|
On September 05 2010 10:22 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 10:16 Judicator wrote: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.
2005 and some for 2006 with schools requiring/wanting both/either actually, read my post again, I never said SATs weren't important, they're not as important as people think and for me would not be the reason I would not apply to a top school if I was borderline.
And they're not woefully out of date, you are more than welcome to dig up the average SAT scores for incoming classes of top20s, they're sit at around the same levels as they did before the change. Schools take standardized testing with a big spoon of salt.
Case in point, Harvard:
Acceptance rate: 8% Top 10% of high school students: 95% SAT score (25/75 percentile): 2080-2370 ACT score (25/75 percentile): 31-35
2080 is hardly mind blowing and that's only the 25 percentile with the vast majority of individuals sitting in 2100-2300, hardly super numbers.
Cornell sits similar, being out of the top 10, with the requirements.
I will give you this though, the SATs are "easier" than they were before the change with the removal of some of traditionally low scoring parts, but that's irrelevant since everyone is taking the same test. Should also point out that high SAT scores usually correlate with high GPAs.
Either way, not to derail the thread/blog further. I am just saying if given the chance to improve my SAT score (say in 2200-2300 range) X amount of points or to work on other aspects of my admissions process, I'll take the latter all day every day, that's what I learned
|
On September 05 2010 10:33 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 10:22 love1another wrote:On September 05 2010 10:16 Judicator wrote: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. 2005 actually, read my post again, I never said SATs weren't important, they're not as important as people think and for me would not be the reason I would not apply to a top school if I was borderline. And they're not woefully out of date, you are more than welcome to dig up the average SAT scores for incoming classes of top20s, they're sit at around the same levels as they did before the change. Schools take standardized testing with a big spoon of salt. Case in point, Harvard: Acceptance rate: 8% Top 10% of high school students: 95% SAT score (25/75 percentile): 2080-2370 ACT score (25/75 percentile): 31-35 2080 is hardly mind blowing and that's only the 25 percentile with the vast majority of individuals sitting in 2100-2300, hardly super numbers. Cornell sits similar, being out of the top 10, with the requirements. I will give you this though, the SATs are "easier" than they were before the change with the removal of some of traditionally low scoring parts, but that's irrelevant since everyone is taking the same test. Should also point out that high SAT scores usually correlate with high GPAs. Either way, not to derail the thread/blog further. I am just saying if given the chance to improve my SAT score (say in 2200-2300 range) X amount of points or to work on other aspects of my admissions process, I'll take the latter all day every day, that's what I learned
I hate how this thread is turning into an argument about the importance of SAT scores... But just look at those statistics you've provided. ONLY 25% of students have scores at or below 2080. And that's a little less than the number of students who are affirmative action/athletes/legacy. The median score, I'm sure, is over 2200. And that is the number that would be applicants need to be targeting. With my last rebuttal I will now ban you from my blog before you poison any more innocent eyes with your heresy!
|
2200 is hardly that high of an average, 700ish per section
You really should read all of my post, because you just restate what I already explicitly stated
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
Can I use TL as my extra-curricular activites :D
|
On September 05 2010 10:42 Judicator wrote:2200 is hardly that high of an average, 700ish per section You really should read all of my post, because you just restate what I already explicitly stated You were also advising someone with a 1960 to not worry about it though. If you want to get into a top20 school, and especially if you're out of state, you should be trying to get higher than a 1960. You've just changed your view from "1960 is fine" to exactly what we've been saying, "~2200 is the plateau for what colleges care about".
|
On September 05 2010 10:44 l10f wrote: Can I use TL as my extra-curricular activites :D
Yes actually. If you put in work and explain it properly so the reviewer can understand where you are coming from. One of my friends was a great beatboxer and I urged him to send in a DVD of him doing it live. Whatever you think portrays you in a positive light outside of the classroom.
It can't hurt if you have other ECs backing you up, but it can hurt if that's all you have.
|
On September 05 2010 10:42 Judicator wrote:2200 is hardly that high of an average, 700ish per section You really should read all of my post, because you just restate what I already explicitly stated > But you're telling people that going for a 2200 is the least worthwhile thing to spend time on. + Show Spoiler + How long does a single solid essay take to craft? 20-30 hours minimum.
