<p>I'm so glad they look at SAT more than GPA's. I had about a C average but had a 1300 SAT(Old Score)</p>
<p>and yes, I got in. But I plan on going someplace else.</p>
<p>its funny how kids in my school that are goin to ivy league colleges applied to stony brook as a safety and got accepted but have no intentions of going there..and there are some people like us who rele wana go there but get rejected..great way to pick ur students, SBU!</p>
<p>"its funny how kids in my school that are goin to ivy league colleges applied to stony brook as a safety and got accepted but have no intentions of going there..and there are some people like us who rele wana go there but get rejected..great way to pick ur students, SBU!"</p>
<p>I like how you blame the school rather than yourself. SBU doesn't know the intent of a person, they just see numbers and a way to increase their ratings. So quit crying, go to a CC if need be and then transfer into SBU.</p>
<p>I think what he ment to say was that a person who shows interest like doing the supplemental, interview, tours and whatever should outweigh a person with a slightly higher GPA and SAT.. vs the kids who just applied with the sat score and application</p>
<p>But then again, from what i've been seeing.. they look at the SAT more apparently..</p>
<p>I just think it should be about numbers, if Stony Brook or any college for that matter started to accept based on who wanted to go more, the quality of the school would decrease.</p>
<p>Stony Brook's SAT range is
Critical reading- 510-610
Math - 570-670
Average GPA- 91</p>
<p>That's the criteria, and footballplayer is right there's always the option for a community college cause after a year or so they don't even look at your highschool transcripts</p>
<p>The Supplemental App is junk. The essay was an easy one too.</p>
<p>Everybody's pretty much right. 24 credits and a 3.0 are the magic numbers when it comes to transferring.</p>
<p>Yes, the SATs play a large factor in our admissions; and it's hard to buy the "I don't do well on tests" factor, because... surprise! There are tests in college. And they're harder than the ones you took in high school. I'm not saying the SAT is perfect; far from it. But the fact is, our average SAT this year looks like it's going to go up quite a bit, even though the national average might not. Our curriculum is demanding; our courses aren't easy. Stony Brook 2007 is very different from Stony Brook 1997, or even 2002.</p>
<p>And again, be careful when you compare GPAs. I wish you all the best of luck, and remember this... if you're going to transfer within the next year, you don't need to re-apply; save yourself the $40 and just send us a letter requesting that we update your application to Fall 2008.</p>
<p>Chris D'Orso
Assistant Director of Admissions
Stony Brook University</p>
<p>For one thing, use of the term "repeal" instead of 'appeal' is not a vigorous endorsement of academic skill.</p>
<p>stony is not that good anyways.</p>
<p>Now I'm nervous. This is my 1st letter and it was a rejection. I don't know what to do. I know my SAT scores are low, but my GPA is relatively high. (for my school, at least) I have a 3.6 (unweighted, I think. We don't have any kind of EC's or AP classes.) GPA and a 1560 on my SAT. I wish there was something I could do. :(</p>
<p>"Yes, the SATs play a large factor in our admissions; and it's hard to buy the "I don't do well on tests" factor, because... surprise! There are tests in college. And they're harder than the ones you took in high school. I'm not saying the SAT is perfect; far from it. But the fact is, our average SAT this year looks like it's going to go up quite a bit, even though the national average might not. Our curriculum is demanding; our courses aren't easy. Stony Brook 2007 is very different from Stony Brook 1997, or even 2002."</p>
<p>Look. I studied my freakin a$$ off for the SAT all by myself. (over 2 months) I wasn't lazy. I'm usually very good with tests, but for some reason I flunked the SAT. Does that make me stupid or unprepared for college? No. I study. I do my assignments. I know you are just trying to select the best students from a big pool that is the state of New York. I don't envy the admissions office of Stony Brook. However, you shouldn't make it as if the SAT is the ultimate thing in determining whether a student is ready for college. I know many slackers who scored a high on the SAT without even trying. Does that make those students good candidates for your student body?</p>
<p>If you studied and flunked, you should have retaken the test. Your fault, get over it.</p>
<p>I took it 3 times, and the first time I cancelled it. I just find it retarded that 3 hours is taken more under consideration than 4 years of progress. If the SAT is a true way to find out how a student would preform in a college test, then why the need to study months for it? I do not think that in college you need to pay a thousand dollars for someone to tutor you on just one test, or to study for more than a couple of days. (let alone months) If it were solely based on High School knowledge, then studying would be merely looking over material. For most, the SAT is about learning different testing techniques and tricks for the test. How does that determine anything for college?</p>
<p>I just find it depressing that just 3 hours of my life was more important to SB than all the work I put into my 4 hellish years in HS.</p>
<p>isnt stony a saftey or at worst target school? how do u find it to be a reach school? thats just sad?</p>
<p>wow collegebond...your not helping anyone..</p>
<p>the only reason that your trashing the SAT is that you didnt do well on it i mean you get a 600 for writting your name so i mean it isnt too difficult to get another 1200 points in 3 sections. and it isnt necessary to get tutoring to do well on the SAT there are hundreds of books with practice tests and explanations so quit whining and own up to ur mistakes</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
the only reason that your trashing the SAT is that you didnt do well on it i mean you get a 600 for writting your name so i mean it isnt too difficult to get another 1200 points in 3 sections. and it isnt necessary to get tutoring to do well on the SAT there are hundreds of books with practice tests and explanations so quit whining and own up to ur mistakes
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>lol. I borrowed over 10 different SAT books from the library. I studied for the test, and yet I still did "meh". Look, I did my part and I botched it 3 times. I'm not blaming anyone for that. (well maybe god) All I'm saying is why put such a huge emphasis on just 1 test? And don't say it's because a standardized test is needed. We have Regents for that. I did fairly well on all my regents. (80's-90's) </p>
<p>And the SAT is flawed. The fact that many students have to learn how to understand the test is proof of that.</p>
<p>It looks like the SAT is doing its job if you studied and still could not improve your score. It's a standardized test. It's designed to show that a 3.6 at Stuy is better than a 4.0 at South Shore. Not to mention your natural ability. Obviously you're not as smart as you think you are if with ten books, two months, and three attempts you still could not do well. Suck it up, get over it, quit complaining.</p>
<p>Oh please all you guys need to stop with this elitist attitudes. It's easy to praise the SAT when you're on the inside looking out, but face it, the SAT really is a very small indicator of college success. It just so happens that most kids who do good on the SAT often times get good grades as well. I know personally both kids who have done well on the SAT and not so great in college, or bad on the SAT and great in college. The SAT has such a controversial history, I'm amazed you guys don't know. Just look into why it was just changed......</p>
<p>And to sbuadmissions, don't try to play these kids for fools. As a current college student, I see very little in my current college academics that relates to the SAT except for the fact that it is a test. I studied for that stupid thing for 2 weeks and got a 1900+, proof that it's just a glorified high school gen. ed exam. SBU is weighing SAT's way more than they should in the goals of raising their ranking. It's not rocket science, but it does take alot of the "person" out of the admissions process. It's just another number that makes the admissions process more systematic than it should be. And this is coming from a Fall 07 transfer acceptee.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the fact is, our average SAT this year looks like it's going to go up quite a bit, even though the national average might not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but at what expense? The loss of kids who really want to go to SBU and contribute, in trade for kids with high grades who look at SBU like a fallback plan? Instead of being so quick to state average SAT's of acceptees, compare that to the average SAT of those attending. I have a hunch there'll be a little discrepancy...</p>