<p>You concurred with one poster’s decision to apply Yale SCEA over Stanford SCEA on the basis of some ill-conceived notions (the posters’ own albeit) about what each school is looking for. Although a student may be able to make some distinctions between the universities based on location, size, and other factors, it does not necessarily follow that the university has distinguishing factors that it looks for in applicants. Columbia students are noted as being more independent and having less school spirit than the students of peer schools. Is this because Columbia picks students with more isolated students? I believe we would both agree that the answer is probably not. Is it possible that students have a greater sense of independence when put on a campus spread out in a city and with many things regarded as cooler to do than seeing a campus basketball game? yes.</p>
<p>Between Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford, I believe it is difficult to determine exclusive traits. Sure, Stanford is known for having students with the duck syndrome, but how much is this an image propelled out of students’ best interest (for a cool image). It may be true, but it’s hard to demonstrate. Nor is it difficult to see how perceptions may be fabricated for ulterior motives. It’s more likely that this duck image is a half-truth. Stanford students are more relaxed as a result of better weather and academic program that prioritizes cooperation over cut-throat competition (among what is probably a multitude of reasons). The array though of students with different levels of relaxation still exists, with some students on one end of the spectrum and other students on the opposite end. The admissions officers intentionally (and by natural probability) admitted a class of all sorts of students with different personalities, work ethics, etc.</p>
<p>But even if, as your friends or acquaintances have appeared to accomplished, there is a significant distinguishing factor about the students at a given school, it is more likely the result of campus surroundings, teaching emphases, differing residential programs than it is the result of distinct qualities the admissions people are looking for, especially given the testimonies of numerous admissions officers and deans. You could make a case though for a school like the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what I said, but I think my words were more along the lines that the poster probably shouldn’t apply SCEA to S given his background, if he really were open to several other schools (I myself have agreed that this is the one case one should look elsewhere, not if one is dead set on S). I don’t know anything about Yale, I concede, and am 100% sure I haven’t ever posted otherwise. I may have made a comment or two about H, which I don’t claim to be perfect truths, but I do have reason to believe those were accurate. </p>
<p>As far as my advice to the poster, it stands still, and hopefully clarified to be nothing more than my opinion and instinct; if there are other schools he is interested in about as much, given his background, I think it’s better to look outside of S for early action, and apply RD. But ultimately if Yale is as crazily unpredictable as S, then it doesn’t really matter :)</p>
<p>I also gave my most serious advice, which is to apply to other schools. Clearly HYPS are all a complete gamble for basically any applicant, and my hope is that good students will look to what they accomplish in the future and apply to schools that can aid them in their paths just as well as HYPS, basically assuming they won’t make into HYPS. Pretty much any advice given to HYPS applicants is somewhat shaky, but we all try our best. I definitely agree all of HYPS are mysterious, and there are no guarantees.</p>
<p>@Rtgrove
I am a bit surprised reading that with a 2340 SAT score you are not almost guaranteed admission.
If I look at the admission stats of HYPS, I see that the high limit of their middle 50% scores in CR/M/W is around 780. Which means that 25% of the admitted students scored 780 or higher. Although they do not give the composite middle 50% score, I assume that if you score 780 in CR, you scored similar in M and W, which would mean that 25% of the admitted students scored 2300+ at these schools.
Now if I look at the collegeboard stats for 2008, there are only about 5600 students out of around 1.5 million who achieved such a score. 25% of the total admitted students at HYPS is close to 2000, which means that with your score, you have more than 50% chance of getting in.
