<p>Chartreuse, you've received some good advice here. </p>
<p>Absent some hook which I don't see, your SAT was a killer for HYPSM schools. I think you've got a very good shot at Vassar (even better if you're male) and a reasonable shot at UC Berkeley and Wesleyan, though neither approaches slam-dunk category. But in general your odds are <em>much</em> better if you drop down just one notch from the HYPSM group. I like InterestedDad's implicit suggestion that you look at schools where a 1380 is at the 75th percentile for SAT scores; certainly that was part of my D's paradigm.</p>
<p>And, as the board's official Smith co-honk, if you're female, I'd suggest that you check out Smith, which, if you become okay with the womens college thing--and that's another discussion--you might think is similar to Vassar but with some more plusses.</p>
<p>InterestedDad: For instance a girl has a better chance at Wellesley than a guy! </p>
<p>ID said: "If you are going with a "standard issue" application, then your "standard issue" stuff has to be through the roof (and it is very hard to be "through the roof" at a school where the 75th percentile SAT is 1590!) The successful "cookie-cutter" applicants are walking in on well-trod paths, be it fifth generation legacy"</p>
<p>It's very informative to read the Yale EA thread on CC - actually, a 4th or 5th generation legacy was rejected, while in the few seconds I looked, I saw two white suburban males with OK scores and blah ECs who got in. I interviewed for Yale for many years and I am about the only person who does NOT think Yale is a random crapshoot; nor do I think "conventional wisdom" (i.e., legacies and URMs get in; "cookie-cutter" kids don't) is true.</p>
<p>I myself was quite astonished at the number of so-called "cookie cutter" kids who got in over the course of my interviewing years, including the last five.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don't put anywhere NEAR the emphasis on SAT scores that you do. In addition, all schools self-select to a large extent.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I have a hard time with the whole SAT issue. On the one hand, I don't think SATs are terribly important for an individual student applying to an individual school, beyond a fairly broad range. However, in looking at the macro level, the median SAT scores are extremely useful in looking at selectivity of the school. In other words, I don't think Swarthmore picked their students primarily based on SAT scores. But, rather, the fact that the students they did pick have such high SAT scores indicates a very strong student body (or at least a particular type of strength). One caveat: you have to look at each individual school to see how they choose to "invest" their low-SAT acceptances (i.e. what strategic goal are they trying to address). This varies quite a bit from school to school.</p>
<p>As for "self-selection", there are some schools that generate a large number of "cull" applicants based on "brand-name" and "rankings". In other words, some schools have their real applicant pool plus an additional cohort of applicants who are just making a $60 donation with an easily-predictable zero shot of acceptance.</p>
<p>Here's an example. By my back of the napkin calculations, there have been 7 CC regulars accepted to Swarthmore ED and 1 that got a disappointing letter. The only explanation for that is that the CCers who decided to apply to that college ED were extremely well self-selected, not only stat-wise, but also in their ability to focus their apps for that particular school. There weren't any "cull" applicants in the group of CCers applying ED to Swarthmore. As far as I know, every one of them had a legitimate shot and the things that attracted them to Swarthmore made them attractive to the admissions office.</p>
<p>Chartreuse--I wouldn't necessarily give up on Yale. After all, you were deferred, not denied. If Yale truly is the school you want to attend, then be pro-active and let them know that you applied not just because you are a legacy but because that's your first choice. Many legacies apply to schools because they think it's an easy admit. Show them that it's not so in your case.</p>
<p>As for your low SATIs, my personal theory is that higher scores on SATIIs than on the SATIs indicate that, through hard work and perseverence, you have acquired the knowledge necessary to do well on those tests. If it had been the reverse, I would have perceived that you weren't working up to your ability.</p>
<p>In addition, follow the good suggestions that have been posted on this thread and carefully consider the other schools to which you want to apply--reaches, matches, and safeties--for whether they're a good fit for you. Apply to a combination of those that you would be happy to attend if it came down to that and go for it. Good luck!</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am about the only person who does NOT think Yale is a random crapshoot; nor do I think "conventional wisdom" (i.e., legacies and URMs get in; "cookie-cutter" kids don't) is true.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't think admissions to any selective school is a random crapshoot. The reason it is viewed as a crapshoot is that most people really don't understand the admissions game and the role of a cohesive, quality application. The key is to present a readily apparent "spark" that captures the interest of some poor adcom wading through a stack of 500 mind-numbing applications. That's why I recommend reading "The Gatekeepers" in order to start thinking like an adcom. If you have an appropriate "stat" package for a school and you effectively communicate a "spark", your odds of acceptance increase dramatically.</p>
<p>To see how this process leads to disappointment, just look at a random sample of essays posted here. Keep in mind that, because of CC's self-selection, these essays are probably the GOOD ones!</p>
<p>I think you have a wonderful chance at UC Berkeley. Just remember that fees are going up at Berkeley for out-of-staters at a higher rate than for in-staters. So, it might not be the best alternative from a cost standpoint.</p>