<p>im just wondering if a 2090 SAT and 4.1 GPA is a good/ok start for Davidson? im thinking pre-med and im oos. </p>
<p>what are your opinions?</p>
<p>As I think you expected.. in the ballgame? yes, sure thing? no.</p>
<p>My daughter was waitlisted with a similar gpa & a 34 ACT. She is a very well-rounded student who was accepted to 8 wonderful schools (including Tufts & Vandy, which are very selective). There are no sure things. My advice is to consider Davidson along with several other comparable schools that you would be happy to attend --- and throw in a safety or two. Schools like Davidson put together their classes very carefully, and a great student might not get in simply because there are too many similar students applying. As is often noted on cc posts, it's a crap shoot! You should always try, but you should never assume!</p>
<p>Listen to the advice above. Davidson takes a really personalized approach to admission. You look good...but who knows...I mean I got in with a 1250/1600 on those darn SATS!</p>
<p>If financial aid is not an issue for you, then consider applying ED. Davidson takes around half its class through ED, and the acceptance rate is much better than with RD.</p>
<p>decision, good job with the acceptance! you probably had awesome essays and stuff!</p>
<p>firefly, i wish cost was not an issue, but it is. if it wasnt, ED would definitely be the route i would take. hopefully something will work out.</p>
<p>I wasn't able to apply early to Davidson because of financial stuff, and I was bummed, but I ended up getting in RD. Like people above have said, Davidson takes a very personalized approach, so essays and activities will count for a lot.</p>
<p>ww congrats to u too :]</p>
<p>how good is their financial aid? b/c i definitely will be applying for it. </p>
<p>thanks for the input!</p>
<p>Figured I could add to this...</p>
<p>When I toured Davidson, I met up and talked with a current Senior Fellow for a private admissions session. One of the things she told me was that Davidson is not big on looking at test scores, such as the SAT. She said what they are heavy on, in the admissions process, is essays and recommendations. But I'm sure SATs/ACTs still play a role, just not as significant a role as do your essays, apparently. :]</p>
<p>ava, I think you've nailed it. The TRUTH here would seem to be that other than the company line offered up by your tour master. While certainly there are some abberations, the vast majority have monumental ACTs and/or SATs. And those that vary downward from the lofty middle would have to bring a whole lot more or at least "diversity" than a mere good 250 word essay or fun summer trip to Antarctica to this party. </p>
<p>Generally, I'd say that the stats suggest your tour guide is fulla bulla. Generally great scores are necessary if not sufficient in and of themselves. With a very few exceptions, to hope otherwise is delusional. </p>
<p>Gotta say this can be irritating when otherwise great schools downplay that which is, if not important to the admissions process, nearly always evident in superior doses among those who then just coincidentally have been admitted.</p>
<p>Whistle - I'm confused. You say that ava nailed it and then seem to contradict what was said. </p>
<p>I may be wrong, and I don't have any inside info from DC Admissions, but from all the datapoints I have observed, while it **never *hurts to have superior test scores (and many or most of the admitted applicants have them] DC embodies the concept of a "selective" process - that is they truly *select** each admitted student as if they had 450 specific identities they want to admit and each candidate offered admission fills one of those specific identity slots. Hence the importance of essays and recommendations - they really need to have a pretty good picture of who this person is - not just how they test. With such a small class and so many applicants, they have the luxury of being able to do that. In some respects in fact it seems to me that the small size of each class almost compels them to do it that way since the 450 must hang together as a whole far better than does a school that admits 2,000 or 10,000 to each class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I'm sure SATs/ACTs still play a role, just not as significant a role as do your essays, apparently. :]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>'Twas the above thought of ava to which I was agreeing.</p>
<p>I'm confident you're right about the admission design/process and "drafting" of sorts by DC. My only point is that while SAT/ACT superiority may not be a required qualification or precursor, it is omnipresent among those drafted.</p>
