<p>i looked at the RD decisions thread, and using statistics from the ppl that posted their stats, I used excel and found these averages:</p>
<p>Waitlisted:</p>
<p>Average SAT I score: 2191 (with highest score of 2400 (3) )
Average ACT composite score: 33.3 (with highest score of 35 (2))</p>
<p>Accepted:</p>
<p>Average SAT I score: 2241 (with highest score of 2400)
Average ACT composite score: 33.5 (with highest score of 35 (2))</p>
<p>the stats AP in me just wants to tell you that the stats are not randomized.</p>
<p>Your sample consisted of ppl on CC who were WILLING to post stats if accepted or waitlisted. There's a big stretch between that and the real population.</p>
<p>there's my 2 cents</p>
<p>sure its not a complete simple random sample, but it still is quite representative of the people on CC. and should be quite close to the actual mean.</p>
<p>true, Magnus, but it seems to me that most people here keep saying something along the lines of "All you have to do is look at the stats on the decisions thread to see that waitlisted people have higher stats than those who were accepted."</p>
<p>no.. most people were saying that it is clear that there are two main groups of wait-listees: those who are overqualified and those who just didn't make the cut. if you compare the stats of the overqualified group to the accepted, you will see the overqualified kids had better stats. But test scores isn't the only thing that makes the overqualified students overqualified. All of the overqualified kids have great ECs, essays, and reccomendations. How do I know this? Well, if they didn't have great all-around applications they wouldn't have gotten likelies from so many top schools. In fact, some of these kids got likelies to Harvard and Yale (which I think is truely incredible).</p>
<p>wow...go watch 300 or something.</p>
<p>i didnt post my stats in the results thread:</p>
<p>Waitlisted
SAT: 1980
ACT: 31</p>
<p>(yes i know i don't live upto CC standards blah blah blah lol)</p>
<p>I agree with 4815162342, analyzing these small statistical anomalies is a waste of time. Just wait until the actual stats come out from admissions...</p>
<p>On another note, sorry to all those qualified applicants who were waitlisted</p>
<p>The only thing these data really suggest is that the admissions process at top schools is a crapshoot.</p>
<p>^^^ Exactly. Which should make many of you reanalyze the theory that there is such thing as an "overqualified" applicant to a top school (and yes, WashU is one!)</p>
<p>This "observational study" is also compeletely uncontrolled. Using people on this forum will create huge response (people lying inflating themselves ITS THE INTERNET IT DOES HAPPEN!), underrepresentation, and voluntary response biases. This "data" is absolutely useless.</p>
<p>the REAL reason those statistics don't tell the whole story is that they are purely test scores.</p>
<p>as you can see on the decisions thread (and as this statistic shows), there are a LOT of accepted students with high test scores. But a lot of these students also had relatively low GPAs. (I'm talking 3.6-3.8 UW, which is low compared to the GPAs of a lot of the waitlistees--who had both high test scores AND high GPAs)</p>
<p>so just because the test scores seem to be as high, doesn't mean "overqualification" is a myth. remember that GPA is just as important.</p>
<p>MCookie: Are you still around stirring the pot? You have the best attitude of anybody regarding the whole admissions game. Do you ever get mad? You seem to have kept the whole thing in perspective regarding all your schools.</p>
<p>^Eh, I just hate it when things are misunderstood. That's probably why I seem to have a "good attitude"--because I have to do justice to the truth, and it would bother me to delude myself.
Although the truth is I have an awful attitude, lol, and it's just beginning to improve. As for Wash U...oh well. Moooovin' right along :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
the REAL reason those statistics don't tell the whole story is that they are purely test scores.</p>
<p>as you can see on the decisions thread (and as this statistic shows), there are a LOT of accepted students with high test scores. But a lot of these students also had relatively low GPAs. (I'm talking 3.6-3.8 UW, which is low compared to the GPAs of a lot of the waitlistees--who had both high test scores AND high GPAs)</p>
<p>so just because the test scores seem to be as high, doesn't mean "overqualification" is a myth. remember that GPA is just as important.
[/quote]
You can't analyze GPA alone, as average GPAs for schools are considered. Colleges look at your relative GPA compared with your HS's profile. Going to a school that's known for relatively hard courses with lower average GPAs and getting a 3.6 could be the same as going to an ordinary school and getting a 3.8.</p>
<p>I think it's pretty silly to assume you can get any kind of valid statistics from posts on the internet but since you are doing it, why not figure out the waitlist based on the state the applicant is from.</p>
<p>A male-female analysis might be interesting too.</p>
<p>Some more interesting stats: middle-50% test score ranges for accepted applicants</p>
<p>Wash U
SAT Critical Reading: 670 - 750
SAT Math: 700 - 780</p>
<p>Harvard
SAT Critical Reading: 690 - 800
SAT Math: 700 - 790</p>
<p>Yale
SAT Critical Reading: 700 - 790
SAT Math: 690 - 790</p>
<p>Princeton
SAT Critical Reading: 680 - 800
SAT Math: 690 - 790</p>
<p>Not sure if these statistics prove any point, and if they do, I'm not sure what point that is. But some information is always good.</p>
<p>I don't know whether the last post was trying to show how the differences between the upper bound of thte middle 50% of CR between the schools were close or massive.</p>
<p>At any rate, I think WashU should not really be measured against HYPMS, but rather Dartmouth, Cornell, Penn, Rice, Chicago etc.</p>
<p>^I wasn't trying to "show" anything. Although I find it interesting that you grouped Wash U with Darmouth, Penn, Rice, etc. A lot of angry WUSTLers on this thread are dead-set on proving that Wash U is a "top elite."</p>