<p>USC is in my backyard. I ADORE the school, but unfortunately, I want to get out of Southern California. I will probably apply there anyway because there are many things I like about it, but I'm just having trouble reconsiling myself with attending school SO close to home.</p>
<p>I have visited U of Michigan and didn't like the campus. It was too spread out and undefined, and I didn't like how none of the buildings matched.</p>
<p>UVAJOE, are you serious? The validictorian at your HS is 1250 ?</p>
<p>semiserious, which other schools have you visited?</p>
<p>They are really all over the board because for a long time I had no idea what I wanted, and I have a twin brother who has very different interests than I as far as colleges. But here goes:</p>
<p>U Mich
UCLA
USC
USD
Carleton
Macalaster
Bowdoin
Colby
Tufts
RISD
Brown
Boston College</p>
<p>And in a few weeks we will be going to visit Vanderbilt, UVA, Wake Forest, University of Richmond, UNC Chapel Hill, and Duke.</p>
<p>semiserious, I don't see too many safeties... absolutely sure things. I would get a couple.</p>
<p>I am mostly visiting schools that I am very interested in as reaches so as to decide if I am interested in applying ED. I can visit safeties if the need arises after I apply/am admitted. </p>
<p>USD is a safety. I am legacy at UCLA and am qualfied to attend. I am a triple legacy at Colby. With my scores and from my school, I will almost certainly get into USC. </p>
<p>I also plan to apply to some or all of these safties: Miami University of Ohio, Denison, Furman, Trinity (TX), and UCSB.</p>
<p>OK. Good luck.</p>
<p>Semiserious, UCs are not allowed to give legacy advantage, there are no legacies any longer at any UC. You need to do your homework.</p>
<p>Whoops. I haven't done any research into the UC's. My school strongly suggests that all students apply to at least 1; I chose UCLA because my mom attended as has many good things to say about it, and UCSB because it's on the beach and I'm a beach bum :) In all honesty, I don't plan to stay in CA. </p>
<p>Obviously, I'm not done searching. Every day I find new and interesting safety schools I'd never heard of before.</p>
<p>It's a lose-lose situation</p>
<p>If you have a high GPA, and low SAT, people think your school was too easy (grade inflation)</p>
<p>If you have a low GPA and a high SAT, people think you're a slacker.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Edvest1. Will you please stop with the "harvard rejects half of 1600's?!" First of all, as Edvest1 said, very few would have been rejected from Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, etc. Also, if you look at how many sal/val + 1600's were rejected, I think you guys might stop saying that. A lot of those 1600's may simply not have had the rank to uphold their admissions chances. I suggest you guys read about the academic index if you haven't heard about it; it's very simple actually. The higher rank and test scores one has, the greater their chances of admission; end of story. The closer one gets to perfect test scores and rank, their chances improve significantly.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I am legacy at UCLA and am qualfied to attend.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Being qualified to attend a UC and getting into the UC you want are two different things. "Low" SATs can be a real killer at the top UCs--a couple of years ago, we had our #3 kid who had a 1200-1250 SAT, non-hooked. Wanted to get into UCLA or Berkeley and figured that his grades were enough to get him in. WRONG! Rejected at UCLA/Berkeley but accepted at UCSB. He's attending USC. So all ended well.</p>
<p>We've had kids with 1000-1200 SATs get into UCLA and Berkeley, but they have all been minority kids. I know that UCs don't consider race in the admissions process, but they can and do consider a host of socio-economic factors and "overcoming adversity" factors that often correlate with race. No slack given for middling SAT scores for middle to upper middle class kids who went to serious prep schools and who could afford SAT prep classes/tutors.</p>
<p>ellemenope is right. You can look for the phrase "ucsd admissions process 2004" on google and see the formula ucsd used; SAT is big. And if you can't get into ucsd forget about ucla and cal.</p>
<p>As far as the orginal question of "how important are SAT scores" they are just crucial for your un-hooked candidate. Read thru the book "The Gatekeepers" and you can see they ruled out some applicants right away because their SAT scores weren't in the range they needed, for example a white kid from Long Island.</p>
<p>"Who really has more "aptitude", a student with a 2250 who prepared for 400+ hours, or a student with a 2100 who didn't take a single practice test?"</p>
<p>Why should grades be any different?</p>
<p>Face it--you're just not as smart as you thought you were.</p>
<p>I never said grades were any different. I know I'm smart. Standardized tests scores are a very poor indicator of one's true intelligence. They are much better indicator of how hard one is willing to work and how long one is willing to study. And believe me, I get it--they're important to college admissions, yada yada yada.</p>
<p>"Standardized tests scores are a very poor indicator of one's true intelligence. They are much better indicator of how hard one is willing to work and how long one is willing to study. And believe me, I get it--they're important to college admissions, yada yada yada."</p>
<p>Um.. are grades not the same if not more so? I think grades are more reflective of how hard someone works or how hard someone tries. SAT scores are more indicative of how intelligent someone is.</p>
<p>Sure I can study for the SAT but getting good grades is almost NEVER about intelligence. Its all about doni the hw and material and working hard.</p>
<p>I know many geniuses who slack off and get 3.0s but take the SAT without studying and get 1500s. </p>
<p>You contradict yourself a lot.</p>
<p>Before 1995, I could see the SAT being used to measure intelligence (somewhat), but not now. This new SAT is ridiculous. I know of people who have raised their CR score 200 points by studying. And writing? Wasn't there a report that linked length of the essay to score?</p>
<p>Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems. I mean, I know smart people who don't study or do homework and get 100's on calculus tests, but does that make it a test of intelligence? Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so I am not saying yours is somehow "incorrect."</p>
<p>It's the grades that count dummy! The GPA is with out a doubt more important than the SAT. Of course a high SAT score will certainly not hurt you chances of admission either. With regards to very large University's or schools that have an enormous number of applicants, the SAT score is often held in the same esteem as the GPA to help speed up the admissions process. The GPA is a culmination of four years of high school course work and thus demonstrates to the admissions officer(s) a student's willingness to learn and work hard. It is well known that the both the new and old SAT's are full of tricks and are demographically biased in that students who come from higher income families often score well. The aforementioned has nothing to do with intelligence, but rather the ability higher income student to pay for expensive tutors and review classes.</p>
<p>It all depends on what college you're going to.
Though,
GPA remain, for the most part, the most important single factor in your application, however, the scores of your SAT I and SAT II levels out to about that level.</p>
<p>Sure you can prep yourself to get a 2200 instead of a 2000 but grades are the same. If you tried harder, stayed after school, studied, etc, you would get higher grades too.</p>
<p>This is why we cannot say grades or SATs are a better measure of a person's intelligence because they both can be prepped and improved upon with hard work and some perserverance.</p>
<p>This is why semiserious contradicts herself a lot. She is quick to point out how SATs are a "poor indicator" while totally ignoring what it takes to get good grades. Sure some intelligence is necessary, but I know way more intelligent kids with high SATs and low gpa's than the opposite. However that doesn't matter either, semi's reason for argument is flawed and we cannot judge whether SATs or GPA is a better indicator of intelligence.</p>
<p>And yes, GPA is most important but your SAT score will keep you out of top schools. That is why they are CALLED top schools, they can afford to be selective.</p>