|
On September 05 2010 05:11 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 03:48 love1another wrote:
2.) Extracurriculars that don't imply unethical/illegal activity can almost never hurt. They say to the college "I'm not a weirdo/robot." This is definitely true, but I think it's kind of an understatement. Especially when you're talking about Ivy League schools, where pretty much everyone who gets accepted is going to have near-perfect grades and SAT scores (unless they're a minority), what you did outside of school is going to be what makes your application. Some extracurriculars may help demonstrate certain qualities you have (like leadership) or give you some sort of experience in your intended field (academic clubs, etc.), but that's not the most important part. Extracurriculars not only prove that you're capable of multitasking many responsibilities outside of one area, but they also provide evidence for the college that you are a well-adjusted individual by showing that you have hobbies and interests. These qualities all point to you being a more successful person down the line. (Also, you will be hard pressed to find anything to write an essay about in your application if you haven't done anything outside of schoolwork.)
This. In addition, another key advantage of extracurriculars comes down to definition: Extracurriculars are something you do on your own initiative. A self-motivated learner is something that all top schools are looking for, and being involved in an extracurricular activity is an excellent way to demonstrate this quality.
|
what can i do if i didn't get accepted into the school I wanted?
|
On September 05 2010 01:16 SubtleArt wrote:
On average what grades do you need to enter a good univiersity? I wanna enter some sort of science courses (cause that's where I want my career to be headed) at a good Canadian university like WAterloo, Queens, or Mcgill. Not sure if my marks are up to scratch though (low 90s in history, english and math, but only only 86 in Chemistry and 84 in biology).
Also, what grades do Canadian universities look at? Does the first term of grade 12 matter as much as your grade 11 marks? I'm in grade 12 this year. Basically, if I can get 90s in Chem and Biology this year will universities still accept me or will they go "na, ur grade 11 marks sucked for the sciences and you're trying to enter a science course....GTFO"?
And yes, how many schools should I apply to?
Grade 11 marks matter. However you should also work your ass-off first term of grade 12 as they look at those even more. Typically with me, they looked at gr. 11 marks when looking for early acceptances, solid gr. 11 marks - more chance of an early acceptance. Universities won't decline you for having bad gr. 11 marks though, it just may take longer for you to get an acceptance letter.
|
On September 05 2010 05:14 geometryb wrote:
what can i do if i didn't get accepted into the school I wanted?
Did you get waitlisted or flat-out rejected? If you got wait-listed it's quite likely that if you express continued interest in the school, via emails, and updates, that you can still get in. My friend got into both Yale and Princeton on waitlist simply by continuing to let them know he was interested.
If, however, you got flat-out rejected, it's 99% of the time not worth your time to push the issue further. Evaluate your other options and almost always you'll find that wherever you end up will be awesome. 
|
when do people usually visit colleges? before they apply or after they get accepted?
|
On September 05 2010 06:01 geometryb wrote:
when do people usually visit colleges? before they apply or after they get accepted?
I know people who have done both. In my experience, the "before accepted" trips are optional, but the "after accepted" trips are basically mandatory.
|
On September 05 2010 05:12 KazeHydra wrote:
I'm going to say something that I notice a lot of high school students don't ask but should know and consider. It may be slightly off topic, but too many seniors don't think about this. I highly discourage applying/attending a college that you barely managed to get into. I'll explain.
It's very common for people to apply to top colleges with no real expectations because they understand their grades/scores/etc are not too great, but by some miracle they get in, all happy that they got into such a great school. In 2 or 3 years, they drop out, sometimes even in 1 year. Although it's great that you got accepted, it's really not a good decision to go to a school that you didn't think you had a decent chance for (unless you're just being paranoid). This is because, to be blunt, you probably can't actually handle it. Despite what parents may say (maybe this is just an Asian parent thing; being an Asian, I wouldn't know) going to the best college you can get into is not always the wisest choice.
Now, this is not always the case. Sometimes students slacked off in high school, get into a good college and then take school seriously and succeed. Good for them! But, please think carefully when it comes to the top schools, or at least the best schools that you apply for. Underestimating the rigor of college (particularly the "upper tier" ones) is not something to be taken lightly. If after contemplation, you think you can succeed in such a place, by all means go for it. I'm not here to prevent it; I just want to make people aware of it. Choosing your college is a huge decision; don't make a bad decision because of a college's prestige. I'm sorry to say I probably can't help with any specific questions regarding this, and I feel awkward leaving such questions to OP, but whenever I encounter "applying to college" topics, I almost always see this issue neglected, despite being a serious consideration in my opinion.
