The "Perfect-Application" Test

Applying to College
61

<p>"And I've probably left out some things since I'm mostly a math/science kid."</p>

<p>Duh!</p>

<p>This may be the most unbalanced thread-starter I've viewed on CC apart from the Jian Li rants.</p>

<p>According to "you," that means my triple-admitted HYP + Berkeley daughter is an 87. </p>

<p>Clearly you are not "looking for" what Ivies are looking for.</p>

<p>Perhaps by the time I post this, you will have altered your "test," but I'm just going by the opening post...</p>

<p>You included absolutely no national recognitions except those in math & science. You included absolutely no performing arts international or national recognitions. You did not include the AMC. You did not include other aspects, content, locations of secondary level courses than AP's. You did not account for major accomplishments in several e.c.'s, when these do not even include sports.</p>

<p>You did not account for geographic diversity, economic diversity. (Big factors now.)</p>

62

<p>Epiphany, no offense, but calm the **** down! The "perfect application test" is just a little quiz created by a CCer, not admissions 101. Of course the test is flawed. More than twice the amount of points are given for your GC liking you than being in the top 10% of your class. That’s just one of many flaws. Nonetheless, it’s not a big deal. It certainly doesn’t give you the right to insult the OP like you did. Then again, after seeing your comments in the AA/Jian Li debates, your animosity doesn’t surprise me.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
You included absolutely no national recognitions except those in math & science. You included absolutely no performing arts international or national recognitions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The point of these questions</p>

<p>8) You are nationally ranked in anything else (not including sports). (+20 for each)
15) You play a sport. (+2 points)
16) You are nationally ranked in a sport. (+15 points)
17) You are nationally ranked in more than one sport. (+10 for each)</p>

<p>were to account for things like that.
Because obviously I haven't heard of every single thing a high school kid could accomplish.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You did not include the AMC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please see questions #1-6 under "Awards/Other Activities."</p>

<p>AWARDS/OTHER ACTIVITIES:
1) You have qualified for AIME. (+5)
2) You have scored >5 on the AIME. (+5, stacks with above)
3) You have scored >9 on the AIME. (+5, stacks)
4) You have qualified for USAMO. (+10, stacks with above)
5) ...Using the index. (+ bragging rights)
6) ...While in eighth grade. (+ more bragging rights)</p>

<p>
[quote]
You did not include other aspects, content, locations of secondary level courses than AP's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>4) You're going for the IB diploma. (+10 points)
10) You've taken mostly AP/honors classes throughout high school. (+3)
11) Your courseload is considered "most demanding." (+5)</p>

<p>Not the best way to do it, but at least I considered it. :D</p>

<p>
[quote]

This may be the most unbalanced thread-starter I've viewed on CC apart from the Jian Li rants.</p>

<p>According to "you," that means my triple-admitted HYP + Berkeley daughter is an 87.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As I've said several times, I am not a college admissions officer, merely a wimpy high school kid who felt like making a college-quiz to amuse herself. This test is for entertainment only. I apologize if I have not made that clear to you and the other people on this forum.</p>

64

<p>I have a 131, but with the Carnegie Hall bit, it would be 151.</p>

<p>It's official.. my ego is now inflated to roughly the size of a tractor-trailer. :D</p>

<p>And by the way, I really enjoyed this test. Obviously it doesn't exactly pinpoint where you stand in relation to other students and what that means for your admission chances, but it was funny and re-informed me of the things one can still do to better his/her application.</p>

65

<p>134, that was entertaining</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
14) ...In Nature or Science. (+100000 points, and a professorship at MIT)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha one of my friends actually got published in Nature as one of the cowriters... but she's going to Yale, not MIT.</p>

67

<p>Hepstar, as usual, you so overreacted to my post. Not only is the OP's thread unbalanced, the follow-up is still just as arbitrary. She's right: she's not an admissions officer. Clearly no clue as to what is important to an Elite college, especially if your fields are not science/math. </p>

<p>An IB is not extremely weighted (a 7 point difference)versus 10 AP's with 5's on the exams and A's in those courses in a rigorous private school. (Including advanced science/math when that is not the student's field. Again, you contextualize nothing, & the Elites contextualize EVERYTHING.) Obviously the OP thinks that an IB is worth +7 points vs. AP's, but that is not what admissions officers have said.</p>

<p>The OP merely reiterated <em>sports</em>, when, unless your sport is unusual, exceptional, or you will clearly be playing in college, sports are the most common e.c.</p>

<h2>She also merely reiiterated the AIME, not the AMC's. Not everyone takes the AIME, particularly not those headed for math/science.</h2>

<p>Given your rants on Jian Li & AA threads, Hepstar, "your animosity doesn't surprise me."</p>

68

<p>I'm pretty sure the OP meant this thread to be just a fun jaunt. Obviously such a score means nothing, especially considering every college has different criteria. The very fact that you are pointing out the apparant fallacies that the OP is already aware of admitted shows that you ARE overreacting to a thread that was created for laughs.</p>

