<p>This book doesn't look so legit. In the first few pages, it said that if you have 700+ (it could have been 750+) on SAT Is and IIs, atleast 3 APs with 4s or 5s, and are ranked 1 or 2, you are a "virtual lock for admission." As we all know, this is simply not true. TAKE A LOOK AT THE STAT ROSTERS/DECISIONS FROM THIS WEBSITE!</p>
<p>Did anyone read this book or want to comment on this?</p>
<p>Trouble is most people have one or 2 of those things not all 3. In an interview with Michele Hernandez of 'A is for Admission' fame, she said that all the val/sals that get rejected at Ivy league schools probably had poor test scores. I would also believe the opposite is true, the 800 scorers that get rejected were not in the top 50% of thier class for whatever reason.</p>
<p>However, it is getting harder every year because the number of graduating students is increasing thus increasing the number of qualified applicants.</p>
<p>"However, it is getting harder every year because the number of graduating students is increasing thus increasing the number of qualified applicants."
this, as well all know is true and i agree</p>
<p>However, there are many 1 or 2 ranked students WITH 750+/800s that are rejected each year- which is quite discouraging.</p>
<p>I remember seeing that book at Barnes and Noble sometime ago. Is there any chance that that book is somewhat outdated?</p>
<p>Nope..</p>
<p>"Publisher: Princeton Review (September 14, 2004)"
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375764356/qid=1118895916/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-2951954-1874267?v=glance&s=books&n=507846%5B/url%5D">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375764356/qid=1118895916/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-2951954-1874267?v=glance&s=books&n=507846</a></p>
<p>I have this book (which is really excellent, accurate and up to date, and which every potential applicant should buy, at an affordable $13.95 list price.)</p>
<p>I didn't know what the OP was talking about, so I fetched the book from the shelf, and noted this paragraph on p.19, which I quote verbatim:</p>
<p>"The highest academic rating of 'one' is reserved for students who rank first or second in their class, score over 700 on at least five SAT tests, score 4 or 5 on at least three AP tests or 6 or 7 on three IB tests, and show academic initiative outside the classroom. ... Roughly 10% of applicants are given academic ratings of 'one' ... Academic 'ones' are virtual locks for admission."</p>
<p>Not quite how the OP understood it! And being a "virtual lock" means, I'd say, only a very high probability, not a certainty, since many applicants not rated as academic 'one's' are admitted - particularly if they weigh 300 lbs and can protect the quarterback, have an excellent slapshot, are the first in their family to attend college, or are a really talented hispanic cello player from New Mexico!</p>
<p>I think another key, often overlooked phrase in that paragraph is: "...and show academic initiative outside the classroom."</p>
<p>Nice catch, Byerly.</p>
<p>EDIT: Everyone tries to reduce the admissions games to formulas and guaruntees .. but it just can't be done! :)</p>
<p>or is a legacy or applies early.</p>
<p>I agree that a virtual lock is not a guarantee. However, I would suspect that there are very few academic ones that get rejected each year.</p>
<p>Byerly, any word on how they may change the academic index (AI) for athletics with the change to the SAT? Will they take the Writing section and count it as an SAT II along with 2 others? Or use the SAT I average and reduce the number of SAT IIs to 2? Just curious.</p>
<p>Raven,</p>
<p>good point. It is probably why they would admit an athlete with sufficient scores before a student that did not show initiative outside the classroom. I think students overlook that component or don't know how to show it or express it sufficiently.</p>
<p>People hate, and subsequntly inadvertantly overlook, that "initiative" piece because it isn't something that can be quantified - unlike GPA, SATs, etc. The OP is a prime example!</p>
<p>You're right and I see what you're saying. I must have missed that "initiative" part, as I do not actually own the book.</p>
<p>Yes, I have this book as well. I didn't find it very useful, especially the case studies which are quite unrealistic.</p>