That's the end of my little rant. Good luck to all applicants and good job helping others, OP.
Well... given that the acceptance rate at all the top schools of which you speak are <10%, you can almost rest assured that the false positives, those that happened to get in that didn't deserve to, are completely negligible in comparison to those that deserved to get in but didn't. And realistically, surviving at a top school is not very hard. Ivies tend to grade around a B~. If you suck and go to class once in a while, and show up for the exam, you're going to get at least a C. Flunking out is actually damn near impossible if you can, like, read English. Furthermore, if you find yourself lacking in some pre-requisite knowledge, a bunch of resources are always available to help you get to where you want to be... I know for a fact that my college has math/science/writing tutors at every residential unit. And besides, the admissions department knows that along with the IMO finalists and Intel winners, they'll be letting in a few less academically gifted minority students or athletes.
Even places like CalTech, which has a deserved reputation for being hard has fuck, don't count first year GPA so as to let students ease their way into a healthy and interesting courseload without forcing too much stress initially.
I'm not going to continue to further argue that "if you got in, you deserve it, and you should take advantage of it," but if the chance to go to your dream school suddenly becomes a reality, don't throw it away purely on account of modesty. But if you truly are concerned, I'll just tell you that with all the top schools, getting in is the hard part.
|
do you have any information correlating salaries between graduates of top schools (us news and world report) and other schools?
|
On September 05 2010 06:21 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 05:12 KazeHydra wrote:
I'm going to say something that I notice a lot of high school students don't ask but should know and consider. It may be slightly off topic, but too many seniors don't think about this. I highly discourage applying/attending a college that you barely managed to get into. I'll explain.
It's very common for people to apply to top colleges with no real expectations because they understand their grades/scores/etc are not too great, but by some miracle they get in, all happy that they got into such a great school. In 2 or 3 years, they drop out, sometimes even in 1 year. Although it's great that you got accepted, it's really not a good decision to go to a school that you didn't think you had a decent chance for (unless you're just being paranoid). This is because, to be blunt, you probably can't actually handle it. Despite what parents may say (maybe this is just an Asian parent thing; being an Asian, I wouldn't know) going to the best college you can get into is not always the wisest choice.
Now, this is not always the case. Sometimes students slacked off in high school, get into a good college and then take school seriously and succeed. Good for them! But, please think carefully when it comes to the top schools, or at least the best schools that you apply for. Underestimating the rigor of college (particularly the "upper tier" ones) is not something to be taken lightly. If after contemplation, you think you can succeed in such a place, by all means go for it. I'm not here to prevent it; I just want to make people aware of it. Choosing your college is a huge decision; don't make a bad decision because of a college's prestige. I'm sorry to say I probably can't help with any specific questions regarding this, and I feel awkward leaving such questions to OP, but whenever I encounter "applying to college" topics, I almost always see this issue neglected, despite being a serious consideration in my opinion.
That's the end of my little rant. Good luck to all applicants and good job helping others, OP. Well... given that the acceptance rate at all the top schools of which you speak are <10%, you can almost rest assured that the false positives, those that happened to get in that didn't deserve to, are completely negligible in comparison to those that deserved to get in but didn't. And realistically, surviving at a top school is not very hard. Ivies tend to grade around a B~. If you suck and go to class once in a while, and show up for the exam, you're going to get at least a C. Flunking out is actually damn near impossible if you can, like, read English. Furthermore, if you find yourself lacking in some pre-requisite knowledge, a bunch of resources are always available to help you get to where you want to be... I know for a fact that my college has math/science/writing tutors at every residential unit. And besides, the admissions department knows that along with the IMO finalists and Intel winners, they'll be letting in a few less academically gifted minority students or athletes. Even places like CalTech, which has a deserved reputation for being hard has fuck, don't count first year GPA so as to let students ease their way into a healthy and interesting courseload without forcing too much stress initially. I'm not going to continue to further argue that "if you got in, you deserve it, and you should take advantage of it," but if the chance to go to your dream school suddenly becomes a reality, don't throw it away purely on account of modesty. But if you truly are concerned, I'll just tell you that with all the top schools, getting in is the hard part.
