<p>I found out from facebook that the indian kid from Staten Island Tech with "only" a 1920 SAT score was accepted at Yale. However, I think the 2400 Asian girl was rejected after originally being deferred from MIT. I know admissions involve more than just SAT scores, but I think there is no doubt that AA is a major reason why the 2400 Asian girl was rejected.</p>
<p>"Also, there are indeed people who worry and change the world. You are not one of them."</p>
<p>Oh, so you can tell the future now? Stop putting me down just because I disagree with you. You want to know what I think? I think you are redirecting the argument at me because you don't have an actual argument. Come back when you aren't putting down others to get your point across, mmkay? ;-)</p>
<p>"Which really makes what you're trying to say there a moot point, because Charisma is right in one aspect - you can try to act morally superior to everyone else here, but there's plenty of people here who care about the plight of Africa."</p>
<p>I'm not acting morally superior. I'm simply saying that people like Charisma overemphasize the importance of stats and play down others' achievements because she is desensitized to them due to being on CC so long. Super-applicants? Fine, I'll withdraw my previous argument about them being super-applicants. However, I won't say that they aren't super-applicants. That's not something for you to judge, or Charisma. The adcom makes those decisions, and if they make students like those over you, Charisma or other people on CC, they aren't the ones choosing mediocre students over the super-applicants. If they were accepted, they ARE the super-applicants. They wouldn't have been chosen otherwise. People on CC need to get over judging others. There was a girl with a <2000 SAT score that was accepted to Yale. The Yale adcom thought she was a super-applicant, maybe you didn't -- last I checked, their opinion mattered more than yours.</p>
<p>"What people don't care for is you bringing it up as a valid reason for why people shouldn't be disappointed if they didn't get into an ivy. If someone ran you over with a pick-up truck and you lived, would you complain? Hell yes! But did you at least get to live the life infants who die at the age of 1 in Africa didn't? Yes - so by the same logic you shouldn't be complaining either."</p>
<p>No, I spent one summer in Pakistan, watching people's ribs showing underneath their skin.</p>
<p>"Back to the real topic at hand though, I ASSURE everyone in this thread that at least one those those "super-applicants" did not overcome any adversity whatsoever. Or overachieve. In fact, I'm sick of that "super-applicant" article because it's so untrue it hurts."</p>
<p>Your opinion doesn't matter. The adcoms' decision does. And according to Yale, and several other great institutions, those applicants are super-applicants. Sorry, try again when you're on the admission committee to some school. Your opinion might actually be worth something.</p>
<p>To Charisma:</p>
<p>See above.</p>
<p>Peace :)</p>
<p><<oh, so="" you="" can="" tell="" the="" future="" now?="" stop="" putting="" me="" down="" just="" because="" i="" disagree="" with="" you.="" want="" to="" know="" what="" think?="" think="" are="" redirecting="" argument="" at="" don't="" have="" an="" actual="" argument.="" come="" back="" when="" aren't="" others="" get="" your="" point="" across,="" mmkay?="" ;-)="">></oh,></p>
<p>I'm not putting you down, I'm stating a fact. You are NOT as of now doing anything, so you have no right to accuse someone else of apathy especially when you don't even know them. Also, you seem to have responded to the rest of my post so obviously I did have a point.</p>
<p>As for the super-applicant status, you do know how they got it right? Guidance counselors submit their proposals, NOT adcoms. And colleges are going to think twice before rejecting someone dubbed as a "super-applicant" by a prestigious news organization. Also, they didn't choose any of those people over me either, so your point is really moot.</p>
<p>And really, my opinion DOES matter because I attend the same high school as one of them and I can assure you, if you actually knew the situation you wouldn't be claiming at least one of them to be a super-applicant. The "super-applicant" I'm referring to has NO achievements that anyone else in the school has done. In fact, if our guidance counselor didn't completely misconstrue certain things on his app the article would've become a laughingstock. The only reason he got into the super-applicant article is because his guidance counselor loves him, and she happens to be well connected. If you aren't afraid to admit you're wrong, feel free to message/e-mail me. </p>
<p><<no, i="" spent="" one="" summer="" in="" pakistan,="" watching="" people's="" ribs="" showing="" underneath="" their="" skin.="">></no,></p>
<p>Okay... and this doesn't refute my point that if you compare every hardship you suffer to the undoubtably crueler circumstances that the majority of the world suffers from, then you have no right to complain about ANYTHING in America. For the note, I've taken two trips to India/Eastern China. I've also been to Africa and lived with the natives for a month without any modern-day amenities including toilet paper. Have you? I've seen MUCH worse than you will probably see in a lifetime, my grandparents actually lived that life, and my parents did for some of theirs. So again, stop pulling the holier than thou card and trying to slander other people as uncaring pricks.</p>
