<p>
[quote]
It is obvious that you are "upset" and can't accept the fact that you don't qualify as Cornell material. It is also obvious that you can't admit that you are childishly jealous of your classmate. Disgusting.
Cornell probably rejected you because they saw what a b*tch you are through your "well written" essays (which were probably either at the thought level of a sixth grader, bombastically verbose, or rich in inconsistencies, or a combination of the three and more).
<p>I think this thread should remain open. It’s a good example of how even the high-achieving CC community can be so (insert the appropriate term here) in just one post. </p>
<p>This:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hopefully the person who posted this will realize how this post backfired on him/her. Hopefully.</p>
<p>This thread makes me feel even more that the general impression made by your application (disregarding numbers) is what adcoms truly value. The essays, the recs, and the EC’s make all the difference. Off course, scores over a certain point; say 2070 SAT would be a general perquisite in order to show that you have the cognitive ability to cope with the courses at a top university, in this case Cornell. But considering that many who get rejected have phenomenal SAT scores, the college evaluation process may be far more subjective than we really think. If you think you have a shot, apply.</p>
<p>Though I must say I hate hearing those stories of people who get into Harvard/Yale and then get rejected from “3rd tier universities”, It simply goes against reason.</p>
<p>For example I was browsing through an decisions thread where I encountered someone who had been accepted everywhere (and he had some pretty ridiculous stats), but got rejected from Tufts. By everywhere I mean HYPSM etc.</p>
<p>I just can’t imagine what was going through that Tufts adcom’s head when he/she decided to reject this guy. It makes me want to hit something :D.</p>
<p>It’s called “Tufts Syndrome.” Some of the “lower-tier” universities know that those students have applied to top schools like HYPSM and are going to get in, looking at the students’ stats. So they assume that those students applied to their schools as safety schools, and reject them.</p>
<p>Lol that is just pretentious on the part of the universities. Overqualified applicants need safeties too, and universities should recognize this and stop acting childish. Cutting their noses to spite their face. Pathetic.</p>
<p>The first thing admission officers will tell you is that their primary goal is to build a class, not accept every student above X gpa or SAT score. Top schools like Cornell say they could fill their entire class with top-tier applicants who aced every test and filled every minute with ECs, but they don’t because it would make for a very unenriching collegiate experience for the students and perhaps allow students into programs for which they are a bad fit.</p>
<p>They look to compile a collection of individuals that bring different backgrounds, visions, experiences, and capacities. Some of those ace every test, but others might struggle in school because their brilliance exceeds the confines of our archaic educational system (look at Einstein). Others might be awful at math but potentially the next great artist. Still others might have average scores and only one EC, but it might be a deeply passionate one that caters to their gifts and the program to which they’re applying. </p>
<p>Just look at the Architecture program at Cornell - top ranked in the country but lowest SAT scores in the university.</p>
<p>A lot of young people have been duped into believing there’s a strict formula of superior and inferior. This is due to our archaic educational system. It’s not the students’ fault, but that’s why you see them lash out on this thread. They don’t yet understand how complex the world is.</p>
<p>^Cool, but if you get a low SAT score (1300 and down) and an average GPA disregarding everything else, chances are you are going to get rejected unless you have something super special. SAT/ACT and GPA are still arguably the two most important factors in getting consideration. Once you have those 2 down, THEN it comes down to essays, recs, etc.</p>
<p>^^
There’s ample evidence suggesting otherwise. Many top schools are downplaying the importance of the SAT/ACT because, let’s face it, taking a test on one day does not determine how smart you are. Some people test well, others don’t, but both groups may have the same intelligence and capacity.</p>
<p>GPA has greater weight, obviously, but even that depends on where you went to school, how challenging the courses were, and other factors. As this thread proves, people get accepted and rejected for many reasons from many schools. It’s really not just a numbers game.</p>
<p>I think it’s mostly a numbers game. But just like any statistical analysis, you can only be somewhat confident. I believe studies show the SAT has a significantly higher correlation with first your college performance compared to the ACT. GPA is usually the best indicator, but that can depend on the strength of your high school. I actually think AP scores are the single best indicator, but I forget the data.</p>
<p>Usually when I do a “chances” thread, my extremely general methodology (which yes, is sometimes inconsistent) is this:</p>
<p>Start at 20% chance. If “admissible” (ie. not a poor candidate; so for me, usually a sub 3.0 GPA or a below 1500 SAT is this category) automatically increase chances to 25%. </p>
<p>Subtract 10% for AEM, and minor adjustments between colleges. For example, female engineers get a +15%.</p>
<p>Add 15% if ED.</p>
<p>If a URM, add 10%.</p>
<p>If GPA is roughly average for admitted students, add 10%. Subtract 15% if course rigor not high. Add 5-10% if GPA is well above average or they are top 1-5% of their class.</p>
<p>If SAT scores are roughly average, add 5% and add 10% for high scores.</p>
<p>If AP scores are good (4’s and 5’s), add 5-10%.</p>
<p>If EC’s are good, add 10% and up to 20% if something incredible.</p>
<p>I agree, it is mostly, but definitely not completely, a numbers game. Schools that get tens of thousands of applicants need some fast method of separating desirable candidates from applicants with no chance of getting in. Do you really think colleges like Binghamton, who get over 30,000 applications a year, are going to sit down and carefully read every essay and every recommendation of every applicant? Even those who may have low SAT scores and GPA, but are still very “intellectual, motivated, and unique”? No. If you have a high enough SAT score and good enough GPA, you will get into colleges like binghamton. How do I know this, my dad is a long time guidance counselor and is very good friends with an admission officer at binghamton, among other schools. Likewise, if you don’t have the numbers for top 20, you have a very slim chance of getting in. If you ever see a Naviance graph from any high school for top universities, you will see the majority of acceptances centered towards the top right, where those kids have 98+ averages and 1500+ CR/M SAT scores. You will see very that are further out.</p>