<p>The UC emphasis on GPA is very real. Last year my son's test scores were all well above the 75th percentile at all UC campuses but he only had a 3.9 "UC weighted GPA" - and wasn't accepted at UCLA or Berkeley or UCSD. I wouldn't pitch the top UC schools as being "SAT friendly". My daughter just scored a 31 on the ACT and I don't consider her to be a likely candidate for any of those schools either. And yes, UC eliminated race as an admissions factor, although, "first in family to college", "bad quality high school" and "lower economic background" all can be a help for an individual; still, the number of URMs at UC is insignificant as an admissions factor.</p>
<p>As far as Michigan goes, GPA is definitely far more important than SATs.</p>
<p>I'm in-state and didn't get in with a 3.97 weighted (~3.4 unweighted, and maybe 3.2 by UM's standards). My SAT was a 2260, and my ACT a 34. I also had strong SAT IIs (780, 790, 750) and AP scores (four 5's, one being my Calc AB subscore; & 2 fours).</p>
<p>A lot of my friends fared similarly. We are members of a prestigious magnet program that UM certainly does know about. All UM cares about is the grade you got. Difficulty of classes doesn't really matter, nor does SAT scores.</p>
<p>I was accepted to Carnegie Mellon, and to Case & UMiami with generous scholarships.</p>
<p>This matches my daughter's experience at Michigan. That you went to a magnet school that Michigan draws from heavily was a big impediment. One of the reasons for emphasizing grades rather than SAT is that for minorities grade differences are less stark than SAT differences. That emphasis is generalized to non-minority admits as well.</p>
<p>In response to all the Athlete/Legacy/URM talk, if you want to find out if your SAT is competitive, just estimate that this group makes up the bottom 25% of the SAT scores range. So, I would bet that the average score for someone without being an A/L/Urm is around the 75th percentile (or top of the middle 50% range). </p>
<p>I also second the idea that WashU is a numbers whore. They have ridiculously high SAT scores, (considering they are non-ivy and considered less prestigious), and all the weaker students from my school go there. Basically all the kids who didnt think they could get into Cornell ED decide to apply there, and only get in because of scores.</p>
<p>Actually MerryXmas, it's a magnet program within our very uncompetitive public school.</p>
<p>Most of the applicants from the program did not get in because although they got excellent grades by the program's standards, they didn't necessarily get all A's. Those who did end up with all A's got in, as well as people from outside the program who took less difficult classes.</p>
<p>Odyssey wrote:</p>
<p>"I don't think it is fair to focus on affirm action without also mentioning legacy and athlete preferences. Altho I don't know how important legacy status is to public universities."</p>
<p>While athletic preferences are substantial, they really aren't very controversial (perhaps they should be). As for legacy preferences, they are trivial at most colleges. Michigan's point system (struck down by the Supreme Court) gave only a few points for legacies, compared with very large preferences for being a minority. Michigan's law school preference system (which was upheld) gave even stronger preferences for minorities than the college did.</p>
<p>If affirmative action preferences were generally only as large as legacy preferences, there would be no public dispute about affirmative action in this country. Few opponents of affirmative action (I favor AA) would protest just putting a thumb on the scales.</p>
<p>Given that some universities who are legally prohibited from using affirmative action (eg, in Calif. and Michigan) are striving to admit minorities despite what the law says, I have little doubt that the paper credentials of legacy admits at those schools still greatly outstrips those of minority admits from groups previously benefiting from open affirmative action.</p>
<p>I have been a faculty member for a long time. Of the 19 schools listed on this site as "CC Top Universities," I have taught courses at three of them, and given lectures at another 11 of them. I held the views I expressed above even before the only school that my daughter was turned down by was a private one that I have one degree from and my wife has 2 degrees from, a school where she had been a professor. My daughter had 800 Verbal and 800 Writing, and good grades. She got into two schools as selective as the legacy one that turned her down; only about 10% of the class at the legacy school that turned her down had an 800 Verbal.</p>