well, you're right that the majority of people that get in can at least survive. But I'm not referring to the "whew I managed to get in" type that can survive with a ~2.8 GPA, but rather the "how in the world did this happen?" To relate to starcraft, it would be like a bronze/silver person beating a diamond level player. Just because it happens once, doesn't mean he's diamond level. (this may be more extreme than intended) Furthermore, it's not flunking out that I'm addressing; the people that I said "drop out" choose to leave because either 1)they can't handle the academic pressure/expectations or 2)their grades are far from their expectations. Of course no one realistically expects a 4.0, but for some, they never thought they'd get a C in a class and become incredibly depressed/unmotivated/etc. This specifically applies to the top students at crap schools. It's not their fault; they've never encountered anything challenging before.
But maybe I sounded harsher than I intended. If I somehow made you lose confidence in your academic abilities, please do not listen to me! My goal was only to get people to consider difficulty of the school as a factor when deciding where to go. If it's a person's dream school, that's already a great reason to disregard my post as less than important. Absolutely don't refuse an acceptance solely because of modesty or because it "sounds hard." Do research, ask current attendees, and evaluate yourself as fairly and objectively as possible.
Anyways, I also don't want to continue my argument, especially since there is no absolute to this; it is always dependent on the individual. I also don't want to derail this thread; from what I've read, you've done an excellent job answering questions =)
|
On September 05 2010 03:42 imBLIND wrote:
My unweighted gpa is about a 3.8-3.9 right now, but my SAT is only a 1960. Do colleges overlook inconsistencies like these or do I have to work more to get a 2250+?
Also, if I plan on majoring in some form of engineering, chemical/nano specifically, would extracurriculars in music help me at all?
I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid. My personal estimates rank them in this order:
1. GPA=>Class standing
2. Personal Statement
3. Teacher Recs
3. Extracurricular, especially if you have titles in those groups
5. Standardized testing scores
(Yes I know there are two 3s)
My reasoning for this is that everyone has testing scores and it really doesn't tell shit about you as a student or a person after you reach a certain score plateau. You're class standing indicates potential, if you are not tops in your school, then you already have proven that X amount of people are better than you in your particular situation. Personal statement is big and a lot of kids fuck this up because they can't write about their life worth a damn, aka making it actually personal.
As for your ECs, that's perfectly fine, ECs are suppose to show colleges of your interests and your dedication/involvement with those interests; they're not gonna hold it against someone if their personal interests differ from their academic pursuits.
Don't worry about your SATs unless you sucked it up badly on one particular subject, especially if your math is bad (I consider 750 bad in math, but I am Chinese...) and you want to be in engineering.
Obviously the admissions committee would weigh all the available information they have on you to make a decision, so what I am saying is a rough estimate based on my personal experience with college admissions and what I can gather from other people (since people keep sending me their PSs to read over).
|
On September 05 2010 01:20 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 01:18 Catch]22 wrote:
How much does college cost in the US? This obviously will vary a ton. A top school could cost you like 50,000 dollars a year tuition I bet. Can someone confirm this? If you go to an in-state public university it will vary by state but be more on the order of magnitude of 8-10k tuition per year I think. If you commute to a community college or something like that then it's probably significantly less.
I went to a state school in California and I paid 6k/year without a scholarship.
Attending Georgetown and is around 45k/yr
|
On September 05 2010 08:57 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 03:42 imBLIND wrote:
My unweighted gpa is about a 3.8-3.9 right now, but my SAT is only a 1960. Do colleges overlook inconsistencies like these or do I have to work more to get a 2250+?
