just as many interviews offered to those in a "lower" university, but most ppl don't take advantage of them. but, ppl at penn do becasue only ppl who really care r admitted, unlike some state school where over half the applicants r admitted. 4 instance, ucla and michigan r state schools, but they have name becasue the students they admit r dedicated, so more will take the oppurtunities thrown at them. this is just a theory, i amy be wrong.</p>
<p>read the most of the thread if you have time.</p>
<p>I Love Penn.
and i dont appreciate people coming on this board attempting to cast an inferiority complex on the admits for penn CAS '11 - this is why jennyanne and others are getting defensive. we love our school, or else we wouldn't have applied ED. and if you dont love our school, thats ok - we know it has its weaknesses but doesnt every school? In any case, we've already done our research, figured out that penn was the best FIT for us AND gotten admission. have you? i know im gonna get a great education in a great city and that's all i really wanted. No matter what you say about stats and ranks and prestige levels, its not gonna change the fact that we're penn cas ED admits. we're not going anywhere anyway. so let it be.</p>
<p>y is everyone bashing penn state? i didn't apply there, but ppl who don't care 4 it shouldn't put it on a lower level. it may not have prestige, but it still gets u a degree. penn state might just b a school 4 some ppl. i am not only talking about penn state, but also some other schools ppl don't wanna go 2 cuz its not an ivy, or the like. not everyone likes the ivies. the only ivy i applied to was penn cuz tht's the only one i like.</p>