<p>Perhaps looking @ it another way, in the absence of such, aside from being 7'4" and dribbling behind one's back, running a sub 4 min mile (or whatever the 1600 meter spectacular time might be ;) ), or having discovered some even more lost Dead Sea Scrolls while on a high school mission to bring world peace ... well, one is NOT going to be admitted to DC or most other highly selective places. In other words, THEY may say they don't really look at those (and may not), but when they look at them after the fact for reporting, well, in the absence of spectacular scores one is NOT going to DC. And even then WITH SPECTACULAR scores, they're insufficient.</p>
<p>One more possible thought ... it's unfair and unrealistic to imply that one with lower scores is likely to get in even if they're the class prexy, all-league bowler, NHS, etc. No good scores. No admit. Unless ... you've been to the moon. So yes, I think you're right. And the de facto issue is that while it's not what they're looking at specifically, if you want to enroll, you'd best ace the act. Unless you've been to the moon.</p>
<p>What irks is the implication that one stands any real chance in the absence of those stellar scores. In theory, they do. In practice, they don't.</p>
<p>Or it's perhaps presented that way to encourage or enable non-viable candidates to apply and dream some. So perhaps rather than being irked @ DC, one should be irked at those who assume lower scores won't prevent their admission.</p>
<p>Perhaps the issue is like a lot of statistical analysis where you reach a faulty conclusion from your data because some force is at work other than what you think you're seeing. In this case I would argue that the sorts of people "drafted" by DC to fill those 450 specific "job descriptions" in each entering class naturally tend toward higher test scores because of the qualities and characteristics that qualified them for those individual positions in the first place. In other words, its not the test scores per se, its high quality people who naturally happen to have higher test scores. The basis for that theory is that the "datapoints" I mentioned in my reply tell me that you don't have to be 7'4" or have cured cancer to get admitted to DC without "stellar" standardized test scores [although I suppose we need to establish what "stellar" means; 99th percentile > only? 95th percentile > only? something else?]. Now, perhaps those datapoints are themselves simply statistical aberrations, but I think there are more than you might think.</p>
<p>Sure. Think of it this way. Stellar (HIGHER) scores are symptoms of admission, not cause for it ... at least at Davidson. At other elite institutions, many, they are cause for admission (along with other variables).</p>
<p>On the other hand, one does not know if one has a cold in the absence of a runny nose, congrestion, and/or a hacking cough. They're only symptoms, but they're always present. Just like high SATs and ACTs are at Davidson. Whatever we ... or Davidson want to "call" them or however we wish to think of them relative to the admission process, the applicant had better have them high.</p>
<p>Whatever you choose to call high scores among the collective Davidson frosh class profile ... cause or symptom ... they're virtually (and not literally -- as there are always exceptions, and they're just that) always there.</p>
<p>So ... can't have a cold if one isn't sneezing or coughing or running a fever. And you can't get into Davidson without superior SAT and ACT scores. With the exceptions that everyone knows about but does not wish to discuss.</p>
<p>We agree on one thing. The objectively verifiable fact is that the overall test scores on average of an entering DC class are high. </p>
<p>But [to use your metaphor], you view it as cause; I view it as symptom. </p>
<p>I think you can have a cold without a runny nose, but a runny nose does not necessarily mean you have a cold.</p>
<p>No, I believe there is candor and truth in that DC may not look at test scores as a major variable. (I'm betting they look though, which then can't help but influence, don't you think?). </p>
<p>All I'm saying is ... the successful candidate will have high scores. And if that's metaphorically equivalent to a runny nose, then nearly every last one of those DC coeds and lads had better have a box of kleenex handy 'cause they virtually all have runny noses. ;) :confused:</p>
<p>Again, theoretically possible, pragmatically impossible to get there without a runny nose.</p>
<p>And we can end it on that rather contagious note...</p>
<p>KATCHEW! later. ;)</p>
<p>Tried to reply to the PM but you PM inbox is full...</p>