<p>Yes...I believe I made the right choice by not applying to Columbia...</p>
<p>Consider this a second person who has no goddamn idea what you're talking about, "Z". But luckily, I started zoning out around here:
[quote]
However, speaking on behalf of the IVY's...
[/quote]
30 seconds of research tells me you're</a> still a high school student. You're still</a> taking the SATs. In this thread you claim to have been admitted to all of HYP and MIT, and that "nobody is better qualified" than you are to talk about such things.</p>
<p>You're wrong about being qualified to talk on this subject. You're wrong on the facts. You're wrong on what these colleges are looking for. And you seemingly don't post on the forums of all these schools you are supposedly admitted to (and how you're admitted to more than one at this point, I don't know).</p>
<p>The OP had a very different issue but the same delusion - that any school that rejected them couldn't be worth very much to them. It's a coping mechanism. It's not rational argument. Perhaps you're a better fit for another school, but that doesn't mean you can come in here and act like you can speak authoritatively about Columbia and not expect some push-back.</p>
<p>Seriously, leave the admitted students for CU 2012 in peace so we can help answer their questions and not pollute their board.</p>
<p>I am taking the SAT's for the fun of it...sunny jim...i haven't, however, ever taken the physics SAT II...I never said I was in college...I just said I was bound to go there, as in I got the acceptance letter...get your facts straight mate...and I have countless articles from ebsco supporting my "reviewer mood" theory. So, it's not that I made it up. Go search Ebsco for admissions to college. You'll find tons of articles. I cannot post them here because I do not have the permission from Ebsco. You need a membership from Ebsco and my school provides it. Thanks for absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>you're adding a lot less to this thread than I am. A lot less, for that matter, than the big steamer I took in the commode this morning.</p>
<p>Let's give you another shot at improving that assessment: If you've got all these "articles" promoting luck and reviewer mood as explanations for college admissions, let's see it. Don't post the articles here, post the headline, date, and publication, and i'll go pull them up on Lexis-Nexis. Please. Make my day.</p>
<p>hehehhe, i love this hot thread. i just find it oddly funny that the two people who claim that luck is not involved at all in the admissions process and is merely an excuse for rejects both got in....i mean, god forbid you smarties got in based on ANYTHING other than your academic skillz.</p>
<p>Reason; Feb2008, Vol. 39 Issue 9, p32-41</p>
<p>Career World; Oct2003, Vol. 32 Issue 2, p28</p>
<p>Charlotte Observer, The (NC); 11/09/2007</p>
<p>The last one is just an example of what might an application before yours might do. I have more to come...Do read all of it and do not come back here without critically reading the first two (the last is as described above). Let's see if your critical reading scores from the SAT represent your skills.</p>
<p>P.S. come join the sane side babyeater...though very odd name...</p>
<p>luck plays a part because of mood, but please, admission officers are admission officers because they (and others) believe that they have a keen sense of objectively choosing better candidates. People attribute so much luck to it, because they don't know how to do the app well and how to present themselves in a way that appeals to admissions and in a way that appeals to a specific college, each college looks for slightly different things, and it's up to the student to find what they look for and sell those skills / qualities. this is difficult to do and has little to do with pure achievement, but there is a logic and a method behind it, it isn't a random process or a lottery, it's just very difficult, competitive and improbable to get an acceptance letter, so people throw their arms up in the air when they work hard and don't get in, the reality is everyone is working very hard to get accepted.</p>
<p>ok...is no one actually reading what people are saying??? no one ever said that this process was all luck. what we've said is that it is mostly based upon the student's qualifications and "fit" with the school..HOWEVER, part of the decision is luck. i'm not at all throwing up my arms about this process and blaming a rejection based on luck...i'm just saying that it's a part of the decision. if you disagree with that...then you're just a butthead. o, and not just any butthead, but a butthead with which college admissions officers don't agree.</p>
<p>also...i think this is kinda dumb. the college admissions process is not 100% objective. saying that there is no luck and only the most "qualified" students get in...is just wrong. that would mean that one would first have to define "qualified." let's just say i'm guessing each member of the admissions committee doesn't have the same definition.</p>
<p>Welcome...all sane are always welcome...</p>
<p>[qupte]you're adding a lot less to this thread than I am. A lot less, for that matter, than the big steamer I took in the commode this morning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Brilliant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes...I believe I made the right choice by not applying to Columbia...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, because you'd probably get slaughtered in the Core classes since your writing isn't up to par.</p>
<p>
[quote]
also...i think this is kinda dumb. the college admissions process is not 100% objective. saying that there is no luck and only the most "qualified" students get in...is just wrong. that would mean that one would first have to define "qualified." let's just say i'm guessing each member of the admissions committee doesn't have the same definition
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're confusing the difference between "luck" and "subjectivity." Columbia admissions is a very subjective process. They can't run the 20,000 apps through a computer program to decide who makes it. Obviously, the human element comes into play and it is therefore subjective.</p>
<p>Luck means that the process is left up to random chance. Columbia doesn't take all the apps with 3.8, 2200, good ECs, etc. and throw them against fan and see which ones stick. That would be luck/chance/randomness. Just because it's subjective, that doesn't mean it's a matter of luck/chance/randomness.</p>
<p>
[quote]
HOWEVER, part of the decision is luck. i'm not at all throwing up my arms about this process and blaming a rejection based on luck...i'm just saying that it's a part of the decision. if you disagree with that...then you're just a butthead.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I said all along that there's some luck involved. But some of you people are plain wrong in saying that most people who apply are all qualified / equally qualified and the ones who get in are just lucky.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hehehhe, i love this hot thread. i just find it oddly funny that the two people who claim that luck is not involved at all in the admissions process and is merely an excuse for rejects both got in....i mean, god forbid you smarties got in based on ANYTHING other than your academic skillz.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know exactly why I got in, and it wasn't just on my academic record. I really didn't make a special effort to get into Columbia and figure out exactly what I needed to do (I didn't really even have a first choice and just applied to several schools that I thought I'd be happy at). But knowing what I know now about how Columbia's admissions process works, what I presented to every one of the schools I applied to just happened to jive with what Columbia was looking for.</p>
<p>^can't really disagree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My school prepares us for state testing, so I have never ever done any SAT practice testing.
