<p>I have another scenario for you guys. I am trying to see if you guys might have the answer to this scenario. </p>
<p>Student 1: GPA 3.98
SAT: 2260 taken only one time
SAT II: 780 M 780 Chem 740 French
Course Load: Hardest
ECs: Minimal- club member, 1 year varsity sport</p>
<p>Student 2: GPA:3.83
SAT: 2170 super score: 2220
SAT II: 730 M 740 Chem 790 US History
Course Load: Hardest
ECs: Very High- multiple state/national level awards, 2 club leadership positions,
400 hours+ volunteering, 3 years varsity sport, musical instrument,
active theater actor</p>
<p>Both students took IDENTICAL APs other than language (one took spanish AP and the other french AP) and student 2 was another year ahead in math than student 1. However, student 1 was already a year ahead in math so the same number of math aps were taken ( student 2 skipped pre calc and went directly to calc bc as a sophomore)</p>
<p>So who gets into ...UCs ( primarily LA, SD and Berk), tier 2 schools ( like JHU Rice WUSTL) and if either of them get in..Ivy leagues and the likes (HYPDCC you know the rest)</p>
<p>This is actually based on real people both of whom I have not asked results of. They both attend the same school, are of the same race (indian) and live in the same demographic (ie no major diff in family income). The only legacies I can think of is Student 2 had an older sister at JHU 2 years ago and student 1's dad did his master's at UCLA a while back. </p>
<p>So CCers you tell me. Who do you think gets in where and why do you think so?</p>
<p>Yea both of them are in state. So are you saying that the second student might not get into SD, La or Berkeley? A year ago that might have stunned me but after asking around I wouldnt be surprised if the second student only got as far as UC irvine or UC davis. any other opinions?</p>
<p>Student 2 awards: In FBLA 3rd and 4th in nationals ( 2000 competitors each)
2nd and 3rd in states ( 200 and 400 competitors)
1st two times in sections ( 50-60) competitors
VP and P of FBLA chapter (sophmore VP junior senior P)
Regional Science/Engineering/Technology fair won 1st place ( also
won most innovative design)
UC GPAs: student 1 4.28 out of 4.3 possible
student 2 4.19 out of 4.3 possible
Again, just to clarify are you guys saying that student 2 would not get into any of the UCs or are you saying it is just more likely that student 1 will get in compared to student 2? Anymore opinions?</p>
<p>Those aren’t tier 2 schools. They are top 20 tier 1 schools. Possibly neither of the students you mention would get into those schools, which have such an overabundance of excellent applicants that the schools can pick high stat students with excellent ECs.</p>
<p>Hmm…perhaps I am being too lenient but I would think/hope (for my own sake) that both students would get in to all the UCs. There might be a possibility that student 2 gets rejected from Berkeley but I would be very scared for my chances if a 3.8/2200/Multiple FBLA awards was flat out rejected from UC Berkeley. As for the “tier 2” schools I am going to say that student 2 has a slight upper hand here despite his/her GPA. I would say that student two would get into Rice/JHU if he/she was to apply early where as student 1 would get deffered and then later rejected by these colleges. As for the actual Ivy league school I dont seem them getting into any other than maybe Cornell ( here I feel that student 2 has the edge).</p>
<p>@Northstarmom: Please. Students from my schools get into WUSTL and JHU (almost no one applies to Rice) with 3.5’s and minimal extracurriculars. You don’t need to be a superstar to get into either of those schools.</p>
<p>Okay then. Please explain to me how a 4.0/2400 SAT I/2400 SAT II’s/Intel Semifinalist/2X USABO semifinalist didn’t get into Wash U. Or, how about the other fantastic students that didn’t get in (just look at the decisions thread)? Wash U and JHU are, by no means possible, easy for ‘non-superstars,’ whatever that term even means, to get admitted into. Otherwise, 80% of the applicants wouldn’t be denied admittance to either of those places.</p>
<p>They’re not admitting GPA’s and they know that; they’re admitting people. The only purpose of the SAT’s and GPA are to tell whether or not a student can handle the particular workload at a given university. As such, seeing as Student 2 is clearly qualified to handle the workload at any university in the nation, Student 2 has a higher chance to get admitted to schools with competitive admissions processes.</p>
<p>4.0/2400 SAT I/2400 SAT II’s/Intel Semifinalist/2X USABO semifinalist didn’t get into Wash U?</p>
<p>Probably so they can protect their yield, no one of that caliber would choose washu really, and you definitely don’t need to be a superstar, in fact as you can see from that scenario, being a superstar = bad for washu applicants. You obviously don’t need to be a superstar, as you can also see from the same decisions thread that you refer to since there were many that were accepted with subpar stats. You even say they “admit people” and that SATs and GPA’s only show whether they can handle a certain workload, contradicting your earlier point about having to be a superstar dumbass</p>
