<p>@AnnieBeats, it’s a given that for students with 2400, there is a much greater percentage of acceptances compared to people with 2140. Even if 3/4 of 2400s are rejected, the acceptance rate will be 25% which would be at least 5x better compared to someone with 2140. If scores of 2400 and 2140 don’t really matter much, and interestingness/contribution is the benchmark for admission as you say, then it stands to reason that it’s 5x likely for someone with 2400 to be interesting and contributing compared to someone with 2140. This clearly contradicts your arguments, and shows pettiness on calling people drones when you can’t achieve the high scores they have.</p>
<p>@pastwise You have literally no warrant for anything that you just said. The numbers are completely arbitrary and mean absolutely nothing. Sorry to burst your bubble. :-h </p>
<p>HA. Harvard/Stanford says that they only takes about 1/4 of the 2400 applicants. That’s what I noted regarding 25% acceptance rate. The 2140 is the number you used. The rest is using your logic against your logic. Well maybe with the way you write lately, I expected too much for you to comprehend.</p>
<p>Anyway, my post is not to debate you. Rather it’s to provide the forum audience a different perspective and show significant flaws in your arguments. People can read what you and I post and make their own decisions.</p>
<p>@pastwise: I think we’d all agree that there exist top scoring drones that fail to excite some college admissions offices. Certainly you can understand how some people, who might manage a 36 or a 2400, presume it’s the golden ticket. Certainly, they are in an elite group. But w/o much else to add, some colleges which practice holistic admissions WILL bypass them. The fact that there are just MANY more people who score 2140 does make the admit rate for them much smaller – but inherently, that doesn’t make the aggregate number of attractive applicants who “only” score a 2140 any less than those attractive 2400 scorers.</p>
<p>I believe @AnnieBeats is addressing the fact that 36/2400 scorers may feel more invincible than they should when it comes to apps to the most selective colleges. If I were to guess, I think the level of disappointment of a rejection for a 2140 applicant to Amherst is less than that of a 2400 applicant due to the level of expectation, going in.</p>
Of course it is gonna be higher! There are less people applying from that pool. I hate when people use numbers incorrectly. For example, people say that like 90% of shark attacks happen in shallow waters. Well, duh! That’s where all the people are! It’s called the beach. The statistic you provided means absolutely nothing. You don’t have a better chance of getting in just because you have a 2400. There are just less people applying with that so that is why it is 25%.</p>
<p>“You don’t have a better chance of getting in just because you have a 2400”</p>
<p>Err, I think you certainly do. All other things equal, a 2400 destroys a 2140. Having less people apply does not instantly increase the acceptance rate (hopefully you are not trying to argue that, but just in case); rather, the 2400ers tend to be more qualified applicants. A 2400 without the other parts of the application will most likely be rejected, but it’s not inherent that a 2400er be as you said, a test-taking drone. It’s very difficult to study someone to a 2400 as a certain amount of innate ability is typically required from the start, and the people who have this innate ability tend to be spectacular in other aspects of life. So it comes down to correlation vs. causation and the admissions benefits likely stems from correlation, but it’s foolish to say that a 2400 has no effect whatsoever.</p>
<p>@T26E4, I of course am not talking about the agggregate numbers. I’m talking about the percentage. To an individual, percentage is the number that matters, not the aggregate number of people because one does not have multiple body/chances.</p>
<p>My post stems from the original posting by AnnieBeats that claimed,</p>
<p>(1) People with 2400 are drones and not interesting.</p>
<p>(2) Scores don’t matter, it’s the interestingness/contribution that matters.</p>
<p>Now the facts is that the PERCENTAGE of admission is much higher for people with 2400 as compared with 2140. I think everyone agrees with that (except AnnieBeats who thinks that statistics means absolutely nothing). So it’s either the scores matter greatly, or the people with 2400 have a higher percentage to be interesting/contributing. It’s as straightforward as that. What AnnieBeats wrote are illogical when compared with the fact.</p>
<p>AnnieBeats, I don’t see anything new that you wrote. So I’m not going to comment on your last posting further. Your writings are what they are and I let other people read those and make up their own minds.</p>
