<p>I knew a couple of people with low CR scores but strong school grades.</p>
<p>It was grade inflation tbh, real 4.0 students also tend get good SAT’s.</p>
<p>Colene, no Cornell is not the least score orientated Ivy. Look at the class of 2016 ED Decision thread.</p>
<p>Just because the accepted kids have good scores doesn’t mean their acceptance was too heavily based on their scores. Also, I doubt penn is less score orientated than cornell</p>
<p>All Ivy’s are extremely score orientated, only a URM can avoid the need for good scores. Believe it or not scores are the best indicator of ones intelligence; and all subjective matters aside, a serious applicant to any Ivy is someone with above 2200.</p>
<p>are u crazy framed??? ok scratch it u are crazy!!!</p>
<p>scores are the “best” indiactor of ones intelligence ,what???
I bet u have never accomplished anything in ur life other than scores, it looks u are a geek trying to cover up your hollowness.U are a cornellian so better give some good advice to the applicants.</p>
<p>“All Ivy’s are extremely score orientated, only a URM can avoid the need for good scores. Believe it or not scores are the best indicator of ones intelligence; and all subjective matters aside, a serious applicant to any Ivy is someone with above 2200”</p>
<p>…I don’t know how they let my D slip in with a 2040! Even with her relatively “low intelligence” she got a 3.5 her first semester at Cornell:)</p>
<p>How about we expunge the usage of the word “orientated”. It hurt my brain reading that several times in this thread. The word is “oriented”.</p>
<p>It’s akin to football commentators’ usage of the word “trickeration”. Ugggh.</p>
<p>Framed I think you are completely wrong about the importance of test scores and their relation to intelligence. When I first took the SAT at the end of junior year I got a 1910. I retook it again and did better but I did not get a 2200. Not only did I get into Cornell, but I got a likely letter. Also, I got over 4.0 as a Chemistry major for my first semester. According to you, I won’t have gotten in and would be struggling.</p>
<p>Framed didn’t mean crystallized intelligence. The SAT and ACT are not achievement tests that gauge “smarts.” They are both APTITUDE tests. So actually, Framed is correct in saying that the SAT is a good indicator for “intelligence”, though I wouldn’t have used the exact word. Also, the SAT and ACT are standardized; GPA obviously can not be standardized. In this sense, “[SAT is] the best indicator of one’s intelligence.” And not “best” as in “this is the best we will ever have,” but “best” as in “Hey, this is all we have to work with.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s what he was trying to imply. As you probably know, getting a 4.0 at Cornell is MUCH different than acing a standardized test. A lot of courses at Cornell don’t require “pure intelligence” but just hard work and diligence. Some, at least at the freshman level, require you to show up to class everyday and put in a decent amount of effort and you get an A+. Standardized tests are less indicative of hard work and diligence than GPA is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You had a 33 ACT with 750, 780, and 800 on 3 SAT II’s and score of “5” on six AP tests. Clearly you disproved his theory.</p>
<p>"How about we expunge the usage of the word “orientated”. It hurt my brain reading that several times in this thread. The word is “oriented”.</p>
<p>It’s akin to football commentators’ usage of the word “trickeration”. Ugggh. "
For all you know I might be british.</p>
<p>Anyways, I believe that even though SAT doesn’t directly measure intelligence, it’s the best “meterstick” that they have. As wong said, GPA measures a combination of hard work and intelligence. Some of my friends back in high school did very well on the SATs because they were naturally smart but not so well for their GPAs because they did not put in the effort.</p>
<p>This is the best advice I can give -.-. Based on the ED Class of 2016 ED decision thread and personal connections, nobody I know of got into Cornell this year with below a 2150 on the SAT (One person who was not URM did get in, but it would be noted that the major and school you apply for does effect the decision). </p>
<p>csdad, I’ve read your post about your daughter getting into Cornell with a 2040 a thousand times ^^. Firstly I personally do not consider someone with a 2040 SAT score as having “low intelligence”; but based on Cornell’s admission statistics and the increasingly competitive nature of the college admission process- an individual with “relatively low” scores would be a far less likely admit that those of years gone by. I have come to this conclusion by reading though Cornell acceptance threads, and it is clear to me that from class of 2102 to the class of 2016 the standard of applicants has risen ten fold.</p>
<p>If not the SAT or ACT, what then can colleges use to determine ones aptitude or intelligence. The GPA can be inflated. </p>
<p>ny4chelsea, your ACT was 33 which more or less equates to a 2200 so your point is invalid since you cited your own experience as being someone accepted to Cornell with a score below 2200. Off course there are many unhooked people who get into Cornell with scores below 2200, but I’ve come to see it as a standard which a larger and larger number of applicants seem to be achieving.</p>
<p>Mechrockz, I don’t know what to say to you ^^. You sound like an ignorant fool.</p>
<p>I had a 2120 in my SAT so by no means am I saying it is impossible to get in with below a 2200, I am simply trying to point out that having 2200+ in the SAT boosts your chances considerably. Also I believe the 2016 applicant pool is going to be extremely competitive this year, especially in terms of scores. I’m basing this prediction of the 2016 ED decision thread. When I applied to Cornell, it was imo easier to get in; its getting harder ^^.</p>
<p>Lets face it I can quite easily tell everyone they have a great shot. But then I would simply be lying.</p>