<p>@motion: Wash U waitlists top-level applicants because they fear those applicants will matriculate to a superior school (Ivy) and they want to keep their acceptance rates low. And I’m not saying it’s easy for an average student to get accepted to Wash U. This isn’t the case. I’m saying it’s fairly common for Wash U to accept students with average GPA’s and high test scores. This happens year after year at my high school, and I simply don’t believe the people who tell me that this isn’t the case. Also, your assertion that the only purpose of GPA is to determine whether or not a student can handle the workload at a given school is asinine. Why would you want to admit a student who can “handle” the workload when you can admit a student who would dominate the coursework?</p>
<p>Woah there! Looks like my choice of words sparked a little animosity. Right off the bat I take back my “tier 2” statement. Rice and JHU at least in my eyes are top notch universities which provide incredible opportunities for eduaction. They are in the top twenty for a reason. However, I merely wanted to draw the line between the truly elite ( Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford MIT) from these schools. HYPSM is essentially a crapshot for everyone despite thier “stats”. It is entirely possible for a 4.0 2400 student to get rejected from one of these schools. On these threads never once have I read a chance thread in which someone said HYPSM was a “match” or a target for the OP. On the otherhand there have been countless instances where JHU or Rice have been noted as “targets”. Now the students for which Rice and JHU are matches are undoubtedly amazing students but I find it hard to believe they would be on the same level of accomplishment as say a student who gets into Harvard. Once more just to emphasize, I am not arrogant enough to say that Rice/JHU schools are not worth of signifcant respect ( my “chance me” threads can attest to this), I just wanted to classify the schools in different categories. Any other opinions?</p>
<p>Student 2 gets in everywhere because they have demostrated that they can contribute to the institution in many ways in addition to academics…i.e. they can live and thrive in the real world. The consistent and varied ECs demonstrate that they have perserverance and consistency.</p>
<p>This has been proven to be false 50 billion times already…Wash U has a 20% acceptance rate and has SAT score ranges comparable to any top school in the nation (and yes, even higher than some of your godlike Ivy League schools). It DOES NOT waitlist overqualified candidates. Just look at the decisions thread from this year…the average SAT score of accepted students was higher than that of waitlisted students and the EC’s were, qualitatively speaking, equivalent in ‘impressiveness’ if you will. And, I don’t see how waitlisting people that may go to Ivy League schools could possibly lower the acceptance rate…perhaps it could raise the yield rate but I don’t see how that could lower their acceptance rate (given that for every ‘overqualified’ applicant waitlisted there was one who was ‘less qualified’ and was accepted). Anyways, Wash U has such a low yield which means that they are accepting students that also get into “Ivies” and lose them to these ‘superior’ institutions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My comment is somehow asinine…? Okay then… Why would an institution care whether a student dominates his/her coursework or simply “handles” his/her coursework? Student 2 clearly will be able to graduate and will actually be able to contribute something to campus and has a better chance of being more successful in life unless you can somehow show how having a 3.98 GPA somehow makes you more likely to be successful in life than having a 3.83 GPA… As well, why would a college want a student who can just get good grades in classes? By grades alone, you can’t tell whether or not a student actually contributes to a classroom environment or is just some person who thinks that they possess some sort of innate intelligence and studies a decent amount, leading them to just have good grades which, in the long run, doesn’t matter at all.</p>
Yield bro. Let me tell you, and I exaggerate not, WashU accepted at least 20 kids from my school this year. And none of them were even close to that guy. College admissions is a game for a college as much as it is one for the applicant.</p>
<p>
Top 20 schools are now comparable to the Olympics as well? Seriously though, both students stand pretty strong chances at all of those. They aren’t, as much as I cringe to say this in a response to you, Harvard.</p>
<p>For All of you who followed/replied to this post here are the results
Student 1:
Accepted Rejected: Cornell AEM, Columbia, Upenn, Uchicago and Brown<br>
UC davis
UC SD
UC LA
UC Berkeley
Johns Hopkins
NYU stern
Rice
Duke</p>
<p>Student 2
Accepted Waitlisted: Brown Rejected: UC Berkeley, Rice, Duke, Columbia and Yale
UC davis
UC SD
UC LA
Johns Hopkins
USC Marshall
Cornell AEM
NYU stern
University of Chicago</p>
<p>Well I dont think that there is any doubt that they both fared rather well in the grand scheme of it all. However I must say, I was taken aback by the fact that Student 2 got into Chicago as well as Cornell where as Student 1 was not. Furthermore, Student 2 managed to get into Chicago, Stern, Cornell and Hopkins but not into Berkeley…does that seem extremely weird for anyone else? Do you think that these acceptances/rejections are deserving or do you think that, as is my opinion, Student 2 got a bit lucky compared to student 1 ( who still got into AMAZING places). </p>
<p>Any input?
( I think Student 1 is going to Rice for Math/Econ and Student 2 is deciding between Cornell/Stern/Chicago econ/finance)</p>
Seriously though, both students stand pretty strong chances at all of those. They aren’t, as much as I cringe to say this in a response to you, Harvard.</p>