How many hours does it take to get involved in a new extracurricular activity so that you have learned enough from it to write about it in your application? 40-50 hours minimum.
How long does it take to put together a paper and application for the Siemens Science Competition/Intel Science Talent Search? 30-40 hours.
How long do you need to study to get a decent score on the AIME? at least 50-60 hours.
How much hard work do you have to put into a class so you stand out enough for the teacher to write you a truly outstanding recommendation letter? All year most likely.
How long does it take to take 2 practice tests study mistakes and then take the real thing one more time, just to get 5-8 more questions right? 10-15 hours tops.
How long will the admissions officer spend looking over all that other stuff you present in your application if your SAT score is <2000? 0 hours.
Anywaaaay.... Yeah. You can probably write an essay about teamliquid, if you can find a way of weaving in your other activities/skills/experiences. Your essay better not read....
"I'm pretty pro at starcraft and spend all day posting on TL. The End." obviously. If you've taken part in any tournaments, though, or you have some youtube cast of your grudge-matches... that might be acceptable. (try to censor out the bad words though)
|
20-30 hours? Try 3 months and 4 revisions, everyone I know that got into MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Duke, Emory premed program, WashU premed program spent more than a summer on theirs. I had an International Science Fair winner at my school, my year, how many years did he spend on that?
But again, it varies from people to people.
Keep in mind that this is what I said originally:
I would say SATs are probably the least valued criteria in college admissions provided your other areas are solid.
In response to this
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?
Two things for all of you guys jumping down my throat for supposedly dismissing SAT scores:
1. "Least-valued" is not a comparison term in the absolute sense...if you can point out where I said hey fuck your SAT scores you don't need them, then I would be all ears. 2. Where in the god damn post does the poster state where he/she is going?
And the reason I didn't explicitly say what you said, because well, you already said it, both love1another and theonemephisto already pointed out the importance of SAT scores. I just put it in context of the other common criterion.
On September 05 2010 10:51 love1another wrote: Anywaaaay.... Yeah. You can probably write an essay about teamliquid, if you can find a way of weaving in your other activities/skills/experiences. Your essay better not read....
"I'm pretty pro at starcraft and spend all day posting on TL. The End." obviously. If you've taken part in any tournaments, though, or you have some youtube cast of your grudge-matches... that might be acceptable. (try to censor out the bad words though)
I wouldn't even do that. Since he/she is a writer here, I would just describe the process of putting together a final product however big or small and his/her role in that process. Then you can talk about working with people of different backgrounds, overcoming problems as a team or personally, etc. If your PS can almost summarized in like 2 sentences, it's a shitty PS.
|
I apologize, I didn't mean for the tournaments/ youtube cast to substitute for his essay. I meant he might be able to use it as a supplement, since it's quite original compared to most of the stuff people feel are supplement-worthy.
