<p>I'm a freshman humanities major at Carnegie Mellon University and I have a 3.4 gpa (probably for this 1st semester) and 2000 on my SATs. I have a 89 from a specialized high school in new york city (bronx science) which was due to me just basically being a slacker. i hate the intellectual atmosphere of my college and i need to basically get out of here including pittsburgh. </p>
<p>it seems from general sentiment on this board that getting into some of the tougher schools is that you need to have stats in the ballpark. I'm I in the ballpark of UChicago, Columbia A/S, Brown, Cornell? Do i need to retake my SATs or something? Will colleges look disfavorably on taking it again freshman year, college?</p>
<p>Most top schools recommend at least a 3.5 for transfer students. The 2000 is kind of low and since you are a freshman transfer, the scores will matter more. I would say take them over if you are really inclined on transferring this year. I strongly recommend you stay an extra year to bring up the GPA. A 3.4 is low- then again, you're just predicting your scores now. Until actual grades come out...it's all spectulation.</p>
<p>I agree with Wind. Retake the SATs and consider taking a couple SAT II tests as well as they are recommended by most colleges to add academic depth to your app. I also second the notion to stay at Carnegie and raise your GPA if it ends up being a 3.4. I don't think colleges care so much if you retake (or take for the first time) standardized tests during college...just do it and send them in. </p>
<p>As of now, I agree with els. The only one I think you have a shot at (due to the GPA mainly) would be Chicago.</p>
<p>dammit it. life is sucking pretty hardcore for me right now. it seems as if the only way to get A's in some of my classes is to suck up hardcore to my profs. </p>
<p>its depressing to hear this news but i guess i have to look at more realistic situations. I got a 3.4 on my mid-semester evals so its not pure speculation.
would it be easier for me to get into amherst, swarthmore, pomona or other liberal arts schools? I can't stand being a humanities major with these engineering meatheads.</p>
<p>carnegie is a horrible depressing school. there seems to be a lot of competition and the administration is trying hard to encourage profs to give lower grades to enhance the reputation of the university. a lot of people here have this "i don't give a ****" about anything except a high paying job mentality and its driving me nuts. I cannot bear the thought of staying here another year, I gotta transfer somewhere.</p>
<p>stay on this board for a few days, and see some other people's stats and you'll know where you stand.
3.4 and 2000 are too low for UChicago, Columbia, Brown.
Don't know about cornell, but probably not good chance there either</p>
<p>PS: i have been on this board for a while, i have 3.7 from a school similar in status to CMU, and a 2100, i am hesitating to apply for transfer to schools equally competitive to the ones you listed. I know i have less than 10% chance, so think about where you stand</p>
<p>I understand your frustration. Being a humanities guy in with a much of techies isn't much fun, for the most part...there are exceptions.</p>
<p>Again, these are only midsemester evals....you probably still have a paper or two and finals to help boost grades. Study...it's what college is for. </p>
<p>Anyway, Swarthmore and Amherst aren't gonna be any easier to get in than Brown and Columbia. The transfer admission rates for S and W are equal or lower than Brown and Columbia.</p>
<p>Actually, for 2005 (latest available info) Swat had a 26% transfer rate...quite a bit better than Brown or Columbia, but again you have to realize who typically applies to one of the three top rated LACs. Most of the students accepted there (I think they accepted 27) are likely from ivies/comparable schools and have considerably higher GPAs than your own.</p>
<p>I'm going to hate myself for saying this (because I'm applying there too and I don't want any more competition!) but have you considered Wesleyan? If the school fits you personally, you'd have a decent shot as they had a 40% transfer rate in 05. </p>
<pre><code>i was thinking about reed college in portland, oregon. you should look into that too, they have quite a bit of latitude in their stats.