[/quote]
Neither has 99% of anyone else who gets into HYP and columbia.</p>
<p>Honestly, if you go to such a school as the OP's, where nobody ever goes to an Ivy, then probably the only way you might have a chance of getting in is if you were ABSOLUTELY the best student the school has ever seen and have ABSOLUTELY awesome qualifications, and also many other things that have never been seen before. The OP was not even valedictorian; she was close, yes, but the fact that there was someone better than her--and just in her year, not to mention in the past whatever number of years since the last person got into columbia, her chances of getting in were pretty much 0. </p>
<p>By the way, how is anything >600 "gross"? Having low SAT scores and being salutatorian doesn't cast your school in a very good light. After taking sophmore Algebra 2 honors at my school will probably get you an 800 in math on the SAT1's and probably and 800 on SAT II Math 1, too. SAT math skills are quite basic and necessary--if you can't even break a 700 on the SAT math, you seriously need to reassess what you've been doing for the past 4 years in high school. It's not hard or unusual to score about a 600. In fact, most people can just wing the SAT and break a 700 (by most I mean most who apply to columbia; the ppl you are competiing against). Don't blame your low score on your school.</p>
<p>Well said, Narcissa.</p>
<p>hahahaha.</p>
<p>i completely forgot about this site, until today. for some odd reason i remembered it even existed and found this post i made FOREVER ago quite funny. especially the new comments. it's like reading a journal entry you wrote a year ago, and finding it absolutely hilarious.</p>
<p>anyway, a few comments...</p>
<p>"No one...is better than an MIT bound who got into Harvard, Yale, and Princeton."</p>
<p>Z- I'm not sure if you are being overly conceited by this statement or what, but either way that is completely false. How can you judge whether or not someone is better than somebody? Everyone is successful in their own way, and you don't have to go to MIT, Harvard, or Yale to do that. Damn it.</p>
<p>"but every kid thinks he's unique and special but most aren't"</p>
<p>--> Rather ****ing disheartening if you ask me.</p>
<p>"Actually, I have no clue what you said. You don't write very well."</p>
<p>---> I completely agree.</p>
<p>"Hehehe, I'm so annoying, I'll shut up"</p>
<ul>
<li>Eric, that's just cute. hah</li>
</ul>
<p>And finally to Narcissa: okay thanks. i can't say i give a damn about the SAT. only enough for me to take them again on the 28th and im pretty sure i did a lot better this time. and if you went to my school.. oh if you went to my school.. haha you would understand. trust me. but thank god for those state testing days in march. i can come in school at 10:30 all week since i am no longer required to take them! yayyy</p>
<p>Have a nice day =)</p>
<p>hopefully we all now have enough closure to stop posting in this thread.</p>
<p>This thread has wasted too much of my time...I would waste away my life trying to argue with two very stupid little minds but I need not do that. My reason is simple: a fool is a fool, who cannot rule, because he says the words that are cool. Good Day All...</p>
<p>Haha, after reading this thread... I'm sooo glad I applied EA to Yale instead of ED to Columbia =)</p>
<p>"a fool is a fool, who cannot rule, because he says the words that are cool"</p>
<p>sounds like someone's trying very hard to say the 'words that are cool'.</p>
<p>"I'm sooo glad I applied EA to Yale instead of ED to Columbia =)"</p>
<p>and i'm so happy i didn't apply to Yale at all.</p>
<p>"and i'm so happy i didn't apply to Yale at all."</p>
<p>Geez, no need to be so hostile. I'm VERY glad you didn't apply to Yale at all either. I feel sorry for whoever has to suffer being your classmate.</p>