<p>It seems sort of silly to look at the results of a handful of strangers and make a judgment about the admissions results for 15,000 students. On top of that, no one here knows who is telling the truth about their scores or GPAs or whatever. You don't know what the recommendations looked like, you don't know how the interview truly went, and you don't know what the application looked like when considered holistically and in the context of the entire applicant pool. I don't mean this to be rude- at all- it's just hard to sit back and read blanket statements made by students with little factual basis. More importantly, we all know that when your number one choice school doesn't work out, you'll probably end up quite happy at another equally fantastic institution. And that's my rant for the day.</p>
<p>AiHy:
You're right, of course, but discussions like this one are what these college forums are all about! For one thing, people are honestly looking to determine what went wrong with their applications. Secondly, with record numbers of applicants this year, clearly schools have had to look well beyond stats. They receive thousands of applicants with great stats. For that reason, they must develop a kind of wish list, and what attributes that wish list contains is what posters are trying to discover. College admissions consultants charge big money for partially anecdotal information about what schools are looking for, gleaned from interviews with accepted students. They'll say College X really wants kids to be adventurous. College Y loves applicants who are musically talented. </p>
<p>I take it you're a current student? Naturally, current students want to preserve the image that they were all the cream of the crop, period. But we all know that's not reality. On the regular G-town thread, a kid had abyssmal scores and academic prep, but got admitted anway. He was an URM and said his hook was that his dad got shot and he had an autistic sister. So, now we know that your school feels compassion for hard-luck cases. When my daughter applies, we'll be sure to work in something about her sister who is autistic (which is true, just wouldn't have thought to mention it), lol.</p>
<p>I am NOT saying there are not kids with lower stats than others who get admitted. I'd just be worried if the only kids getting in were those with perfect lives conducive to fantastic achievements. There's more to the application than the quantative aspects.</p>
<p>Yes, "quantitative aspects" aren't everything and that is exactly why this forum exists--to learn what the other intangibles are.</p>
<p>Besides, rejected applicants would rather blame an "unfair" system than be forced to recognize some deficiency in themselves or their accomplishments.</p>
<p>Having said that, however, I wish there were a way for HS students to rank their peers. Guess you'd run the risk of having it turn into a popularity contest, though. Still, kids know which students are the real thing and which are the posers (grinds, brownnosers, etc.) When I graduated, everyone was really surprised to learn the names of our valedictorian and sal.. First, most people didn't even know who they were because they had no social lives and also they simply were not the most outstanding students in even one subject area. There are too many kids who look great on paper and have amassed their list of EC's, but in day to day life they haven't make any impression on others.
For example, my friend's son is a natural leader. When he talks, people of all ages listen. Kids hang around his locker to soak up his confidence, ask his advice, etc. He's like a mentor to other students. Despite never having held a leadersip position as a class officer or in student govt., other students recognized his charisma and maturity and he was still put on the yearbook ballot for "most likely to be President" along with the class president. Of course he has accomplishments too, but his parents worry that his intangible attributes won't be recognized.</p>
<p>honestly, were all kinda stupid for applying SFS. the acceptance rates are the lowest of all the schools. Also, my interviewer told me SFS carries the rep for the whole school and the other programs aren't that strong (Sorry to anyone in those, im just saying what i heard).</p>
<p>She told me the SFS students have to work the hardest and the business school is full of the stereotypical "those guys," the kinda guys like the boyfriend in Wedding Crashers.</p>
<p>Does anyone know how many people applied to SFS and how many got in? The class is around 350, I know.</p>
<p>So I'm seriously considering going to SFS, but just out of curiosity: what are career options for someone out of SFS? How prestigious is a degree from SFS when applying for law school? What do other people who got in hope to do later?</p>
<p>"honestly, were all kinda stupid for applying SFS. the acceptance rates are the lowest of all the schools. Also, my interviewer told me SFS carries the rep for the whole school and the other programs aren't that strong (Sorry to anyone in those, im just saying what i heard).</p>
<p>She told me the SFS students have to work the hardest and the business school is full of the stereotypical "those guys," the kinda guys like the boyfriend in Wedding Crashers."</p>
<p>Those are generalizations. The pre-med kids and basically anyone who takes Arabic or Chinese who doesn't speak it already work about as hard, if not moreso, than the average SFS person. MSB has plenty of "those guys" but also alot of foreign students who will go back to run the economies of their countries, people who are looking to go businesspeople, etc.</p>
<p>These scores are all really high though - I kind of feel like I would've had a hard time getting into the SFS now...and I I'm only 2 years ahead of yall heh.</p>
<p>the letter said 15,040 applied, and 1,500 got in</p>
<p>For SFS or the university in general?</p>
<p>that has to be for the university in general</p>
<p>as for future career options... I talked to a guy at SFS right now and he says that Goldman Sachs is the biggest employer of SFS graduates, they become like international finance consultants or something? Apparently before going to Law/Business school (as I think most SFS grads do?) a lot of them want to earn some cash first so they'll work for a while. </p>
<p>I really wanted to work for the government and I kind of expected SFS to be some kind of awesome feeder into government service, but according to the guy I talked to, only 2% of SFS grads end up working for the government.</p>
<p>If it's only 2%, it's by choice. The Gov recruits heavily on campus</p>
<p>SFS is the biggest feeder into positions at the State Department and in the US Foreign Service, so I find that hard to believe.</p>
<p>A lot of my sister's friends who were in SFS, she was in the College, are now Vice Consuls in the Foreign Service. And we're talking about 26 year olds.</p>