Please correct me if I am wrong or if any part of my reasoning is incorrect</p>
<p>SAT scores really don’t mean crap when it comes to college admissions. Your logical reasoning is just wrong. After certain score thresholds, grades, ECs, essays, hooks (legacy, URM, athlete, etc.), and recs become far more important (and some are more important to start). Here’s one very plausible scenario. Say this guy has a 2340 but has a 3.0 GPA, is involved in no ECs, and doesn’t have any hooks. His chance of acceptance is near zero. And a student with a 2000 who had a 4.0 at a hard public high school, was a URM and legacy, and had essays published in the New Yorker will have a chance of acceptance near 100%, even though their SAT score may indicate that there is no shot. </p>
<p>Someone may bring up a stat with acceptance rate by SAT scores, but be forewarned that this can be explained by other things, one of which is that high SATers will also generally have high grades. You can make generalizations for an entire group, and there your logic (and that of these people who may bring up the stat) will have a point. But that does not equate to an individual’s chances. </p>
<p>An analogy: I can say that 50% of a class will pass a test. You are the dumbest student in the class. Do you have a 50% chance of passing? Likewise, does the smartest student in the class have a 50% chance of passing? The answers to both questions should be self-evident.</p>
<p>Papex is almost clearly ■■■■■■■■, it seems. Though if that was honest, I apologize, and just repeat what everyone would say – SATs are just a benchmark, and by themselves mean nothing.</p>
<p>No, she actually has a legitimate point about what the numbers dictate statistically. Its just that she took his statement about Stanford specifically and thought he was referring to HYPS in general, and forgot to assume that the other application aspects were strong as well. A student with a 2340+ has a decent chance of getting into at least one of the HYPS universities, provided they have an overall strong application.</p>
<p>@papex, you actually raised a good but not so obvious question. If you further divide those 5000+ into different groups – ORM, URM etc. you will see that the scores are not equally distributed. If Stanford wants all forms of life, they have to pick the “best” of each form, which will be lower the average scores. This makes a score of 2340 a good score to get into Stanford in general.</p>
<p>I am not sure about this. Four kids I know this year – all Asians, everyone had 2300+ on SAT (230+ on PSAT), top 5 students in school – did not get into HYPS. They all went the rest of ives – Brown, Dartmonth and Columbia.</p>
<p>This is sort of what I was getting at. A 2340 by itself should mean very little. You kind of have to have other things S is looking for. My friend with many APs, 2390 SAT, awards, blah blah was denied for instance. We’ve heard of such stories many times. </p>
<p>I think the thing about the statistics might help one say that a 2300+ SAT is very solid (in that many S students have lower), but that doesn’t mean it’s not easy for you to get flatly rejected if the rest of the application doesn’t indicate a student S wants.</p>
<p>That’s fine and dandy, but the most important thing is the bit about the “overall strong application” – that usually means significant involvement in an EC, besides good school performance, along with the personal essay factor. It is hard to really gauge what a “strong application” is. I’ve seen rejections that weren’t a simple matter of the applicant being a jerk, while very accomplished. I would make a milder version of your statement and say that a 2340 SAT puts you in a very good place for the SAT component of your application.</p>
<p>First of all what does “■■■■■■■■” mean ?
What is ORM, URM ?
I understand the point that if you “only” have 2340 SAT and poor GPA, no EC etc… you might not be in good shape. But what are the chances that you have a low GPA with 2340 ?
I still insist on the fact that if 25% of all admits at HYPS have scored 2300 or higher, they MUST come from that pool of 5000 students. Of course, this still means that half of these students are rejected but this is a totally different number compared to the 90% rejects these colleges have.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what would be the middle 50% SAT score for international students compared to US students ?</p>
<p>Oh, well I apologize, I thought you weren’t in earnest (hopefully you are!). People make joke posts about this kind of stuff often. I also better see the point you’re making, and will address it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Often high SAT scorers have high GPAs and are very good students. But having very good academic stats and having much less on the EC + essay side isn’t uncommon. Depends on what people like to do with their time. In particular, if one comes from an Asian background, it is quite conceivable that some applicants focus only on academics, and really don’t have an interest in most ECs, if any organized ones at all. </p>
<p>If your calculations are correct, they don’t necessarily indicate that having a high SAT implies a high chance at admission – just that apparently enough with these high SATs have also had other things at least one of HYPS are looking for. We also must take into account that perhaps certain of the HYPS schools are, unlike S, especially more likely to admit someone with a 2300+ SAT and, say, high GPA and val status. As far as S itself, I seriously doubt the trends indicate that having these things gives you a good shot.</p>
<p>And like I hinted earlier, this is why an applicant like Rtgrove might be well served to look for a school among HYPS that will best appreciate his profile to apply early to. Not familiar which of those schools still does some form of early decision-making.</p>
<p>I am totally against this statement. They did just as much.</p>
<p>
I am guessing that you will be an international applicant. Imagine all those 5000+ high scorers are from your country, do you think that Stanford would accept most from your country.</p>
<p>thank you again for your replies.
I still don’t know what ■■■■■■■■, ORM and URM mean except that it has to do with diversity.