Also, if I plan on majoring in some form of engineering, chemical/nano specifically, would extracurriculars in music help me at all? I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid. My personal estimates rank them in this order: 1. GPA=>Class standing 2. Personal Statement 3. Teacher Recs 3. Extracurricular, especially if you have titles in those groups 5. Standardized testing scores (Yes I know there are two 3s) My reasoning for this is that everyone has testing scores and it really doesn't tell shit about you as a student or a person after you reach a certain score plateau. You're class standing indicates potential, if you are not tops in your school, then you already have proven that X amount of people are better than you in your particular situation. Personal statement is big and a lot of kids fuck this up because they can't write about their life worth a damn, aka making it actually personal. As for your ECs, that's perfectly fine, ECs are suppose to show colleges of your interests and your dedication/involvement with those interests; they're not gonna hold it against someone if their personal interests differ from their academic pursuits. Don't worry about your SATs unless you sucked it up badly on one particular subject, especially if your math is bad (I consider 750 bad in math, but I am Chinese...) and you want to be in engineering. Obviously the admissions committee would weigh all the available information they have on you to make a decision, so what I am saying is a rough estimate based on my personal experience with college admissions and what I can gather from other people (since people keep sending me their PSs to read over).
I can't say I really agree with this, though I wouldn't be the one to ask. I do think that after a certain plateau differences don't matter, but I think that plateau is around 2200-2300, a college might consider a 2250 and 2350 pretty equally, but IMO a 1960 will definitely have an impact on your admission chances.
In fact, depending on the school you go to and how much history the college has with that particular high school, a low SAT score relative to your GPA might just make them think the school is an easier school in general.
|
On September 05 2010 09:16 theonemephisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 08:57 Judicator wrote:On September 05 2010 03:42 imBLIND wrote:
My unweighted gpa is about a 3.8-3.9 right now, but my SAT is only a 1960. Do colleges overlook inconsistencies like these or do I have to work more to get a 2250+?
Also, if I plan on majoring in some form of engineering, chemical/nano specifically, would extracurriculars in music help me at all? I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid. My personal estimates rank them in this order: 1. GPA=>Class standing 2. Personal Statement 3. Teacher Recs 3. Extracurricular, especially if you have titles in those groups 5. Standardized testing scores (Yes I know there are two 3s) My reasoning for this is that everyone has testing scores and it really doesn't tell shit about you as a student or a person after you reach a certain score plateau. You're class standing indicates potential, if you are not tops in your school, then you already have proven that X amount of people are better than you in your particular situation. Personal statement is big and a lot of kids fuck this up because they can't write about their life worth a damn, aka making it actually personal. As for your ECs, that's perfectly fine, ECs are suppose to show colleges of your interests and your dedication/involvement with those interests; they're not gonna hold it against someone if their personal interests differ from their academic pursuits. Don't worry about your SATs unless you sucked it up badly on one particular subject, especially if your math is bad (I consider 750 bad in math, but I am Chinese...) and you want to be in engineering. Obviously the admissions committee would weigh all the available information they have on you to make a decision, so what I am saying is a rough estimate based on my personal experience with college admissions and what I can gather from other people (since people keep sending me their PSs to read over). I can't say I really agree with this, though I wouldn't be the one to ask. I do think that after a certain plateau differences don't matter, but I think that plateau is around 2200-2300, a college might consider a 2250 and 2350 pretty equally, but IMO a 1960 will definitely have an impact on your admission chances. In fact, depending on the school you go to and how much history the college has with that particular high school, a low SAT score relative to your GPA might just make them think the school is an easier school in general.
I think he meant it in the same way you described, at least that's the impression I received. Standardized tests are just idiot bars, once you pass them, they don't distinguish candidates much (although, I think getting perfect scores help).
|
On September 05 2010 08:57 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 03:42 imBLIND wrote:
My unweighted gpa is about a 3.8-3.9 right now, but my SAT is only a 1960. Do colleges overlook inconsistencies like these or do I have to work more to get a 2250+?
Also, if I plan on majoring in some form of engineering, chemical/nano specifically, would extracurriculars in music help me at all? I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid. My personal estimates rank them in this order: 1. GPA=>Class standing 2. Personal Statement 3. Teacher Recs 3. Extracurricular, especially if you have titles in those groups 5. Standardized testing scores (Yes I know there are two 3s) My reasoning for this is that everyone has testing scores and it really doesn't tell shit about you as a student or a person after you reach a certain score plateau. You're class standing indicates potential, if you are not tops in your school, then you already have proven that X amount of people are better than you in your particular situation. Personal statement is big and a lot of kids fuck this up because they can't write about their life worth a damn, aka making it actually personal. As for your ECs, that's perfectly fine, ECs are suppose to show colleges of your interests and your dedication/involvement with those interests; they're not gonna hold it against someone if their personal interests differ from their academic pursuits. Don't worry about your SATs unless you sucked it up badly on one particular subject, especially if your math is bad (I consider 750 bad in math, but I am Chinese...) and you want to be in engineering. Obviously the admissions committee would weigh all the available information they have on you to make a decision, so what I am saying is a rough estimate based on my personal experience with college admissions and what I can gather from other people (since people keep sending me their PSs to read over).