|
Man, it's going to take forever going through everything. XP I have a shitload of homework over labor day weekend, so forgive me for bookmarking your blog and (probably) bumping it a long time after it has died to ask some questions
This is all I know about SAT (taken from a reply I made to someone's blog question), and it's very unorganized--sorry: + Show Spoiler +On August 21 2010 12:21 Z3kk wrote:Also, you need to let your parents know how the SAT works; I don't think you understand precisely yourself, so here goes (this is going to cram a lot of info into one attempt at explaining, so this isn't going to be a particularly sequential/ordered explanation, though I tried ): Just about every country except for the United States has just a few--2 or 3--"big" or "top" universities. Admission into said universities depends on a single "BIG TEST" towards/at the end of high school. If you do well on this big test, you're in; if you don't do well, then you can go [insert fitting verb of a menial task]. HOWEVER, the United States is a different matter. There are numerous top universities and a startling variety of schools from which you can choose. There are schools that excel in a particular course of study, liberal arts schools, extremely expensive schools, community colleges, etc. Thus, there is no single, objective test that determines where you're going to go. Your parents most likely are under the impression that the SAT is this "BIG TEST". Needless to say, it is not. In America, there are numerous factors that come into consideration when admissions officers are deliberating (GPA, SAT, extracurriculars, essays, and perhaps more). So what IS the point of the SAT? Well, look at it this way. There are schools all over the country, and they all are different. At one school in California, you might take be struggling to scrape out an A because your AP Psychology teacher is a total sadist who gives you hours and hours of homework. At another one in Texas (just random states--I'm not trying to imply anything here haha), the AP Psychology teacher might give you an A as long as you don't get out of your seat as everyone watches the comedy movies he plays every day. Colleges, therefore, need some sort of standard with which to measure and compare students--the SAT is this standard, and its customers are the colleges (I'll get to that in a moment) and not you. (You're forced to take the SAT; what are you going to do? Not take it? Take the ACT? No, students all over America are taking the SAT, and if you don't, it's your college you won't be getting into.) Because the SAT is meant to be the standard, this also means that the SAT's job is simple: crank out a bell curve. The colleges are going to use the SAT scores to compare students all over the US, and the SAT better give them a bell curve, or else the colleges won't care about the SAT's results. In other words, the SAT needs to have its scores produce a bell curve, or else colleges won't use it to compare students. Also, as I stated before, the SAT's customers are the universities and colleges. Why? If colleges find out that the SAT's scores aren't in a neat and tidy bell curve, then the shit starts to get real. Obviously, if they can't use the scores to compare students, there's no reason to use the SAT. If this were to happen, THEN the SAT would lose its business, because no one would have to take a test that doesn't matter. As a side-note, the SAT needs to maintain its bell curve by whatever means possible. This means making the test as hard as they can without utterly screwing everyone over. Think if it this way: if the bell curve were to shift to the right, what would that mean? It would mean that everyone is scoring higher. the SAT DOES NOT want this. The aforementioned situation would mean that the SAT's scores are unreliable, and if a student has a high score, then who cares? Everyone's scoring that high. On the other hand, if the bell curve were to shift to the left--that is, if people's scores became lower--then how does that impact the SAT? All they have to do (and they've done this before) is proclaim that the American school system sucks, that the teachers aren't teaching the right stuff, yadda yadda yadda. College board (the creators of the SAT) isn't on your side and will do whatever it takes to confuse you. OKAY, so back to the significance of the SAT. This is what you need to tell your parents (though you can tell them anything else I've stated too, if you want). How exactly does it factor into college admissions? Basically, certain faculty of the top schools--let's go with MIT here--get together and decide the "cut-off" point of the SATs. Let's say that MIT decides the cut-off is 2200, because otherwise stupid students might come in, and their Nobel prize-winning professor will want to go to UC Berkeley and teach math to all the smart kids there, because there's no point in teaching a bunch of lazy, stupid students. What happens with the students that make the cut-off? The admissions officer looks at the score, and turn over your application and continue reading. What happens if you *gasp* don't make it? The admissions officer laughs and tosses it in the junk pile of crushed dreams with the rest of the layabouts, right? WRONG. If you happen to not make it, then you just need something extra. You are by no means automatically rejected then and there. "Why not?" you ask. Well, let's say there's a student who has always been at the top of his class, with highest marks and scintillating compliments from his teacher; he's one of the most studious people out there. Unfortunately, he got really nervous on the SAT that one time and messed it up (or took it several times, and each time, he got scared and did poorly). What now? Is he doomed? Of course not! What if they get an application from a kid, and his SAT score is simply abysmal; the admissions officer is about to reject him, turns the page, and finds out his application is written entirely in SPANISH? Turns out this kid's a genius in Argentina but doesn't know a word of English! Better yet, the admissions officer opens up an application, sees a disgustingly poor SAT score, shakes his head at the embarrassing GPA, and then reads the essay. Apparently, this guy created a software program when he was 13 years old and sold it to Microsoft for $750 million. Are they going to reject this guy? NO WAY IN HELL!!! This kid's just unmotivated! He's going to go to MIT, graduate, become the CEO of Intel, donate billions of dollars to MIT, and MIT is going to take the money and make a building in his name! Thus, the SAT is far from the "BIG TEST"; it definitely helps, but it does not singlehandedly determine whether you get into your school of choice. Another thing you should tell your parents is that the SAT is equated (which is actually curving, but they're not about to admit that) to make a bell curve, so anything from a certain score to another is essentially the SAME score (i.e. 2290 and up, unless you get a perfect score, is basically the same score in the eyes of college admissions officers; this is to account for curving and variation).
