<p>haha. yeah i know..</p>
<p>i could probably make a little bit more sense actually speaking, but it still probably wouldn't help.</p>
<p>but i accept that.</p>
<p>And thanks = D</p>
<p>whats with all the hatred guys?? why cant we all just be friends?</p>
<p>omfg...how much free time do you ppl have?...or had as i am a bit behind on time...</p>
<p>"omfg"!</p>
<p>apparentally as much as you do for responding and joining this sight = )</p>
<p>this "sight?" and you are in the Columbia section?...omfg actually stands for something...but improper English...let alone slang...oh and no...because i have no interest in pursuing pointless debates about who's good and who's not...the IVY's are about luck as well if you guys dont mind me reminding...10000s of applicants with the same qualifications apply...then it's the luck of the draw...so yeah...</p>
<p>
[quote]
the IVY's are about luck as well if you guys dont mind me reminding...10000s of applicants with the same qualifications apply...then it's the luck of the draw...so yeah...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong......</p>
<p>that's the nice thing about people, no two are alike.</p>
<p>oh you dont know the half of it...maybe the essay...but all the rest can pretty much be the same...</p>
<p>
[quote]
oh you dont know the half of it...maybe the essay...but all the rest can pretty much be the same...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The people who are the same don't get in. The people who stand out -- ECs, essays, passions, etc. -- get in. If you think everyone is the same, you're just diminishing the quality of other applicants who may be better than you.</p>
<p>No one...is better than an MIT bound who got into Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Just because I can type in the instant messaging format of text does not mean that I don't know how to write. Not that typing and writing are two relevant aspects to this debate. However, if you do know anything, and I mean anything, about college admissions to IVY-Leagues, you would find that so many applicants do stand out. Since the school can't accept every applicant, they are obligated to reject those that stand out as well. So, in conclusion, I would like to reiterate my prior statement, with one addition to it, about the admissions. Luck is ALSO a big player in the game of admissions and you want it to be on your side.</p>
<p>Um...to back up Z, he or she did say "as well" in the post. Columbia2002, I know that you obviously have to be qualified to get in, Z wasn't saying that. He/She was saying that ultimately, the admissions committee will have a bunch of students equally qualified and the process can possibly be reduced to a crapshoot--to luck. Maybe you mention one of the reader's favorite movies in your essays or have part of the same organization as him or her and he or she chooses you for that; you never know.</p>
<p>Also, to be honest, I agree with Columbia2002 on a lot of different issues. I go to a snobby prep school with great relationships to all of these "elite" schools and even only our top students get in. OP, I think it's great you put Columbia behind you. I think that if you don't get in, it's just not the right school for you. In a way, then, the rejection letter is kinda a favor (hehehe, I know EXTREME silver-lining). I hope you picked some great schools to apply to and get in...I hope I get in places too! Hehehe, I'm so annoying, I'll shut up.</p>
<p>hey, just found this site and this feisty little thread. I just reckon you could of told her 'no, wrong' but instead you've chosen 'NO, WRONG YOU IDIOT'. just a thought. So everyone here is mostly discussing EDs? I don't know much about the admissions process but I reckon there would be a large number of those accepted that have nearly identical applications to those rejected and since its people doing the sorting not a machine there could be a lot of luck involved. Could it come down to a selector being slightly annoyed/bored/tired or could the person just be annoyed with the essay that another might of enjoyed? Thats why most written exams are marked a few times over.
cheers mate</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that if you don't get in, it's just not the right school for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this statement. I think it's also important to consider the actual role of an admissions officer. They aren't just skimming the applicant pool and accepting the highest test scores or GPAs. The role of the admissions office is to build a class. Considering the diversity of thought, background, talent and accomplishment that Columbia embraces as an integral part of its academic environment, of course very qualified students will be turned away. That being said, an admissions officer IS, in my opinion, doing those students a service by rejecting them if he/she feels certain that Columbia isn't the right school for them. To reiterate what Columbia2002 said: "The people who are the same don't get in." Those who stand out as truly passionate, extraordinary students in addition to exhibiting an excellent "fit" with Columbia generally do. It just doesn't boil down to a game of chance, because some students might stand out MORE than others to different schools. That's how I've always thought of the process. Best of luck to everyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, if you do know anything, and I mean anything, about college admissions to IVY-Leagues, you would find that so many applicants do stand out. Since the school can't accept every applicant, they are obligated to reject those that stand out as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Plenty stand out in a bad way. It's not the case that most of the 20,000 people who apply have what Columbia is looking for. Only a select group have that. Sure, there's some luck and chance, but every kid thinks he's unique and special but most aren't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He/She was saying that ultimately, the admissions committee will have a bunch of students equally qualified and the process can possibly be reduced to a crapshoot--to luck.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The 20,000 applicants aren't equally qualified. The kids in top 10,000 or even the top 2,000 aren't equally qualified. The ones who have better academic records are more qualified. The ones who have more amazing ECs are more qualified. The ones who have demonstrated passions are more qualified. The ones who are good fits for Columbia are more qualified.</p>
<p>People have a skewed perception of how "qualified" they are because they don't truly understand what the Columbia adcoms are looking for, so they attribute their rejections to "luck" and "randomness."</p>
<p>Well, Columbia was not on my to-apply list. So I never applied there. However, speaking on behalf of the IVY's, it does depend on the mood of the admissions reviewer. I have come to make a judgement on your statements. Mind you, this is based on what you have been saying for the past weeks. I think you dont understand the meaning of equally qualified. This is not qualification based on attributes. This is an overall qualification relative to the hollistic attributes of the applicants. This is not to say that people that have 2400s on their SATs are all equally qualified. However, based on such an important factor such as SAT scores they are equally qualified. The defence rests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The 20,000 applicants aren't equally qualified. The kids in top 10,000 or even the top 2,000 aren't equally qualified. The ones who have better academic records are more qualified. The ones who have more amazing ECs are more qualified. The ones who have demonstrated passions are more qualified. The ones who are good fits for Columbia are more qualified.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What he said. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you dont understand the meaning of equally qualified. This is not qualification based on attributes. This is an overall qualification relative to the hollistic attributes of the applicants. This is not to say that people that have 2400s on their SATs are all equally qualified. However, based on such an important factor such as SAT scores they are equally qualified. The defence rests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? The jury doesn't have a f***ing clue what you just said. Stop trying to sound smart, because it's not working. Write in plain English, and make your points clear.</p>
<p>I am sure that an alumni of Columbia is fully capable of discerning the meaning behind such simplistic words. However, if you are the Bush of Columbia, do tell me, because that's a special case, if you know what I mean...lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am sure that an alumni of Columbia is fully capable of discerning the meaning behind such simplistic words.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I have no clue what you said. You don't write very well. I have no idea what the difference is between "qualification based on attributes" and "overall qualification relative to the hollistic attributes of the applicants." I don't know what you are trying to say when you try "not to say that people that have 2400s on their SATs are all equally qualified" but that "based on such an important factor such as SAT scores they are equally qualified."</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, if you are the Bush of Columbia, do tell me, because that's a special case, if you know what I mean...lol
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I don't know what you mean. Bush was a mediocre student at Yale, just as Kerry was. They both managed to graduate and used the college experience to make mega-connections that helped them in life.</p>