Hey Judicator, where are you coming from? If you're asian/white and your SAT score is under 2k, admissions officers are not going to take your application seriously. Btw, what are your credentials regarding this matter?
|
On September 05 2010 08:32 geometryb wrote:
do you have any information correlating salaries between graduates of top schools (us news and world report) and other schools?
No I do not have this information, but I've heard there is no correlation.
|
On September 05 2010 09:31 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 09:16 theonemephisto wrote:On September 05 2010 08:57 Judicator wrote:On September 05 2010 03:42 imBLIND wrote:
My unweighted gpa is about a 3.8-3.9 right now, but my SAT is only a 1960. Do colleges overlook inconsistencies like these or do I have to work more to get a 2250+?
Also, if I plan on majoring in some form of engineering, chemical/nano specifically, would extracurriculars in music help me at all? I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid. My personal estimates rank them in this order: 1. GPA=>Class standing 2. Personal Statement 3. Teacher Recs 3. Extracurricular, especially if you have titles in those groups 5. Standardized testing scores (Yes I know there are two 3s) My reasoning for this is that everyone has testing scores and it really doesn't tell shit about you as a student or a person after you reach a certain score plateau. You're class standing indicates potential, if you are not tops in your school, then you already have proven that X amount of people are better than you in your particular situation. Personal statement is big and a lot of kids fuck this up because they can't write about their life worth a damn, aka making it actually personal. As for your ECs, that's perfectly fine, ECs are suppose to show colleges of your interests and your dedication/involvement with those interests; they're not gonna hold it against someone if their personal interests differ from their academic pursuits. Don't worry about your SATs unless you sucked it up badly on one particular subject, especially if your math is bad (I consider 750 bad in math, but I am Chinese...) and you want to be in engineering. Obviously the admissions committee would weigh all the available information they have on you to make a decision, so what I am saying is a rough estimate based on my personal experience with college admissions and what I can gather from other people (since people keep sending me their PSs to read over). I can't say I really agree with this, though I wouldn't be the one to ask. I do think that after a certain plateau differences don't matter, but I think that plateau is around 2200-2300, a college might consider a 2250 and 2350 pretty equally, but IMO a 1960 will definitely have an impact on your admission chances. In fact, depending on the school you go to and how much history the college has with that particular high school, a low SAT score relative to your GPA might just make them think the school is an easier school in general. I think he meant it in the same way you described, at least that's the impression I received. Standardized tests are just idiot bars, once you pass them, they don't distinguish candidates much (although, I think getting perfect scores help).
This is true. They basically are idiot bars, but that bar varies a lot depending on your ethnicity, and that for whites/asians/desi/other majority/over-represented minority, the bar is a lot higher... in the 2250 range.
But I'm not entirely sure that perfect scores help. I mean more than one school rejected my 2400  . But I'm not kidding, retake your 1960. You can spend 10 hours studying, and like $40 to take it once more... get yourself at least a 2100. It's like the cheapest time investment you can put in to increase your chances of getting in by A LOT. That's like, what, one day of SC2?
On September 05 2010 09:16 theonemephisto wrote:
I can't say I really agree with this, though I wouldn't be the one to ask. I do think that after a certain plateau differences don't matter, but I think that plateau is around 2200-2300, a college might consider a 2250 and 2350 pretty equally, but IMO a 1960 will definitely have an impact on your admission chances.
In fact, depending on the school you go to and how much history the college has with that particular high school, a low SAT score relative to your GPA might just make them think the school is an easier school in general.
This. Most of what Judicator said is true, but seriously, don't just give up on the SAT because Judicator said "ehhh it's not important."
|
United States10774 Posts
On September 05 2010 08:57 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 03:42 imBLIND wrote:
My unweighted gpa is about a 3.8-3.9 right now, but my SAT is only a 1960. Do colleges overlook inconsistencies like these or do I have to work more to get a 2250+?
