Words from an Undergrad

<p>Once again, let me flip this around. I don't think there are many applicants who are joking -- that's just too much work. There are, however, applicants who are being forced to apply by alumni parents, who refuse to accept that their kids aren't interested in Princeton, who find clever ways to sabotage their applications. You can do lots with the "favorites" section.</p>

<p>my idea is to be myself... perhaps that's better!!</p>

<p>hbarns, there are definitely people who are jokes. Maybe they don't even know they don't have a chance, but there are. I know from experience.</p>

<p>I agree. I've read their applications. They get nailed in the the rating process, and you don't waste time on them.</p>

<p>I thought a sense of humor was appreciated though?
=/
Good thing, I stayed serious then haha.</p>

<p>I know someone with a 21xx who applied to Stanford EA. Realistically though, anything under 23xx = rejection from the elite institutions, even if you think you have great EC's. You'd have to be very qualified EC-wise (national finalist/champion) to slip buy with 21xx or low 22xx.</p>

<p>I have a low 22xx
But then again I was twice a national champion.
yay =)</p>

<p>Yeah, but even if they get thrown out right away, they still count in the 17000 applicants, thus, of the qualified applicants, the acceptance rate would be slightly higher than the total acceptance rate.</p>

<p>That is accurate. The obvious admits are quick reads, too. It's the 14,000 in the middle who keep you up at night! :)</p>

<p>haha true, true. =)
So do SATs really count that much?
I'm hearing various answers.
I was told anything above a 2200 is good, so that's why I stopped after the first time.</p>

<p>I think that the SATs establish that you're in the ballpark of a credible candidate. Beyond that, the essays and teacher recs play a huge role. Remember, the margin of error on the SATs is enough that you can't split hairs on 100 point differences. You've got to go with the qualitative info.</p>

<p>I was disappointed by my 22xx (it was low), but I had already signed up for another SAT I from a wayyy back. I found that 22xx is 75%ile for Berkeley, so I was satisfied I guess, and because I didn't care too much about my next SAT, I didn't stress out, and somehow got 23xx.</p>

<p>

2300+ seems ridiculously high. I've heard that 700+ on each section is pretty much required to be in the running, and of course the higher the better, but to automatically reject an applicant because he has a 2200 (let's say 750/730/720) regardless of ECs, essays, recs, and other factors seems a bit harsh.</p>

<p>For whatever it's worth, I have a 2270 (800CR/760M/710W).</p>

<p>From what I've been hearing, it seems that SAT scores are just a guidelines and what they're really looking for are the things that make you stand out.</p>

<p>A 2400 is excellent, but it doesn't qualify as a "hook," am I correct?</p>

<p>agreed with cameliasinesis. but if you look at last year's ed decision thread, most of the accepted kids had sats over 2300.</p>

<p>The initial rating includes test scores, GPA, and ECs. There is no cutoff point based strictly on scores. Unless you're obviously non-competitive, you'll get a fair read. ED. This year.</p>

<p>Next year, I have no idea...</p>

<p>
[quote]
A 2400 is excellent, but it doesn't qualify as a "hook," am I correct?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>More people with 2300+ are rejected than are accepted. You are correct.</p>

<p>Would you say that SATs are more important that unweighted GPA (the 4.0 one) and difficulty of curriculum, less, or would they be about "equal?"</p>

<p>lol all of this talk has made me curious about everything.</p>

<p>ohh miss zanna- jw what are you a national champion at? (you don't have to say)</p>

<p>I'd go with the GPA, b/c that's based on demonstrated accomplishment. SATs are more suggestive of potential. But if you're allocating a valuable spot on proven excellence or potential excellence, usually, you're going to go with the demonstrable.</p>