<p>SFS is also most likely the biggest feeder into a lot of other things including the CIA.</p>
<p>yeah, I'm probably remembering something wrong then, 2% does seem implausibly low</p>
<p>woohoo! government service!</p>
<p>not sure. in general perhaps?</p>
<p>2% of 350 is 7. Definitely more than 7 people go into government from SFS every year...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah I'd say it's probably more like half. Even more when you consider the numbers indirectly serving the government at non-profit, non-partisan foreign policy thinktanks, or quasi-governmental organizations like the Atlantic Council, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
honestly, were all kinda stupid for applying SFS. the acceptance rates are the lowest of all the schools. Also, my interviewer told me SFS carries the rep for the whole school and the other programs aren't that strong (Sorry to anyone in those, im just saying what i heard).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>I was, until last year when I quit because I couldn't spare the time, an alumni interviewer for GTown. I graduated from the College and made it a point to never, ever badmouth or falsely pump-up a school's rep within the university. How your interviewer can make such a patently false claim - the College, not SFS, is statistically the toughest to get into, with the lowest admit rate, unless that's changed this year - astonishes me.</p>
<p>Each school has its strengths and weakness. SFS does a great job of prepping its students to analyze policy but completely insulates them from any science requirements (hence its other name, Safe From Science). How are SFS policy analysts supposed to respond, for instance, when someone raises environmental concerns about energy or technology policy when SFSers barely understand the basics of environmental science?</p>
<p>
[quote]
She told me the SFS students have to work the hardest and the business school is full of the stereotypical "those guys," the kinda guys like the boyfriend in Wedding Crashers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as the SFS academic demands are concerned, I can tell you from firsthand experience that SFSers are the first to whine about their workloads and the first to shut up when the pre-meds, language majors, and even the nurses start slamming their 20-pound textbooks on the table in front of them. It's fun listening to them complain but it gets old after a few days and they're still at it.</p>
<p>SFSers like to think they're the cat's meow. They're not.</p>
<p>They're fun to toy with, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SFS is the biggest feeder into positions at the State Department and in the US Foreign Service, so I find that hard to believe.</p>
<p>A lot of my sister's friends who were in SFS, she was in the College, are now Vice Consuls in the Foreign Service. And we're talking about 26 year olds.</p>
<p>SFS is also most likely the biggest feeder into a lot of other things including the CIA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One of my best friends from Georgetown, an SFS grad, is now a consular officer at our embassy in Baghdad. He told me that while the political appointees (Sec of State, et al) may be the titular heads, the SFS grads at the State Dept. make it clear to all that THEY are the alpha-dogs in the system. Not sure if others respect that, mind you, but the attitude is nonetheless there.</p>
<p>And for the record, a vice consul is an entry-level foreign service position. So being one at 26 is expected.</p>
<p>chimpchimpcheree -</p>
<p>I was under the impression that the statistical difference between College admission rate and SFS was like a percentage point or two. But what you fail to point out is that SFS is fantastically more self-selective than the College. The profile of the SFS acceptees is essentially in-line with Harvard with a mid-50% SAT verbal of 700-780 and I believe something like a mean class rank of 96 or 97%. Those, of course, are unpublished figures as far as I know. SFS also has a way higher yield rate than the other Georgetown schools (way over 50%). </p>
<p>My sister is an alumni interviewer and a graduate of the College and she put me getting into SFS on a completely different plane than her getting into the College. </p>
<p>My alumni interviewer was in SFS for his first two years and then he transferred to the College to graduate a year early and save some money. And he indicated the same thing. He told me there was a distinct cultural and work-ethic difference between most College majors and SFS, based on his experience as a student in both. SFS is unimpeachably the pinnacle of Georgetown, even if not its foundation, and to suggest otherwise borders on the absurd. </p>
<p>And that doesn't mean I'm knocking the other components of Georgetown. The College is obviously extremely strong--stronger than ever--and I know from my sister's experience GTown put her in an awesome place in terms of graduate school, and they all seemed to really love the massive thesis she was required to write in the college for her major. </p>
<p>Finally, to suggest that SFS students have no grasp of science does a disservice to the school. I, for one, have taken over four years of math and over four years of laboratory science in high school (1 year of chem & physics each, 2 of bio, 1 of environmental science), scored a five on the AP Biology exam, etc. Just because my passion is IR does not mean that I, or other SFS admitees/students, are not equally competent academically in math and science as we are in the social sciences and humanities. I</p>
<p>I was accepted EA.</p>
<p>2260 (800CR, 740 Math, 720W)
Ranked 1/130
I go to public school, and I'm from America... so I had an issue with that generalization.
National Merit Finalist, Co-Secretary General of Model UN, yearbook editor, president of NHS.
Middle class, white, female.
Georgetown was my first choice and SFS is essentially the perfect academic program for me. After reading everyone else's stats and other things "on paper," I feel fortunate, once again, to have been admitted. </p>
<p>Reading this thread reminds me of the decisions thread on the Yale forum, except I am on the other (rejected) side of that one. Everyone always says that college admissions are incredibly arbitrary and unpredictable, but it never really hit home until now, when I am reading all sorts of stats with different combinations of acceptances, rejections, and waitlistings (is that a word?). </p>
<p>I am very happy to have gotten into SFS and appreciate the talents of those who were rejected. In all likelihood, some of you are the ones who got into Yale, Harvard, and Dartmouth, and all the other Ivies and highly ranked colleges, so obviously one school's decision shouldn't make a person feel horrible. </p>
<p>That's just where I am right now, wanted to share some thoughts.</p>