<p>
[quote]
Think about it. Are CC students really THAT competitive?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes</p>
<p>
[quote]
In case you forgot this was a question (I almost did), the answer is: very rarely.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right. So that means there is still a lot of room for regular "unhooked" applicants to get in. Plus, not every Siemens/Davidson Scholar will apply to HYPSM.</p>
<p>Physics08, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. "Very rarely" -- very rarely on CC. I don't think you'll disagree that rarely do we see an international olympiad winner on these forums. </p>
<p>Also, I am not arguing that there isn't enough space for non-hooked applicants at HYPS. The OP's point was that CC seems to be creating the illusion that everyone applying to HYPS is a 2250+, good/excellent EC's/awards. Illusion or not, it's pretty close to reality. Yes, there are hordes of students who based on their stats probably have little chance of getting in. However, there are many applicants who are this qualified. And I argue that there are still many applicants who are even better qualified -- those with hooks like the ones above. Example: Yale says that there are about 200 applicants each year that are basically shoo-ins. That's nearly 15% of the eventual freshman class. </p>
<p>Perhaps I argued the point circuitously, but what I'm getting at is that one cannot simply expect that 16-18,000 of the applicants to each of HYPS are simply applying for the heck of it and have no chance of getting in. </p>
<p>And yes, I understand that not every one with a significant hook will apply to HYPS. But there are plenty who will.</p>
<p>PS. With regards to "are CC students really THAT competitive:"</p>
<p>I think it depends on your definition of THAT competitive. Perhaps I should have clarified, but to me, to warrant that "THAT" is to be able to say that an applicant has at least a 50/50 shot at HYPS. We don't often see that on CC. Sure, we see students with high scores really often, but high scores are pretty much the prerequisite in an applicant pool.</p>
<p>CC is definetly more competitive than the general pool. 90% of the kids at my school either : 1. Don't care at all about college 2. Just want to go to the local public university, which is pretty crappy. Once I saw a course magazine for it and it said "Reflections of your Future" and I shiverred =</p>
<p>Remember, every year less than .1% (~60 million) of the Human Race go to a college (Most of them in China and the rest of the world), but everyone now sees American universities as the best now, which less than .01% (6 million) of people go, and then to a top school its probally .0001% (60,000) or so. Being in the top .0001% education-wise is 'elite'.</p>
<p>General pool -- general pool of college applicants, or general pool of Ivy applicants?</p>
<p>There's a HUGE difference. Even if only one person from each high school in the US was really qualified -- which is a gross underestimation -- you're still looking at 10,000+ qualified applicants.</p>
<p>well I'd say its about equal with typical ivy applicants, some ppl are quite qualified and others not so qualified.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, I would venture to say that there are many applicants with better qualifications than those you see on CC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well yeah. CC is just a small percentage of college applicants. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps I should have clarified, but to me, to warrant that "THAT" is to be able to say that an applicant has at least a 50/50 shot at HYPS. We don't often see that on CC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one can really measure what your chances are beyond the fact that you're academically competitive. What does "50/50 shot" really mean? Admissions don't rely upon some formula that spits out a statistic. Who knows whether you have a 30% chance or 40% or 41%....</p>
<p>To make a long post short, CC is not creating an illusion like lobgent said. Many of the decisions threads you see accurately reflect the level of competition to HYPSM.</p>
<p>Ha, yeah, thanks for making it concise.</p>
<p>But what I meant by the first quote is this:</p>
<pre><code> ---The hooked applicants---
---------CC-calibre applicants---------
------------The rest of the applicant pool------------
</code></pre>
<p>Yes, CC is a small percentage of college applicants, but it is small percentage of a special kind of college applicant: the not-especially-hooked but well-qualified candidate.</p>
<p>There have been hooked applicants on here as well. AThletes and URMS and national competitors in math and science. The CC pool is VERY strong...don't kid yourself</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem with the logic above is that you can't simply just add the 75th percentile CR (800), Math (790) and say that 1590 is the 75th percentile composite score. The reason is that the top 25% who scored 800 on CR may not necessarily have scored 790 on Math.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>good point, i didn't think of it this way, and from a harvard student, no less.</p>
<p>i still think harvards numbers are pretty incredible, especially in the light that their student body is accomplished in more than just test scores.</p>
<p>Regarding 800 math scores (and nearly 800 scores). Once a kid scores like that, chances are they adcoms are going to start looking for your SATII scores. If you scored well there, then they are going to look for your amc/aime/usamo scores. In fact, Caltech and MIT ask for your AMC/AIME scores on the same section they ask for your SAT scores. </p>
<p>Lots of perfect 800s have fairly mediocre AMC scores. The kids who are going to get a better look are the good amc/aime scores and especially if you qualify for the usamo. </p>
<p>Good SAT scores are not impressive unless there is something there to back it up.</p>
<p>Hmmm... lobgent, I have a number of friends who had one of the qualifications on your list who were rejected from some of the ivy league. Given, they did get into some of the very best schools, but I really don't believe that if you have one of those quals, then you're in automatically. The NYMagazine article from late last year titled, "The Swarm of Super Applicants" shows that even the most qualified kids are rejected from many top schools. The "it's a crapshoot" logic is more true than it may seem.</p>
<p>i wouldn't say they're not impressive, but they are requires as part of the complete package.</p>
<p>1MX - I haven't read all the posts on here, but there really is a big difference geographically where kids apply to college. The northeast (and to some extent California too) - well it's very status conscious and it's probably where most of the alumni live too. So you will find an enormous number of HYP applicants from this part of the country (although not my city ! lol).</p>
<p>i go to Harvard, and i think CC has accurately portrayed what it means to be a top applicant. it has not created a delusion, the competition is really that stiff.</p>
<p>my harvard interviewer told me that enough perfect scorers, valedictorians, etc. apply to harvard to fill multiple freshman classes. so, these things alone aren't that rare and simply don't cut it anymore. you have to have more to your application.</p>
<p>So, CC is very accurate in its portrayal of the ivy admissions game.</p>
<p>Fhimas: I'm not saying that they are auto-admits! I'm just saying that those are the sort of accomplishments that raise adcoms' eyebrows.</p>
<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>May not mean anything, but I go to Yale club events in Washington DC and heard it from the President's own mouth (later asked him about music, of all things) that it becomes a grab bag after a short while.</p>
<p>Haha, the more grab bags you get in, the better chance of getting into an Ivy?</p>
<p>The NYTimes article applicants last year weren't as competitive as a bunch of CC ones I've seen - the NY Times one were just typical in my opinion, mabye just differing GPA wise from the typical pool</p>
<p>We're too used to ultra-applicants on this forum. Super-applicants are nothing.</p>