@MikeTyson51 a 36 on the act still equates to a 2370 on the sat, one question off from a perfect score. There is virtually no difference between a 2370 and a 2400. I’m sure the percent acceptance of 2400 scorers is still roughly 23%.
Regardless, you’re missing the point. There is far more to college admissions than test scores and gpa. You need exceptional ec’s, essay, etc. Even still, you can never guarantee acceptance to highly selective colleges.
She applied to Harvard, Yale, and Hilsdale. She was flat out rejected by Harvard and Yale, accepted to Hilsdale but couldn’t afford to go there. She ended up at a southwestern state flagship for undergrad and at UC Berkeley for law school. And she still isn’t satisfied.
Let it be noted that @MikeTyson51 has yet to pay your very modest – and engagingly civil – price for your perfect explication of the facts, @Sue22.
You’d be surprised at for accurate that is for someone obsessed with defining themselves by their 2400 & 4.0, @LordSwag. But I agree this is likely fake.
^ By that post I don’t mean that all people with 2400s and 4.0s think like OP does. I’m just saying some, likely a minority, do.
@MikeTyson51 , I’d really rather not engage you in a debate about whether or not you “deserve” to get into Princeton, or whether or not UC Berkeley, an insanely well-known, selective, and prestigious public university, can be considered a “safety” for you, but I think you should see this. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/brown-university/1752948-brown-university-rd-class-of-2019-results.html
I do not understand this argument.
You say you’re a shoo-in, other people aren’t so sure.
So apply. Apply only to those US universities that are famous enough for your tastes.
And come back next spring to let us know which schools you’ve gotten into.
What’s the point in arguing? In fact, what’s the point in the whole thread?? You seemed pretty convinced from the beginning that the Ivies would be knocking down your door to get you enrolled. You said you liked Princeton, and insist, time and again, that they’ll accept you.
So apply. You’re right, the numbers are wrong, you’ll get in.
And, in your spare time, you may want to read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/education/04colleges.html?_r=0
Yes, I know it’s several years old. But it still makes the same point as many people on this thread.
And you still owe @Sue22 that apology. Kudos to her for her class.
I think you should look at CalTech.
When I was at Princeton (grad school), the faculty argued in favor of increasing the percentage of admittees with top academic credentials to 15% of the Freshman class. They lost.
MODERATOR’S NOTE
@MikeTyson51 You chose to ask for chances. Other members have given you their opinions. If you do not like their opinions, you are free to ignore them. However, challenging every member is not going to change their minds.
To everybody else, if you think he lives under a bridge, don’t feed him 
@MikeTyson51, boy do I have a lot things I want to say just from reading some of your posts on the first page of this thread.
I just want to remark that the valedictorian from my high school this year had a 2400 SAT, stellar grades, and an extraordinarily high GPA but was flat out rejected from Princeton after being deferred early action. She had tons of extracurriculars, was a very very sweet person, and I honestly cannot find one fault about her.
Another student from my high school applied with lesser GPA, test scores, and did just the average extracurriculars activities. That student didn’t apply early action, and only applied regular and got in. I cannot say that the student didn’t deserve it, for I didn’t read the application. All I can say is that it wasn’t what everyone expected.
Just to note that the college admissions process is a blind shot taken. Once you have the qualitative numbers and are in their range, you have just as much of a shot as anyone else. A 2400 on your SAT is superb, but it’s not your ticket in. You’re competing with extraordinarily bright students in all facets: academically, extracurricularly, and personality wise. No matter where you apply, you will never be what is called “a shoo-in” simply because there is no such student. When I applied this past year, I was rejected from all of my target schools and accepted into a few of my reach. It made no sense to me – what did I have to make me desirable to some schools and less desirable for schools that I was expected to get into? You’ll never know until you apply, and never go in thinking you’re all that great. Be humble, for you never know who you’re competing against.