Also, if I plan on majoring in some form of engineering, chemical/nano specifically, would extracurriculars in music help me at all? I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid. My personal estimates rank them in this order: 1. GPA=>Class standing 2. Personal Statement 3. Teacher Recs 3. Extracurricular, especially if you have titles in those groups 5. Standardized testing scores (Yes I know there are two 3s) My reasoning for this is that everyone has testing scores and it really doesn't tell shit about you as a student or a person after you reach a certain score plateau. You're class standing indicates potential, if you are not tops in your school, then you already have proven that X amount of people are better than you in your particular situation. Personal statement is big and a lot of kids fuck this up because they can't write about their life worth a damn, aka making it actually personal. As for your ECs, that's perfectly fine, ECs are suppose to show colleges of your interests and your dedication/involvement with those interests; they're not gonna hold it against someone if their personal interests differ from their academic pursuits. Don't worry about your SATs unless you sucked it up badly on one particular subject, especially if your math is bad (I consider 750 bad in math, but I am Chinese...) and you want to be in engineering. Obviously the admissions committee would weigh all the available information they have on you to make a decision, so what I am saying is a rough estimate based on my personal experience with college admissions and what I can gather from other people (since people keep sending me their PSs to read over).
This is wrong.
GPA and SAT scores are almost equally important for top schools. You can't even make the first cut at some schools if your GPA / SAT scores don't meet the minimum benchmarks - meaning they won't even look at your teacher recommendations.
|
Thanks OneOther. The consensus being, yeah.... retake your SAT.
|
On September 05 2010 09:52 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 08:57 Judicator wrote:On September 05 2010 03:42 imBLIND wrote:
My unweighted gpa is about a 3.8-3.9 right now, but my SAT is only a 1960. Do colleges overlook inconsistencies like these or do I have to work more to get a 2250+?
Also, if I plan on majoring in some form of engineering, chemical/nano specifically, would extracurriculars in music help me at all? I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid. My personal estimates rank them in this order: 1. GPA=>Class standing 2. Personal Statement 3. Teacher Recs 3. Extracurricular, especially if you have titles in those groups 5. Standardized testing scores (Yes I know there are two 3s) My reasoning for this is that everyone has testing scores and it really doesn't tell shit about you as a student or a person after you reach a certain score plateau. You're class standing indicates potential, if you are not tops in your school, then you already have proven that X amount of people are better than you in your particular situation. Personal statement is big and a lot of kids fuck this up because they can't write about their life worth a damn, aka making it actually personal. As for your ECs, that's perfectly fine, ECs are suppose to show colleges of your interests and your dedication/involvement with those interests; they're not gonna hold it against someone if their personal interests differ from their academic pursuits. Don't worry about your SATs unless you sucked it up badly on one particular subject, especially if your math is bad (I consider 750 bad in math, but I am Chinese...) and you want to be in engineering. Obviously the admissions committee would weigh all the available information they have on you to make a decision, so what I am saying is a rough estimate based on my personal experience with college admissions and what I can gather from other people (since people keep sending me their PSs to read over). Hey Judicator, where are you coming from? If you're asian/white and your SAT score is under 2k, admissions officers are not going to take your application seriously. Btw, what are your credentials regarding this matter?
Cornell University, applied to like 10 schools iirc.
Helped two others get into Cornell after I read over their PS and advised them on the process.
Helped an international student from China get into Florida-Gainsville after I walked him through the process for business grad school.
The reason I said SAT scores weren't important because I actually polled my floor freshmen year to get a rough idea where everyone stood academically since I thought my grades and scores were borderline to get into Cornell. Turned out the common denominator (assuming everyone was telling the truth) was that we were all at least top 5% of our classes, me being the lowest at 5%, everyone else being closer to 1-2% with 3 valedictorians. So I reasoned that my sub par ECs (I moved during sophomore year of HS so getting involved was more difficult), and "low" class ranking was supported by my PS, Teacher Recs (sort of weak iirc they weren't the teachers closest to me), and the fact that I had 14 APs under my belt so my schedules could be considered "highly competitive".
I also know that plenty of people with much better SATs than me (1510 on the old scale with 800 verbal, with a 780 on SAT2 Writing) didn't get into Cornell my year or the year immediately after me. My floor mates scored anywhere from 1200s to 1400s with nobody topping 1500 so in comparison I actually had the highest SAT score but they were all around better students (with some MUCH better) than me in every other aspect (with Teacher Recs as an unknown). Same for the year after according to Cornell's statistics for SAT scores.
