<p>hence, recruited athletes, urms. legacies....as i said before!</p>
<p>i bet you couldnt find one student at harvard without any of these hooks who isnt a celebrity that got below an average of 700...</p>
<p>Your bitter attitude won't win you many fans on CC........I cannot produce a number for recruited athletes nor their individual scores. I do however know students who didn't score in the ranges you are speaking of and they are in and doing well.</p>
<p>dude, when you're that concerned about whether complete strangers online like you, you've hit rock bottom on the pathetic scale...</p>
<p>Precisely........rock bottom to argue with you.</p>
<p>touchet...</p>
<p>there's this beautiful college admissions book written by a former Harvard head of admissions and it features case studies and analysis- anyway there was a case where there was a girl who did have a score average below 700, no legacy, not an athelete- but amazing personality and extra cs.
She got in. Went on to have quite a brilliant four years at Harvard.</p>
<p>would you mind saying which book? it sounds quite interesting and I would love to purchase it</p>
<p>There are many examples like that one...hope I am the next! :)</p>
<p>First of all, did Sharkbite refer to me as a SHE? Creatine? Do you know any females who use nutritional supplements??? You should not get in becuase of that. I am 6'0 210 and very good in bed. Anyway, the thing i created, which is just a theory as many of you dont understand, would not apply to URM, athlete, or legacy. It is for people w/o a clear hook. What I forgot to mention is that personality can overtake poor scores, yet NOTHING can overcome poor courseloead and/or poor grades. That shows effort and work ethic, not the ability to do well on a very politically charged standardized test filled with tons of quirks that you can only learn at a 3000 dollar SAT Prep Class. It makes you wonder - does Princeton defer people for one reason, or becuase they are overall mediocre. What if there was a person who excelled in a few aspects of their app versus someone who was just solid throughout. I like all this discussion though - fueling the fire</p>
<p>You do not have to be a 4.0 valedictorian with 1600 SATs to get into Princeton. In fact, although such students will be admitted at higher rates than other students, the majority of them will not be admitted. Why? Because the school would be too homogenous if these were the only students who were accepted. To ensure a diverse student body, Princeton, therefore, will dip into its pool of students who have 1200-1400 SATs and are not 4.0 valedictorians in order to pick up a world class flutist, or a State champion miler, or an actress who has appeared on Broadway, or a homeless student who has maintained perfect attendance at 12 different high schools, or the student who founded a non-profit corporation, or the legacy of a family who has been extremely generous to Princeton. The better your stats, the better your chances, but there are many ways to get into schools like Princeton, and you simply never know each year whether a particular qualified applicant (i.e.one who meets the minimum requirements for consideration) will be admitted.</p>
<p>my dad scoffs at the flute player mentality, he was disillusioned by Princeton on my second info session...</p>
<p>Rarely does Princeton dip into the 1200 SAT. The bare minimum for recruited athletes is 1250. But, if a completely normal applicant applies ED with say a 1260 SAT1 and mid 650 SAT2 then yes, they will most likely be rejected. No great personality trait will supplant the inability to be competitive at Princeton. And why is everyone asking if I have data to support my theory. Of course I don't, geniuses, it is my personal feeling. How could anyone seriously think it was verifyable?</p>
<p>Part of me wants to be an admissions officer for a couple of years.
Just so I can finally get the answers to all these questions!</p>
<p>ok 2 things, one sorry creatine, that was a typo (seriously) also, basically i was generalizing, val sal or top 5% is close, but still rank is the most important thing in choosing to admit or choosing not to. take a look at any stat roster, the only thing all of them have in common is that they all are top ranked. look at stanfords or harvard, it doesnt matter. rank is the number one most important thing in getting in. it comes under secondary school record along with gpa. unless you are a rec athlete or something, you basically need to be a top ranked kid to get in. give me some proof of someone who is not a minority/rec athlete/legacy who got in without a top top rank. (seriously, im not that highly ranked, and it would make me happy to see that someone did it w/o the rank)</p>
<p>also, females are more likely to use supplements then males (i think i heard that somewhere, id have to check to be sure)</p>
<p>wait! just one more thing. if your school doesnt rank, dont worry about it. then they just look at your transcript (grades)</p>
<p>One thing about rank though. Like in the US News rankings, when it says whatever percent are in the top 10% of the class, that is only based on the people who have a class rank. And the schools that don't have class rank are the prep schools and better publics, where the ranks would be lower. If the percentage of students in the top 10% was really calculated with every student's rank, it would be much lower.
...Or at least that's what I tell myself...</p>
<p>yea,shu, i totally agree, almost all of the most competitive secondary schools in the nation (namely, The Big Ten: adover, exerter...) don't have class rank at all, nor do they have val,or sal.</p>
<p>Most of the people who apply to Princeton are admissible (based on GPA, SAT scores, ECs, etc), but only a small fraction are admitted for reasons decided upon by the adcom.</p>