Apply to schools because you like them, not for prestige. If you really like Princeton, go for it! But don’t cut other incredible schools off your list simply because they don’t have the prestige factor. There are a lot of gems that people tend to glance over. And, as cliche as it sounds, it’s what you make of your college experience, not necessarily the brand name.
And I know you’re from abroad, where some universities may solely/very very very strongly look at your academics to decide whether to accept you or not (I could be wrong with this statement). In the U.S., once you’ve crossed the barrier into the zone where you’re in their academic range, your extra curriculars, experiences, and personality in your essays are what can make or break you. Although to some of us, we think that they take too little time on an application, admissions officers really are faced with a tough job of trying to make a diverse class - diverse in race, religion, socioeconomic status, and, most importantly in my opinion, in thought. Bringing many intelligent people with different experiences allows us to learn from our classmates too, so many colleges are looking beyond the scores and numbers before they say ‘yes.’
In the end, you’ll get into the college which fits you best – it may be the school you thought was right from the beginning or a completely different one. Keep an open mind, apply if you feel like you have a decent chance, and just hope for the best. It’s all one can do, in the end.
I wish you the best, and I honestly hope that you change your attitude for your own sake. Not just for the college process, but for you as a human being.
Good luck.
Assuming you are serious and not just amusing yourself with all this, there are two areas in particular where you appear to have as fixed “knowns” things that are in fact not true. That is why you are being so argumentative and bewildered by what you are getting as feedback. If you are willing to open your mind to the possibility that many of us have been involved in this area for years and know what we are talking about, maybe you can then also accept why you are approaching this from what most of us would consider the wrong perspective.
The first thing you have as an incorrect premise is the 2400 SAT and its value. It’s a rare achievement, for sure. But, and this is a big but, when schools like Harvard say they consider all SAT scores between 2200-2400 as equivalent, they mean it. I know this is disappointing for you at some level given your score, but you have to get over that and quit denying it as if it isn’t true. The statistics everyone have thrown at you show that it clearly is true. So why do schools look at things beyond test scores and GPA when considering admission? That brings me to point #2 of where you seem to be off track.
You have stated several times (and I am paraphrasing of course) that you don’t understand why schools would look at EC’s and other activities and talents when they are supposed to be academic enterprises. They are, indeed, primarily academic institutions, but certainly not exclusively so. Universities are communities that require a variety of “food sources” to thrive. This balanced diet includes not just some of the smartest people in the world, but also talented artists of many stripes, people that have already demonstrated the kind of character that shows a willingness to apply their intelligence and talent to the betterment of their community and the world, people that excel in athletics, and some people that just are different, maybe even edgy. It is this kind of balance that creates a thriving, progressive community, rather than the quite sterile community that would more likely result if the only criteria revolved around dry statistics.
Now you are free to feel that this is wrong on their part, although I cannot imagine why you would. But even if you do, it doesn’t change the fact (and it is a fact) that this is the way it is. And while I didn’t mention it as one of your two main false assumptions, you are also on the wrong track when it comes to prestige, quality, etc. It would take far too long to get into here, and there are many threads about it already, but the USA is blessed with dozens, even a few hundred fine schools that provide first rate undergraduate educations that prepare students for completely successful careers in anything they choose. I won’t argue that Harvard, Yale, Princeton and a few others are not much more famous, but don’t confuse fame with opportunity for your future. A look at the undergraduate institutions of the most successful CEO’s, artists, politicians, charitable foundation founders, doctors, lawyers, etc. will show you that they are often from a wide range of “no-name” schools.
Anyway, try and be a bit less combative and see if you cannot accept that others really do know things. BTW, the whole Einstein did/didn’t teach at Princeton is a technicality. You are both right. He was officially not a tenured prof at the university, but certainly he taught Princeton students sometimes and he is generally associated with the school. It is a pointless argument and not a great reason to pick a school. It would make more sense if there was a current prof you admired, but even then that is more of a grad school reason to pick a school. It makes little difference at the undergrad level.