I am not saying I am completely right, but I am just going by what I would tell and have told prospective students going through the admissions process. It's just my theory if you will.
And the notion that there are absolute benchmarks is entirely correct OneOther, except that some schools use a comprehensive lowest line rather than just a single category. IIRC the SAT averages for pretty much all of the schools I applied to (all top 20s in a major science/engineering field except my super back up) were all around 1300s on the old scale which would translate to about 2100 on the new test?
My point was that after you reach a certain score, the benefit to you for improving on the score is very little compared to "improvement" in the other criterion.
|
On September 05 2010 10:16 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 09:52 love1another wrote:On September 05 2010 08:57 Judicator wrote:On September 05 2010 03:42 imBLIND wrote:
My unweighted gpa is about a 3.8-3.9 right now, but my SAT is only a 1960. Do colleges overlook inconsistencies like these or do I have to work more to get a 2250+?
Also, if I plan on majoring in some form of engineering, chemical/nano specifically, would extracurriculars in music help me at all? I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid. My personal estimates rank them in this order: 1. GPA=>Class standing 2. Personal Statement 3. Teacher Recs 3. Extracurricular, especially if you have titles in those groups 5. Standardized testing scores (Yes I know there are two 3s) My reasoning for this is that everyone has testing scores and it really doesn't tell shit about you as a student or a person after you reach a certain score plateau. You're class standing indicates potential, if you are not tops in your school, then you already have proven that X amount of people are better than you in your particular situation. Personal statement is big and a lot of kids fuck this up because they can't write about their life worth a damn, aka making it actually personal. As for your ECs, that's perfectly fine, ECs are suppose to show colleges of your interests and your dedication/involvement with those interests; they're not gonna hold it against someone if their personal interests differ from their academic pursuits. Don't worry about your SATs unless you sucked it up badly on one particular subject, especially if your math is bad (I consider 750 bad in math, but I am Chinese...) and you want to be in engineering. Obviously the admissions committee would weigh all the available information they have on you to make a decision, so what I am saying is a rough estimate based on my personal experience with college admissions and what I can gather from other people (since people keep sending me their PSs to read over). Hey Judicator, where are you coming from? If you're asian/white and your SAT score is under 2k, admissions officers are not going to take your application seriously. Btw, what are your credentials regarding this matter? Cornell University, applied to like 10 schools iirc. Helped two others get into Cornell after I read over their PS and advised them on the process. Helped an international student from China get into Florida-Gainsville after I walked him through the process for business grad school. The reason I said SAT scores weren't important because I actually polled my floor freshmen year to get a rough idea where everyone stood academically since I thought my grades and scores were borderline to get into Cornell. Turned out the common denominator (assuming everyone was telling the truth) was that we were all at least top 5% of our classes, me being the lowest at 5%, everyone else being closer to 1-2% with 3 valedictorians. So I reasoned that my sub par ECs (I moved during sophomore year of HS so getting involved was more difficult), and "low" class ranking was supported by my PS, Teacher Recs (sort of weak iirc they weren't the teachers closest to me), and the fact that I had 14 APs under my belt so my schedules could be considered "highly competitive". I also know that plenty of people with much better SATs than me (1510 on the old scale with 800 verbal, with a 780 on SAT2 Writing) didn't get into Cornell my year or the year immediately after me. My floor mates scored anywhere from 1200s to 1400s with nobody topping 1500 so in comparison I actually had the highest SAT score but they were all around better students (with some MUCH better) than me in every other aspect (with Teacher Recs as an unknown). Same for the year after according to Cornell's statistics for SAT scores. I am not saying I am completely right, but I am just going by what I would tell and have told prospective students going through the admissions process. It's just my theory if you will.
The last year the "Old SAT" was accepted was 2004. I believe your data is woefully out of date and probably suffers from the problem of a small sample size and an improper control for confounding variables.
Nobody from my high school with an SAT under 2200 gets into Ivy league schools unless they're stellar athletes. That being said all my friends who DID manage to get into Ivy league schools over the past few years from my high school had 2300+.
I think there's a very clear idiot-bar, and you'd be wise not to try to convince people that the SAT is unimportant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
