<p>did anyone here get into columbia without having an sat score about 2100??</p>
<p>I highly doubt it.</p>
<p>it's not all about the SAT score, remember. That doesn't mean, however it doesn't play a big role. They look at it as an important factor in frosh admissions, but it's not 50% of the decision...</p>
<p>Whoever thinks that getting an SAT score above 2100 is the minimum requirement, is an absolute, utter, d-bag.</p>
<p>And for all those who even care about something so trivial as this, you're even worse.</p>
<p>w/ a 25-75 of 2040-2200, i'm sure they're out there.</p>
<p>"I highly doubt it" :P</p>
<p>hey s snack. you should probably do even a little bit of research before you post</p>
<p>
[quote]
hey s snack. you should probably do even a little bit of research before you post
[/quote]
</p>
<p>agreed</p>
<p>I took the SAT when it was on the 1600 scale and my combined verbal/math/writing was 2090</p>
<p>stop being such a snob.... admissions ppl rnt stupid...they know that SAT scores can only say so much about an applicant</p>
<p>Team Shraf - Unite!</p>
<p>He...sorry...I was dislexic and completely read that as "1200"
Yeah, a 2100 is acceptable, but usually only if you have a hook (URM, athlete, geographical, etc)</p>
<p>Haha, yeah I was surprised seeing that from you s snack! :P hehe</p>
<p>i know people who got below a 2100 and got accepted to columbia....and not only URM..an asian male too</p>
<p>the "hook" idea is a myth that ppl who didn't get into a top school....makeup 4 justification
sometimes it is just the fact that colleges didn't want them....</p>
<p>check out my thread above, there are some ppl w/low SATs who got into ivies.</p>
<p>The hook idea is not a myth, or maybe you don't understand the concept of a hook. By arguing that being a recruited athlete will not help your chances, you're making yourself ridiculous. And yes, that's what ppl refer to as a hook.</p>
<p>athlete is not a hook it is a talent....but what u ppl here refer to is a "black athlete" most commonly......going along with the URM and georgraphically disadvantaged thing....</p>
<p>it is nothing but jealousy pure jealousy.... if u read my thread, even an interviewer for ivies posted on there. and read his past threads as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, a 2100 is acceptable, but usually only if you have a hook (URM, athlete, geographical, etc)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i have none of those....its very possible...again SATs only say so much</p>
<p>Yeah, a 2100 is acceptable, but usually only if you have a hook (URM, athlete, geographical, etc)</p>
<p>WRONG</p>
<p>No, it's not wrong.
Sure, lots of people with no hooks snd scores from 2000-2100 get in, but obviously, significantly more of them get rejected.
Your chances go up with SAT scores, just as they do with GPA.</p>
<p>There's an excellent graph in the Revealed Preference Rankings document that illustrates the odds of getting into a top school (I think they used HYP + Caltech) vs your SAT score percentile. As you get to the very top, your odds go way up, although they're still never good. Different schools have different-shaped curves though. I don't know how Columbia's would be.</p>