<p>My experience is that the very highest scorers (perfect or very near perfect) on these tests spend a lot LESS time prepping (and studying for school in general FTM) than your typical elite school striver, and thus have much MORE free time. Whether they use that time to become more ‘interesting’ is highly dependent on the individual student in question.</p>
<p>The so called ‘drones’ who spend so much time prepping and studying for schools are, again in my experience, never the perfect scorers. I’m sure there are students out there somewhere grinding their way the perfect scores, there seem to be a few on CC, but they are big time exceptions IMO.</p>
<p>@foolish There are less people applying from that pool. Obviously try are gonna admit more students then. I HATE when people use numbers incorrectly. For example, people say that like 90% of shark attacks happen in shallow waters. Well, duh! That’s where all the people are! It’s called the beach. The statistic you provided means absolutely nothing. Yes, a 2400 show that you are more academically qualified, BUT, seeing that there are MUCH less people with 2400 applying, that is why the acceptance rate for those with 2400 is higher. There are just less people applying with that so that is why it is 25%. </p>
<p><a href=“1”>quote</a> People with 2400 are drones and not interesting.</p>
<p>(2) Scores don’t matter, it’s the interestingness/contribution that matters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These are essentially the same points, so I will respond to them as such. Most students with test scores over 2300 come off as very uninteresting on paper, which is why so many of them get rejected. They essentially come off as students who live, breathe, and eat work That is true. Personality and character MATTERS. A LAC Dean of Admissions chose to admit people only by test scores and GPA. He instructed his admissions committee to just admit those with the highest grades. Within 5 years, he was fired, because professors complained that students never engaged in classroom discussions and never contributed to the campus community because they were no consumed on just getting high grades. This is a factual story.</p>
<p>I never said that test scores don’t matter. Don’t put words in my mouth. But the people largely exaggerate the value of test scores on this forum. From what I have seen on here, there are more students on here with sky high scores that get rejected from schools like Stanford and Harvard, and more students that get accepted with under 2300 because they have more to offer to the school.</p>
<p>“Most students with test scores over 2300 come off as very uninteresting on paper, which is why so many of them get rejected. They essentially come off as students who live, breathe, and eat work.” Really? Generalize much?</p>
<p>“LAC Dean of Admissions chose to admit people only by test scores and GPA. He instructed his admissions committee to just admit those with the highest grades. Within 5 years, he was fired, because professors complained that students never engaged in classroom discussions and never contributed to the campus community because they were no consumed on just getting high grades. This is a factual story.” What LAC is that? </p>
<p>After much deliberation and many attempts to try and understand your view, it appears you are under the false assumption that colleges need to take an equal amount of people from some arbitrary predetermined ranges, and that the 2400 inclusive one happens to be smaller than all of the rest (if not, I have no idea why you are saying what you are - they have no obligation to take the same number of people by score range, so the overall number is irrelevant to the topic of percentages). </p>
<p>Let me give you an example that hopefully clears something up:
40 people with 2200s, everything else equal
40 people with 2400s, everything else equal</p>
<p>Are you saying that exactly the same number from each pool HAS to be taken? And that in reality the 2400 pool happens to be smaller but needs the same number of admits? Because if so, you are wrong.</p>
<p>The pool above would certainly have a higher percentage for 2400s than that of the 2200ers because the 2400 is superior. It’s not us misreading or misusing data; it’s you who happens to be doing that.</p>
<p>What do you base this proclamation on? I don’t see the logic, and it goes completely opposite to my experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you elaborate on this point? It does not make any sense to me and I don’t see the parallel you are attempting to make with the shark attack example. </p>
<p>“From what I have seen on here, there are more students on here with sky high scores that get rejected from schools like Stanford and Harvard, and more students that get accepted with under 2300 because they have more to offer to the school.”</p>
<p>I have 12 years of scatterplot data (and have seen that many years and more from dozens of high schools’ Naviances) that disagrees with this unsubstantiated claim.</p>