I also did not really understand the concept of “hook”. what kind of hook does S look for and how is it different from HYP ?</p>
<p>■■■■■■■■-making posts that are obvious jokes
ORM-over represented minority (Indians, Chinese, Koreans, any East or Southern Asians)
URM-under represented minority (Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans)</p>
<p>papex- I sort of agree with you. Generally high SATs, like over a 2340, will give one a decent shot at HYPS. But I won’t try to prove (and probably can’t even) prove that statement-especially not mathematically.</p>
<p>@mathboy98: I still don’t see why you insist on making some sort of distinction. There are know significant statistics that support your hypothesis.</p>
<p>Also, with the 2300+ students, not only is there the problem that we cannot read their essays and the way they represented their jobs, volunteer work, and other outside of school activities. There is just the simple problem of anecdotes. People often leave out facts or rework parts of a story into conceivable, seemingly harmless lies (the less significant they seem the more the person becomes convinced of the lie being a truth) sometimes unconsciously. It usually happens in recounting emotional moments, pivotal events, or events related to other pivotal events, such as the college application cycle. The 780 on the cr seems just as good as an 800, after all it may just be one missed problem. An interview in which the interviewee talks a great deal is automatically assumed to have been an interview gone well.</p>
<p>Events that cannot be independently verified given certain scenarios are not to be trusted. Obviously if you tell me you went to lunch today, I’ll accept that as truth without having to independently verify that. But given the assortment of personalities found on CC, it seems shrewd to take summaries of applications with a grain of salt. This may seem condescending or a reminder of the obvious, but I often find people allowing themselves to take all the information they find on CC too seriously.</p>
<p>As to the data, the difference between Harvard, Yale, and Princeton and Stanford ACT scores on average is 1. Taking into account that Stanford is slightly larger and recruits more athletes (I am basing this off of the fact that they’ve won the director’s cup every year for the last decade), I do not see clear evidence that there is difference in standards for test scores or graduation standards between Harvard, Yale, and Princeton and Stanford.</p>
<p>Although, I do wish that all of these schools would, like the Cal schools, force the college board and ACT to re-think the efficacy of their tests. Fitzsimmons should follow through on his word and abolish the reasoning test and move to relying solely on APs and subject test scores, as should most top tier schools. This is another topic, however. I just wanted to point out that the uniformity of admissions standards is disheartening.</p>
<p>Brendanww – I am speaking out of what I have seen, and most importantly, what the nature of the applications tell me, which really support what I’ve seen. I’ve acknowledged that my personal experience may be totally off, though my instinct says not so. I don’t know how you’re so sure that there are no statistics indicating anything at all. I haven’t looked for any, but to say there aren’t is more bold a statement than I’m willing to believe so quickly.</p>
<p>I’m saying I think there is a distinction, and it honestly would be logical to me that different schools would somewhat differ in philosophy of admissions. It would be strange if there were utter homogeneity in criteria. Anyway, I don’t think either of us has too much to contribute on this distinction business, beyond what’s been said, so might as well let it close. I understand your attitude, which is to say that we shouldn’t let little CC statistics, personal experiences, etc sway ourselves at all, and that HYPS are too unpredictable for us to make definitive statements on the topics of this thread, so might as well defer all judgement. This really comes down to point of view, and I do see yours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dislike the reasoning test too, and yes this is another discussion.</p>
<p>I’m confused. What was so wrong? Is it not reasonable to say that some individuals of Asian background have been overly academics-focused, and thus not developed other aspects of their applications important to many top schools? I’m neither stereotyping all Asian applicants, nor claiming Asians do not get admitted in large numbers.</p>
to add on: ■■■■■■■■ is making insulting, provocative, spamming, flaming, pointless, irrelevant or off-topic messages.
Essentially, ■■■■■■■■ are posts that are totally not useful and helpful in any way.</p>
<p>Ok, well I just skimmed the last two pages of this thread and this is kinda how I see some of the topics being discussed.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Ok, I dont think the SAT is the ONLY very important factor in admissions. However, it is very, very important. Now, while most agree with that statement, I do disagree when people declare that there is a “threshold” score where once you hit the given score, the SAT is no longer important. Look, I believe that someone who has a 2400 on the SAT will be given more slack on say ECs than a kid with a 2200. I don’t see how it could work any other way.</p></li>
<li><p>Ya, Asians- most of them- seem to care more about academics than ECs. I am like them in that I hate ECs too. However, I bit the bullet and invested at lot of time doing “in school” stuff and winning awards that make me “average” at HYPMS with regard to my awards/ECs. Regardless, because Asians seem to value school so much, they are actively discriminated against by most schools (thanks to affirmative action) which is, in my opinion, racist and horrible. </p></li>
<li><p>I have no real way to prove that S puts more weight on ECs and race than other schools. However, I have read through most of the “decisions” threads at HYPS and just seem to get that feel. I mean, I thought that Stanfords admissions was even more arbritary than the ivies in its decisions. However, Stanford consistently seemed to accept all hooked candidates. Lol, kinda made me resentful and almost glad to see minorities with superficially weak apps denied at HYP.</p></li>
</ol>