|
Yeah I understand, but I don't know if that's the approach I would take since it doesn't definitively answer the question of: so what? Also, I feel like if you add in the the tournaments and youtube cast, it doesn't really do much for the person, rather it would confuse the reviewer and unless the reviewer can understand the significance of it, it goes to poo poo.
That's the reason why I suggest they go with an approach that a reviewer can relate to and understand without completely understanding what TL is.
But gotta answer the question of so what, if you don't it's a mediocre PS at best.
|
On September 05 2010 11:27 Z3kk wrote:Man, it's going to take forever going through everything. XP I have a shitload of homework over labor day weekend, so forgive me for bookmarking your blog and (probably) bumping it a long time after it has died to ask some questions This is all I know about SAT (taken from a reply I made to someone's blog question), and it's very unorganized--sorry: + Show Spoiler +On August 21 2010 12:21 Z3kk wrote:Also, you need to let your parents know how the SAT works; I don't think you understand precisely yourself, so here goes (this is going to cram a lot of info into one attempt at explaining, so this isn't going to be a particularly sequential/ordered explanation, though I tried ): Just about every country except for the United States has just a few--2 or 3--"big" or "top" universities. Admission into said universities depends on a single "BIG TEST" towards/at the end of high school. If you do well on this big test, you're in; if you don't do well, then you can go [insert fitting verb of a menial task]. HOWEVER, the United States is a different matter. There are numerous top universities and a startling variety of schools from which you can choose. There are schools that excel in a particular course of study, liberal arts schools, extremely expensive schools, community colleges, etc. Thus, there is no single, objective test that determines where you're going to go. Your parents most likely are under the impression that the SAT is this "BIG TEST". Needless to say, it is not. In America, there are numerous factors that come into consideration when admissions officers are deliberating (GPA, SAT, extracurriculars, essays, and perhaps more). So what IS the point of the SAT? Well, look at it this way. There are schools all over the country, and they all are different. At one school in California, you might take be struggling to scrape out an A because your AP Psychology teacher is a total sadist who gives you hours and hours of homework. At another one in Texas (just random states--I'm not trying to imply anything here haha), the AP Psychology teacher might give you an A as long as you don't get out of your seat as everyone watches the comedy movies he plays every day. Colleges, therefore, need some sort of standard with which to measure and compare students--the SAT is this standard, and its customers are the colleges (I'll get to that in a moment) and not you. (You're forced to take the SAT; what are you going to do? Not take it? Take the ACT? No, students all over America are taking the SAT, and if you don't, it's your college you won't be getting into.) Because the SAT is meant to be the standard, this also means that the SAT's job is simple: crank out a bell curve. The colleges are going to use the SAT scores to compare students all over the US, and the SAT better give them a bell curve, or else the colleges won't care about the SAT's results. In other words, the SAT needs to have its scores produce a bell curve, or else colleges won't use it to compare students. Also, as I stated before, the SAT's customers are the universities and colleges. Why? If colleges find out that the SAT's scores aren't in a neat and tidy bell curve, then the shit starts to get real. Obviously, if they can't use the scores to compare students, there's no reason to use the SAT. If this were to happen, THEN the SAT would lose its business, because no one would have to take a test that doesn't matter. As a side-note, the SAT needs to maintain its bell curve by whatever means possible. This means making the test as hard as they can without utterly screwing everyone over. Think if it this way: if the bell curve were to shift to the right, what would that mean? It would mean that everyone is scoring higher. the SAT DOES NOT want this. The aforementioned situation would mean that the SAT's scores are unreliable, and if a student has a high score, then who cares? Everyone's scoring that high. On the other hand, if the bell curve were to shift