<p>"Stop putting me down just because I disagree with you."</p>
<p>xD, This coming from the person who referred to a lot of CCers as "not real people" and "robots" because you personally think that they are foolish? Not to mention your idiotic insults regarding how you view my moral character.</p>
<p>So by your reasoning, that kid who got accepted to a top school solely because his parents are rich and famous alumni is a "super-applicant"? And colleges purposefully turning down very good applicants in favor of okay ones that would actually matriculate means that they must be bad applicants.</p>
<p>I take it nobody knows, then.</p>
<p>"I'm not putting you down, I'm stating a fact. You are NOT as of now doing anything, so you have no right to accuse someone else of apathy especially when you don't even know them. Also, you seem to have responded to the rest of my post so obviously I did have a point."</p>
<p>Haha, you're funny. I'm not going to bother wasting my time with arguing with you on this point. I'm sure that there were a lot of people that were deemed failures or mediocre when they were young and managed to make a significant contribution to society when they were older. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of apathy. If you're not going to stick to the topic, then don't stick to the topic -- I've already won the argument by default by then.</p>
<p>"As for the super-applicant status, you do know how they got it right? Guidance counselors submit their proposals, NOT adcoms. And colleges are going to think twice before rejecting someone dubbed as a "super-applicant" by a prestigious news organization. Also, they didn't choose any of those people over me either, so your point is really moot."</p>
<p>I didn't say they chose them over you. I said that IF they did, then they were probably more of a super-applicant than you. You seem to judge people based on how they aren't a super-applicant based on how they compare to CCers. Sorry, but some CCers lack personal qualities and ECs. Colleges won't be swayed by those dubbed "super-applicants" by prestigious news organizations. Luo was waitlisted by MIT. Please check your facts.</p>
<p>"And really, my opinion DOES matter because I attend the same high school as one of them and I can assure you, if you actually knew the situation you wouldn't be claiming at least one of them to be a super-applicant. The "super-applicant" I'm referring to has NO achievements that anyone else in the school has done. In fact, if our guidance counselor didn't completely misconstrue certain things on his app the article would've become a laughingstock. The only reason he got into the super-applicant article is because his guidance counselor loves him, and she happens to be well connected. If you aren't afraid to admit you're wrong, feel free to message/e-mail me."</p>
<p>Wow, you seem to know this person's entire life! How are you supposed to know everything? This just makes you seem jealous and bitter at this person's achievements. I take back what I said about CCers being robots -- I can't judge them. However, based on what they post on a messageboard, some of them have misplaced ambition. And since I can't do that, neither can you. The adcoms of schools liked them -- you don't have to, but they did.</p>
<p>"Have you? I've seen MUCH worse than you will probably see in a lifetime, my grandparents actually lived that life, and my parents did for some of theirs. So again, stop pulling the holier than thou card and trying to slander other people as uncaring pricks."</p>
<p>Hey, let's one-up each other about how many poverty-stricken people we've seen! Oh, wait, see, I remembered -- I don't have money to be spending to be prancing around the world to see poor people. Sorry, but your attempt to one-up me by saying that you've "seen much more than me" is misplaced. I never said that just because you've seen a lot more than someone else can you say that you know everything about people's hardships. It takes some empathy to understand someone's background and the adversity they have faced. </p>
<p>Excuse me? I'm not pulling the holier-than-thou card. You said yourself: "Have you? I've seen MUCH worse than you will probably see in a lifetime,". </p>
<p>Hey, look! Hypocrite-alert! Looks like you're the one with the holier-than-thou attitude.</p>
<p>To Charisma:</p>
<p>"xD, This coming from the person who referred to a lot of CCers as "not real people" and "robots" because you personally think that they are foolish? Not to mention your idiotic insults regarding how you view my moral character.</p>
<p>So by your reasoning, that kid who got accepted to a top school solely because his parents are rich and famous alumni is a "super-applicant"? And colleges purposefully turning down very good applicants in favor of okay ones that would actually matriculate means that they must be bad applicants."</p>
<p>I already took that back about CCers being "robots". However, I personally believe some of them have unrealistic expectations and unhealthy obsessions. I never called them foolish. Second, stop calling me an idiot. Attack my argument if you want, but the only person that's losing the argument is you, because you can't seem to stay on topic. I didn't insult your moral character either. I simply said that you were stats-obsessed, based on several of your earlier posts (You said, CCers being "super-applicants" instead of these kids). Please check your previous posts for this.</p>
<p>"And colleges purposefully turning down very good applicants in favor of okay ones that would actually matriculate means that they must be bad applicants."</p>