<p>Go OP! I like this thread. I find the scores to be amusing, especially my 7.</p>

69

<p>Since the OP repeatedly earnestly & in some detail, & with quoted replies, most of what she listed in her opener, the purpose does not strike me as "just for laughs." She seems pretty into it, actually.</p>

<p>If "the OP is already aware of the fallacies," why is she insisting on repeating them? If she were aware of the fallacies she would have corrected them, removed them, whatever. </p>

<p>I'm not overreacting. I'm responding to her invitation for feedback. She, not I, started the thread. It's best not to start a thread & invite replies if you want no disagreement. </p>

<p>Also, it's important to provide the balance whenever information is quite distorted or unbalanced. It's not for the purpose of getting overly serious or putting a damper on "fun." It's because when either student or parent posters come on to any of the CC forums & make unsubtantiated statements-- not about opinions on topics about which many disagree-- but about admissions practices (how valuable your various qualifications are, etc.), some applicants take these pronouncements very seriously & it causes them unnecessary travail. I've seen it very often on CC over the last 3 yrs.</p>

<p>Again, context is everything. If you want to start a thread with the stated purpose of focusing only on science & math, and only on those whose e.c.'s are sports, and only on those who took a particular math test & particular science involvement, then it would be better to say that. I'm sure that there are even fabulous science & math students who may not fall precisely into the slots that were artificially created here, that the Ivies, not students wanting Ivies, may find desirable.</p>

70

<p>73!
But, if you consider the fact that I'm a published photographer and exhibit my work in art galleries, I'm going to give myself 5 points. (ha, kidding, well I really am, but I don't care)</p>

<p>This forum is getting way too heated for me. Everything becomes an argument.</p>

71

<p>Hi epiphany, I think everyone knew that this was a joke.<br>
It was nice of you to bring up your glamorously elite daughter. I think the OP would not have over-reacted as much if you left her out of the argument. I'm sure there were other ways of making your point, that this test is not accurate.</p>

<p>But congratulations to you and your daughter.</p>

72

<p>The point about bringing up ANYONE's admissions results -- and you can scan these throughout CC, including on the PF, with students who have applied to multiple Ivies (more than my D did) and rec'd similar multiple acceptances -- is to provide a reality check for this atrociously misleading thread & similar misleading threads which claim authoritative predictions & projections. The OP's wrong, flat out wrong. Elites simply do not weight this way. </p>

<p>Gee, I could have simply refuted the initial preposterous claims of "weighting," by denying them. But where would be my evidence? (The typical CC students' favorite demand.) I don't particularly care if you find my example "glamorous." It's not about glamor. It's about accuracy. There's no need to spook out potential applicants with an unrealistic narrow & biased list of what you would PREFER that Elites look at (since some of you believe you seem to have what Elites want). Some of you certainly may have what they do want, & you sound like you do. Just understand that you can read post after post in CC Results threads of applicants with such a list as the OP presented, and many of those highly qualified applicants end up in the rejection pile for reasons & "weighting" that are not listed in this thread's opener. I really do not like misinformation. Some people simply don't apply to places because they are told they won't qualify: they are told that by some student with very limited knowledge of the process & experience with it. Some of these people have been put off by threads just like this; they've PM'ed me & fortunately I've been able to provide them with a more realistic picture.</p>

<p>I think what this thread is actually about is what students believe <em>they</em> know who is and is not material for an "elite." And <em>that</em>'s what's offensive.</p>

<p>I would have completely understood the "fun" & "game" aspect if the opener were completely different, like "If you were designing a college & weighting what you would find valuable in a prospective math/science student, how would your rank & weight these factors, and I'll start off..." etc. But that's not what happened. What happened was that there were pronouncements made about what <em>existing</em> Elites look for & how they weight. I don't think that's funny, actually. You think that everybody just comes here for fun & games, but you're wrong. Many students come for serious info, even on threads that purport (or pretend to be?) "fun and games."</p>

<p>It's convenient to call it a joke in retrospect, but the fact that the OP merely reiterated (& in fact reinforced) her initial list tells me she actually believed it.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
She also merely reiiterated the AIME, not the AMC's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Um, the AIME is the second round of the AMCs. Sorry if you didn't know that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If she were aware of the fallacies she would have corrected them, removed them, whatever.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>CollegeConfidential does not allow you to edit your posts after twenty minutes have elapsed, otherwise I probably would have incorporated some of the other excellent criticisms, such as weighting IB more, etc.. Though it's nice that you know I'm a girl. :D</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's convenient to call it a joke in retrospect, but the fact that the OP merely reiterated (& in fact reinforced) her initial list tells me she actually believed it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And the fact that I actually am the OP tells me I don't believe it. :D</p>

<p>I only reinforced the parts where I felt your accusations were generated by not reading the test carefully enough (because I like to defend things I write). Like, for instance, the part where you said I never mentioned the AMCs, and I replied that there were six questions on the test pertaining to them. I still think, and have always thought, that this test is incredibly flawed in and of itself, and is again for entertainment only.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What happened was that there were pronouncements made about what <em>existing</em> Elites look for & how they weight.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never "pronounced" anything of the sort, and openly admitted, in the original post, that the test was fallacious. Please quote the part of my original post that implies that I intended this test as a solemn pronouncement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and only on those whose e.c.'s are sports