to the left--that is, if people's scores became lower--then how does that impact the SAT? All they have to do (and they've done this before) is proclaim that the American school system sucks, that the teachers aren't teaching the right stuff, yadda yadda yadda. College board (the creators of the SAT) isn't on your side and will do whatever it takes to confuse you. OKAY, so back to the significance of the SAT. This is what you need to tell your parents (though you can tell them anything else I've stated too, if you want). How exactly does it factor into college admissions? Basically, certain faculty of the top schools--let's go with MIT here--get together and decide the "cut-off" point of the SATs. Let's say that MIT decides the cut-off is 2200, because otherwise stupid students might come in, and their Nobel prize-winning professor will want to go to UC Berkeley and teach math to all the smart kids there, because there's no point in teaching a bunch of lazy, stupid students. What happens with the students that make the cut-off? The admissions officer looks at the score, and turn over your application and continue reading. What happens if you *gasp* don't make it? The admissions officer laughs and tosses it in the junk pile of crushed dreams with the rest of the layabouts, right? WRONG. If you happen to not make it, then you just need something extra. You are by no means automatically rejected then and there. "Why not?" you ask. Well, let's say there's a student who has always been at the top of his class, with highest marks and scintillating compliments from his teacher; he's one of the most studious people out there. Unfortunately, he got really nervous on the SAT that one time and messed it up (or took it several times, and each time, he got scared and did poorly). What now? Is he doomed? Of course not! What if they get an application from a kid, and his SAT score is simply abysmal; the admissions officer is about to reject him, turns the page, and finds out his application is written entirely in SPANISH? Turns out this kid's a genius in Argentina but doesn't know a word of English! Better yet, the admissions officer opens up an application, sees a disgustingly poor SAT score, shakes his head at the embarrassing GPA, and then reads the essay. Apparently, this guy created a software program when he was 13 years old and sold it to Microsoft for $750 million. Are they going to reject this guy? NO WAY IN HELL!!! This kid's just unmotivated! He's going to go to MIT, graduate, become the CEO of Intel, donate billions of dollars to MIT, and MIT is going to take the money and make a building in his name! Thus, the SAT is far from the "BIG TEST"; it definitely helps, but it does not singlehandedly determine whether you get into your school of choice. Another thing you should tell your parents is that the SAT is equated (which is actually curving, but they're not about to admit that) to make a bell curve, so anything from a certain score to another is essentially the SAME score (i.e. 2290 and up, unless you get a perfect score, is basically the same score in the eyes of college admissions officers; this is to account for curving and variation).
I don't really see any questions in there... I'd just like to point out that your examples toward the end are on the right track but the particularities are highly unrealistic.
I don't buy the example of the guy with good grades who chokes on the SAT multiple times. He still has to do APs/IBs right? He still has to do final exams right? If, even after several tries, he can't get his act together for a simple test, it calls the relevance of his high school curriculum question. The SAT will have been far from the biggest test he has taken up to that point.
A more realistic scenario for the talented Argentinian case would be an admission's officer saying, "Wtf... this is in Spanish. Steve, you took Spanish right? Could you take a look at it? Steve: uhh yeaaah... I'll get on that." If you don't speak English, you have no business going to a top American university.
In the second case, this person has already made 750 million dollars. Which college you're going to is hardly going to be a big concern when you're 3/4 the way to be a billionaire.
The conclusion of this thread is that the SAT only matters up to a point in that over 2250~ish everything is considered equivalent, in that it will no longer be the bottleneck of your application. Yes, there are exceptions if you are exceptional... but if you've won the nobel peace prize or are a movie star, you're probably not reading this thread for advice.