<p>Uh, since when did your opinion on whether an applicant was good or not matter? You don't decide who is "good" or not. You're not part of the adcom. "Good" applicant status is subjective. And since you are not a part of an adcom for a specific university, you can't judge whether someone is a "good" applicant or not. Try again when you actually have some credentials. I'm not an adcom or anything, but I know well enough that it's silly to decide who "deserves" to get into a school or not. And since you can't make that distinction, you can't say that colleges choose "okay" students over good ones. Second, colleges can accept whomever they want. There's a reason HYP are popularly considered the most prestigious universities in the nation. Most people forget that they accept legacy applicants. Whether these legacy applicants/development admits are qualified is not a judgment for you to make.</p>
<p>Murky, I don't run around throwing the fact that I've seen "starving children in Pakistan" in other people's faces to say they're robots (which is accusing them of apathy btw).</p>
<p><<wow, you="" seem="" to="" know="" this="" person's="" entire="" life!="" how="" are="" supposed="" everything?="">></wow,></p>
<p>Because I've been one of his closest friends for the last 3 years maybe? Even he knows and admits that he didn't deserve the super-applicant status. I'm not at all jealous or bitter about his accomplishments, I'm in fact very happy for him. Doesn't change the fact that other friends of mine who were more accomplished in every way didn't get into their top choices (I got into mine, hard for me to be bitter about that).</p>
<p><<hey, let's="" one-up="" each="" other="" about="" how="" many="" poverty-stricken="" people="" we've="" seen!="" oh,="" wait,="" see,="" i="" remembered="" --="" don't="" have="" money="" to="" be="" spending="" prancing="" around="" the="" world="" see="" poor="" people.="" sorry,="" but="" your="" attempt="" me="" by="" saying="" that="" you've="" "seen="" much="" more="" than="" me"="" is="" misplaced.="" never="" said="" just="" because="" seen="" a="" lot="" someone="" else="" can="" you="" say="" know="" everything="" people's="" hardships.="" it="" takes="" some="" empathy="" understand="" someone's="" background="" and="" adversity="" they="" faced.="">></hey,></p>
<p>I didn't spend a penny to go to Asia - the church raised the money for us to go over there and give aid to those people (I don't attend church, but they chose me to go because I've always been active in this kinda stuff). Trust me, not only did I empathize but you'd have to be some kind of cold-hearted excrement of a human being not to. The trip to Africa was so I could learn first-hand how hard life was in the majority of the world. Again, living in a hut for a month and using your hand instead of toilet paper really gives you a different perspective.</p>
<p>Honestly, you're making less and less sense with every post. First you say they're super-applicants, now you say they only are based on a condition... First you say CCers are robots, now you back off that statement. Are you John Kerry in disguise?</p>
<p>I said "idiotic insults" I didn't insult your argument or you, all I said was that your insults were idiotic, because they were childish and petty. Btw, I wrote that post before you "took it back".</p>
<p>""but don't waste your life on others"
People like you make me sad.
"Do you expect people to care about every single suffering person out there?"
No, because there's people like you out there in the world. ;-)"</p>
<p>^ those are pointless and immature, and yes, they are insults</p>
<p>Lol, this hasn't been on topic for a while now. Anyways, yes, I'm well aware of what I said, and I still stand by it, because while stats aren't everything, they are undeniably a factor, besides, I don't know these people and neither do adcoms, all they know is what you present them with (mostly stats)</p>
<p>Actually stats at some colleges (UCSB, UCD are the ones I'm familiar with, granted not the TOP colleges, but still) have a point system and a number of points you must reach to be accepted, so yes, at some places stats are being quantified. </p>
<p>Credentials don't mean your opinion is any more valid than mine ... come on, don't be elitist now. I never said that ANYONE deserves to go anywhere, but some have an high chance, based on prior admittances, while some have a lower one, but a chance is all it is. Just because in the end someone with a 97% (just an ex., IRL no one has a set or quantifiable %) got rejected does not invalidate that that person had a 97% chance.</p>
<p>How is it an insult if I said that people like you make me sad? I didn't mean sad in a sarcastic way. I genuinely do get unhappy and feel a little torn when there are people out there that are overly concerned with stats. It perpetuates a society where stats become king and highschool students work themselves senseless to achieve those "stats". That makes me unhappy. It wasn't an insult directly at you (my diction implicates my intention otherwise, but I correct myself here), but rather, the type of attitude that this kind of behavior implicates.</p>
<p>As for the second statement, yes, you are completely correct. I was being childish. You win on that one, I guess :P</p>
<p>"I don't know these people and neither do adcoms, all they know is what you present them with (mostly stats)"</p>