<p>If legacy preferences were even a tenth as strong as affirmative action preferences, she would have been one of the school's most sought after admits. (But as I pointed out in an earlier post, that does not mean that she necessarily would have been admitted to that legacy college without an affirmative action system in place for such a small part of the entering class.)</p>
<p>Legacy admission may be unprincipled, but because it is relatively trivial in size, it is little more than a debater's point in the overall scheme of things.</p>
<p>washington university in st louis... how do you think they go from a revealed preference rank of **65<a href="barely%20beating%20holy%20cross,%20george%20washington,%20and%20fordham">/B</a> to SAT scores that rival top 10 schools? well that and their waitlisting policies</p>
<p>Worcester Polytechnic Institute, if you are math/science inclined. GPA is also a big part of the package as well, but they're very much a stats focused admissions office. And they do merit scholarships for stats.</p>
<p>So please don't miss guide people. Tell the whole story. </p>
<p>What whole story? A few years ago, the valedictorian of our high school did not get into UCLA while kids below him were getting into HYPS. He had a high GPA, good scores but few ECs and that is not an isolated story. UCLA then was a mystery -- kids who got into Berkeley sometimes did not get into UCLA and kids with lower scores and grades did if they had good ECs or were into sports. There were no bad comments as the UCs don't even ask for recommendations or anything. Around these parts (LA) UCLA was well known to be much more baffling than Berkeley. I'm hoping that their revamped admissions process is not as odd.</p>
<p>It's a sad day when an in-state resident can't go to ucla with norcal's stats. </p>
<p>Yes, it is. And it really does happen.</p>
<p>aphoticmelody-when did you apply to Michigan (I heard it gets hard to get in later in the year due to rolling)? Even though your GPA leaves a little to be desired, then again, it is a little to be desired. Also, you are instate with high SAT's.</p>
<p>My application was sent in on October 31st. :) And I forgot to mention before that I'm legacy through several family members, including both parents - although my brother failed out, which may have negatively affected me.</p>
<p>Honestly I never had any intention of attending Michigan; it was supposed to be my one in-state safety in case none of my other schools worked out. (Hah!)</p>
<p>I found it puzzling that I was rejected, but certainly not disappointing! :)</p>
<p>Michigan will randomly select people who logically should get in easy to deny in order to have stories like this.</p>
<p>My HS had a get who had a 3.9, 34 ACT, and was captain of FB and Tennis get turned down a couple years back. This year they took a girl with a 3.1, 22, and played tennis(not captain, ONLY extracurricular).</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> in a pessimistic light, it doesn't really matter in the end when your future is being decided by arbitrary college students who may one time or another have a bad day and write you off a rejection. </p>
<p>Or those whom can relate to your essays because they too may have experienced the same thing.</p>
<p>Or those who hate your essay's topic from their own biases. :(</p>
<p>University of California schools have been vocal about NOT placing emphasis on SAT scores. Other colleges like Guilford College accept a portfolio instead of SAT scores.</p>
<p>So, no chance at UC Berkeley Haas with a 3.74 from an okay-known school and test scores on par with HYP standards?</p>
<p>Duke, Dartmouth, Caltech, and MIT (the latter two, more so for the math) come to mind as top schools which place a heavy emphasis on SAT scores..
however, they place a stronger emphasis on the "1600 score" than the "2400 score".
WashU can be considered a school like that.. as long as you stay on their waitlist, :p</p>
<p>I got into Duke with a 1550/2270, over someone in my school who had a 1510/2300 for Early Decision, but on the other hand that is only one case.</p>
<p>Other schools such as Brown (but less so in recent years..) will accept "quirky applicants" with "below-average" SAT scores..</p>
<p>Wharton, for obvious reasons, will accept someone with a 1400 who has shown that he is interested in business over the person with a 1600 who applied to Wharton since it is Wharton..</p>
<p>UCLA is still highly selective for bio majors. My stats aren't quite to norcalguy's standard (SAT 2260, not all 5s on AP, 4.13 UC weighted), but I was accepted at Berkeley and for the Campuswide Honors Program at Irvine; also accepted by Emory--rejected by UCLA. Case Western offered me a Trustee's Scholarship at almost full tuition--and guaranteed four years of campus housing. Even sophomores are in doubles converted to triples at UCLA. I'm going to Case.</p>
<p>Rochester, I think.</p>
<p>i got in to duke with a 1440/2130 and a 3.6 GPA. but i had a 34 ACT</p>