</code></pre>
<p>my advisor told me I have that the transfer process is a crapshoot and that I'm in the ballpark for even Harvard as I have a pretty compelling story along with a pretty extensive knowledge of literature. Is he full of it? or is there a significant amount of latitude in their decisions (i.e, not only caring that much about grades). He told me basically to apply wherever I want to go and not to retake the SAT as it shows misguided priorities. </p>
<p>i also have a national writing award (from H.S) does that count for jack?</p>
<p>Yeah I looked into Reed as well...I never thought I'd say it, but I found a place that was too liberal for me. Reed does have a very high transfer rate though - near 50%. </p>
<p>I think your advisor is kinda right...I've seen a person or two on CC accepted into Harvard with somewhat similar stats. It's always up to you where to apply and if you really want to go for it, don't hesitate. Still, it's a good idea to be realistic. While anything is possible, I wouldn't say it's very realistic that you would be admitted to Harvard, Columbia, Brown, or Cornell. But your counselor is right: reasons/essays are very important and can change things up for anyone.</p>
<p>As for the SAT thing, I think he's wrong. It basically only takes one Saturday. I wouldn't really call that misguided if it helps your app out...if you end up taking it three or four times, then ya there's a problem with priorities. However, I think you're going to be up against a lot of people that may have taken advantage of retaking the SAT and now have a much better score. In my opinion, I'd want the strongest application possible, and if that meant retaking the SATs, I'd do it (and I did it!).</p>
<p>"would it be easier for me to get into amherst, swarthmore, pomona or other liberal arts schools?"</p>
<p>No, not easier, LACs usually just accept so little transfers, especially pomona, i looked into there when i transferred; they barely accept any</p>
<p>"3.4 and 2000 are too low for UChicago, Columbia, Brown."</p>
<p>not too low for chicago, just look at some of the people who were accepted there this year (~3.5 from schools much worse than CMU, 28 ACT)</p>
<p>Yeah man your situation sounds rough, what about schools like vanderbilt, georgetown, JHU, Notre Dame? ie: schools more on par with CMU that have better transfer rates</p>
<p>i just read your other post, your writing award and personal story help alot, that's what i was talking about when i said earlier that thing about "remarkable essays and recs/personal qualities" those things help alot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
not too low for chicago, just look at some of the people who were accepted there this year (~3.5 from schools much worse than CMU, 28 ACT)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Keep in mind that he was an exception to the rule. While his being an exception to the rule means that other people are "in range," I would still maintain that Chicago is a long shot.</p>
<p>Brand_182: "Yeah I looked into Reed as well...I never thought I'd say it, but I found a place that was too liberal for me."</p>
<p>If you don't like Reed/"too liberal" places, you are NOT going to like Brown or Wesleyan--which you mentioned you are applying to--and which are INCREDIBLY liberal schools.</p>
<p>Hmmm...well, after researching the schools, it seemed to me that Reed was quite a bit more liberal than Wesleyan or Brown. Perhaps the most distinguishing "too liberal" factor of Reed that ended up turning me off was its reputation for heavy recreational drug use.</p>
<p>I have researched Wesleyan and Brown a lot and I love the atmospheres at both schools. But from the information I've gathered, Reed is to liberal schools what Bob Jones University is to conservative schools. Are you a student at Reed? Does anyone want to add to this discussion, as I have obviously not visited the school and only learned about it from researching.</p>
<p>A liberal school, IMHO, isn't determined by its pot use. I think a liberal school is determined by its professors, classes, students, and overall culture. In this latter sense, Reed is very similar to Brown and Wesleyan. Incidentally, pot is supposedly readily available at both Brown and Wesleyan.</p>
<p>Well, let me rephrase. For me, the school is "too liberal" with regards to its stance on drug use. Whether or not pot is available or not isn't really the issue, as I know nearly all colleges have drugs - in my opinion, not a big deal. However, when I hear that the rampant drug use is a reason why a decent percentage of students either leave or end up not graduating, a red flag goes up. </p>
<p>The fact that only 85% of students return for their sophomore year is further evidence that, for many (and probably myself), Reed is a more extreme environment than Brown or Wes. This may also be attributed to the intense academic environment at Reed, where many students graduate with GPAs in the 2.0-2.9 range. As someone that wishes to go on to earn a MBA and to thoroughly enjoy the college experience, Reed is not a place I am particularly interested in.</p>
<p>Politically, I see Brown and Wesleyan as perfect matches, whereas Reed again seems to be the extreme version. From Princeton Review:</p>
<p>"We also heard numerous warnings that "at times the political liberalism of the student body is undoubtedly stifling to fundamentalist Christians and Republicans, which is slightly ironic given the open-mindedness' that Reedies claim to pride themselves on."</p>
<p>I am not necessarily interested in that type of environment. I am well aware of the liberal leanings of Wesleyan and Brown, which is what actually interested me in the schools in the first place. Initially, I was interested in Reed for the same reason, but after I researched it, I was just not very interested for various reasons.</p>
<p>here's the thing, one of my humanities professors was a reedie and basically reed can be summed up as a grad school experience along with a undergraduate experience in 4 years. that being said,
grad school can be brutal, there is no academic hand holding for the most part and there is a lot of reading and writing. that being said, its not impossible, there are people who are ready for this kind of intellectual stimulation. that's not in a bad way either, grad students can be elitist and somewhat closeminded, but i digress. but the real question is, who would choose it straight out of high school? only a pretty esoteric group of people i would think.
yeah i think for a good portion of the student body, its homogenous body of ideas but like grad school if you can back up your ideas and you aren't a demagogue, there is stimulating and yes open intellectual conversation.
as for the gpa, if you work hard there shouldn't be a problem. grad school admissions understand the difficulty of Reed's curriculum. my prof got into the kennedy school of government after a 3.2 at reed so go figure.
i'm not trying to sell the school, personally it sounds painful and I would be happier elsewhere but its all a matter of choices that one is limited to. Personally, a few years of pain and learning there would be better than the mental stagnation i'm having now.</p>