<p>No, stats are just one part of your application (and not even half of it, if I'm certain). Save for the UCs that you mentioned, I think most other schools that are not state schools will consider recommendations, essays, extracurriculars and other parts of the application to distinguish one applicant from another.</p>
<p>"Credentials don't mean your opinion is any more valid than mine ... come on, don't be elitist now."</p>
<p>I'm not being elitist, nor am I saying my opinion is worth more than yours. I'm simply saying that your opinion isn't worth as much as that of an adcom (which is correct and much more of a fact than an opinion as they decide who attends which college, rather than you). I don't mean this as an insult, but simply as a fact.</p>
<p>Whether is a high chance or low chance is subjective. You forget that there are many other factors that are weighed differently at different colleges (URM status, low-income status, etc.)</p>
<p>I must agree with charisma here, seeing as I'm one of those HYPSMish people (personally MIT, Stanford, etc.) and I do not think that it is a fair judgement to say that all of us who care about college more than the average C student should be thrown into a stereotype of lifeless robots! It's simply ridiculous and childish! (This coming from a freshman!)</p>
<p>I'm going to be working my tail off for the next few years to make sure that I get where I want to go, and if that's where I want to go, then you have absolutely no right to judge me by that.</p>
<p>Also, what is with the extreme reaction to the fact that someone else got into some article about super-applicants? If you know that you are at least mentally superior, then act emotionally superior and forget it.</p>
<p>It would be much appreciated if those with negative comments towards determined students WITH or WITHOUT social lives would simply keep those comments to themselves.</p>
<p>computergeek173, I already rescinded my statement (pun intended). </p>
<p>"I'm going to be working my tail off for the next few years to make sure that I get where I want to go"</p>
<p>Please, I hope you realize what you are saying. There is no guaranteed admission, no matter how hard you work. If you feel worthless that you don't get into the school of your choice, then I think you have an unhealthy obsession with getting into a specific school. If you have no other passions but to get into a college, have no passions for anything other than getting grades, etc., it reflects poorly on your character to an adcom. I'm not here to judge you. Adcoms make that decision when they decide to accept or reject you.</p>
<p>I'm simply saying that there are some people, especially on CC that will be very brokenhearted and feel that their highschool years were worthless if they don't get into the school of their choice -- this is unhealthy. I'm sorry, but it's true. Working to get into Harvard is admirable, but it should not be the only goal of someone's life. The admission rate of Harvard is too low to bet on that.</p>
<p>In any case, I don't have negative comments about people who do not have social lives. I am simply saying that an unhealthy obsession to get into these schools is in fact very detrimental to the student himself/herself and to others as it perpetuates college-panic (especially now, with all the rejection letters already received, etc.)</p>
<p>Eh, it certainly came off as that way. Either way, I'd disagree with you on colleges being more stat focused; colleges actually seem to be taking the "hard" stats less and less into account.</p>
<p>I meant stats more in the sense of numbers + ECs, than solely #s; hooks and personal qualities are pretty subjective IMO, but even ECs are probably pretty much viewed the same by the majority of people (club pres > member). "Good" may be subjective, but only to an extent, you can't seriously argue that an adcom would view someone with a 2000, 3.5, 2 clubs as > than someone with a 2400, 4.0, pres. of multiple clubs based solely on that info.</p>
<p>I personally would view my opinion or par with a adcom, because we are both only people, but in the end, the adcom will be the one "correct" because they are the ones with the power.</p>
<p>Oh, no way, I totally agree with you that schools are becoming less stats-focused. I think this is most definitely a good thing. CollegeBoard will eventually lose power, which I approve of, as the SAT/ACT are poor measures of .. anything, really.</p>
<p>You could argue that if the person with a score of 2000 on their SAT was low-income, first-generation, a URM and wrote incredible essays, they would be picked over the other student if the other student did not have these attributes.</p>
<p>Right. But an adcom may have.. y'know, completed college, graduate school, etc. Or maybe they have been doing it for years and have much more experience. I have to disagree with you here that it's not just a matter of who has "power". The selective institutions are at the top for a reason -- their adcom makes the right decisions (regardless of whether you agree with the reasoning behind those decisions). If Princeton, for example, was accepting too many legacy applicants, eventually the quality of the school would decline. It isn't, and so I have to say that the adcom are in fact making the right decisions.</p>
<p>I apologize. I misinterpreted what you were saying in that case. Although I still feel I must emphasize that even if I don't get into my top choice college I will be fine (maybe a little sad - because MIT's pretty awesome). Although I plan to work, it does not mean that I will lose all connection with the fun with high school ;)</p>