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh yes, and once again...</p>

<p>8) You are nationally ranked in anything else (not including sports). (+20 for each)</p>

<p>20 points is quite a lot. Even if it only takes up one line of text. ;)</p>

74

<p>Instead of epiphany bashing the OP, why doesn't he just leave the thread or create his own? nobody takes this that seriously, except for epiphany, who was looking for an excuse to brag about his daughter. Epiphany, give the OP a break, this is all in good fun, go and find something better to do with your time than bragging about your daughter and making absurd arguments against the OP. Have a nice day everyone.</p>

75

<p>I don't "leave the thread" because I don't let inaccurate information stand, when many students look to many of the threads on CC for some gauge of accuracy. In fact, many do so because they have not enough adults in their life well informed or willing to spend the time-- such as GC's, parents, teachers. It's really irresponsible to post misinformation & mislead people. I don't care if you find my example "bragging." I repeat: you can find many examples more impressive on CC than my family's by just doing a search on student & parent acceptance threads. But the fact is that students visiting here for guidance don't always know that & have not the time for extensive searching. They often want to know: would it be worth the considerable effort involved to apply to a reach college? Do I have a chance? According to you, only a self-selected tiny group with a particular profile has a chance.</p>

<p>Some other important FACTS, for any CC'er possibly looking for accuracy:
The IB grads (who were also UC ELC students, btw) from one of our very high-rent prominent publics did poorly in college admissions <em>compared to</em> those grads from rigorous privates in the same area who had taken a rigorous AP load. The reason? The Elites can differentiate among schools they know well, as to the content of the various programs. Not all IB programs produce similar results; not all AP programs demand comparable performance from students. Teaches, courses vary, for each. </p>

<p>No one who whose main e.c. was/were sports did well in <em>private</em> college admissions (Elites) compared to anyone we have known who excelled in the arts, particularly unusual art forms. I am comparing levels with equivalent levels. Thus, national in sports did not equate with national in arts UNLESS the athlete in question were a recruit.</p>

<p>Students not planning on math/science as a first choice in college often do not choose the "second round" of the AMC, the AIME. If they did extremely well on the AMC while not being a math-oriented student, this <em>can</em> mean more to an Elite than a math student that does well on math tests.</p>

<p>If the test is "fallacious" and this is all a joke, it probably belongs in the Cafe, because then serious students won't be looking at it as a serious entry. Again, I think this is just a convenient retrospective cover.</p>

76

<p>"nobody takes this that seriously, except for epiphany, who was looking for an excuse to brag about his daughter."</p>

<p>How true.</p>

<p>Epiphany just can't see that this quiz is for fun and nothing more. I find it strange that someone with an intelligent daughter admitted into HYP has to complain about some unofficial test created by a math/science oriented CCer. We all know that the test is flawed. The OP had a disclaimer to address this, which you actually quoted in post #61. That doesn't mean you can insult the OP. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.</p>

<p>If you think you can do better, create your own test.</p>

77

<p>your quiz made me laugh..people really do try to quantify themselves like this :)</p>

<p>the majority of commenters are taking it slightly too seriously, i'd say.</p>

78

<p>Perhaps this will clear some things up for you:</p>

<p>Fizix makes no guarantees, express or implied, with respect to any information, or lack thereof, contained in this quiz. No guarantees, express or implied, are made with respect to any materials authored by Fizix, or her affiliates. Fizix has no legal obligation to update the information which appears in this quiz, and does not warrant that all of the information contained herein is accurate at any particular point in time. Fizix reserves the right to change or improve this quiz, in whole or in part, at any time without prior notice.</p>

<p>No warranties of any kind, express or implied, are made with respect to the information contained in this quiz. This quiz is provided "as-is", without warranty or representation of any sort. The information in this quiz is provided for entertainment only, and is not to be used or relied on for any serious assessment purposes. Visitors assume full responsibility for all actions taken based on information obtained from this quiz. Legal warranty plagiarized from [url=<a href="http://www.smaaugusta.com/disclaimer.cfm%5Dhere%5B/url"&gt;http://www.smaaugusta.com/disclaimer.cfm]here[/url&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p>

<p>Happy now?</p>

79

<p>Things I found funny:</p>

<p>6) One of your main ECs as stated on the application was
--CollegeConfidential (-10 points)
--Your internship at writemyessays.com (-30 points)
--Procrastination (-20 points)
--The Ku Klux Klan (-40 points)</p>

<p>4) You have qualified for USAMO....
Using the index. (+ bragging rights)
While in eighth grade. (+ more bragging rights)</p>

<p>haha :D</p>

<p>I got a 116</p>

80

<p>114 :)</p>

<p>Thanks, this was fun, fizix, even for a humanities-leaning nerd like me :).</p>