And I guess one more thing: No, you don't get a magic plaque for getting a perfect score (or at least none of the college I applied to gave me one.)
|
On September 05 2010 11:35 Judicator wrote: Yeah I understand, but I don't know if that's the approach I would take since it doesn't definitively answer the question of: so what? Also, I feel like if you add in the the tournaments and youtube cast, it doesn't really do much for the person, rather it would confuse the reviewer and unless the reviewer can understand the significance of it, it goes to poo poo.
That's the reason why I suggest they go with an approach that a reviewer can relate to and understand without completely understanding what TL is.
But gotta answer the question of so what, if you don't it's a mediocre PS at best.
Should sticky this: Every essay (btw, PS means personal statement to all you newbies out there) needs to have a so what. I stated this before, I think on page 2, but the key to any successful PS is that it clearly communicates some objective.
|
On September 05 2010 11:42 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 11:35 Judicator wrote: Yeah I understand, but I don't know if that's the approach I would take since it doesn't definitively answer the question of: so what? Also, I feel like if you add in the the tournaments and youtube cast, it doesn't really do much for the person, rather it would confuse the reviewer and unless the reviewer can understand the significance of it, it goes to poo poo.
That's the reason why I suggest they go with an approach that a reviewer can relate to and understand without completely understanding what TL is.
But gotta answer the question of so what, if you don't it's a mediocre PS at best. Should sticky this: Every essay (btw, PS means personal statement to all you newbies out there) needs to have a so what. I stated this before, I think on page 2, but the key to any successful PS is that it clearly communicates some objective.
I would even say, every sentence needs to have a "so-what". If it doesn't corroborate your application in anyway, it should not be there. The page limit makes every word precious.
|
On September 05 2010 11:50 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 11:42 love1another wrote:On September 05 2010 11:35 Judicator wrote: Yeah I understand, but I don't know if that's the approach I would take since it doesn't definitively answer the question of: so what? Also, I feel like if you add in the the tournaments and youtube cast, it doesn't really do much for the person, rather it would confuse the reviewer and unless the reviewer can understand the significance of it, it goes to poo poo.
That's the reason why I suggest they go with an approach that a reviewer can relate to and understand without completely understanding what TL is.
But gotta answer the question of so what, if you don't it's a mediocre PS at best. Should sticky this: Every essay (btw, PS means personal statement to all you newbies out there) needs to have a so what. I stated this before, I think on page 2, but the key to any successful PS is that it clearly communicates some objective. I would even say, every sentence needs to have a "so-what". If it doesn't corroborate your application in anyway, it should not be there. The page limit makes every word precious.
I would even say that every word needs to have a "so-what." If there is a better, more concise, way to express an identical idea do it. The only problem with this is the time-spent vs. return. It's like saying "it'll be better if you can play with 2000 apm no spam."
|
I have a friend who decided to apply to MIT, as he's an aspiring engineer. He winged the sat and got around 2000 (studying for VCE, our high school cert), and was granted an interview later this year with an admissions officer. His VCE results are probably going to be ~94th percentile and he doesn't have heaps of extra curricular activity, but has what I would call a reasonable amount. So my question is this: Are academic results considered a hurdle of sorts, and will the interview probably play a larger role in selection or are they both equally important (In which case i'd imagine he's screwed lol).
|
On September 05 2010 12:16 Lurgee wrote: I have a friend who decided to apply to MIT, as he's an aspiring engineer. He winged the sat and got around 2000 (studying for VCE, our high school cert), and was granted an interview later this year with an admissions officer. His VCE results are probably going to be ~94th percentile and he doesn't have heaps of extra curricular activity, but has what I would call a reasonable amount. So my question is this: Are academic results considered a hurdle of sorts, and will the interview probably play a larger role in selection or are they both equally important (In which case i'd imagine he's screwed lol).
Just a few points to note:
1.) I don't think the interview was with an admissions officer but rather with a local alumni. Admissions officers don't fly out to give interviews, even for exceptional candidates. 2.) If you paid the money for the application, you will get this interview from MIT.
The interview is just another piece of the application. I think the best way to think of it is as a potential "trusted recommendation letter." If you nail the interview, the interviewer (who is assumed to be a reasonable successful product of the institution your friend is applying to) will convey his good impression to the admissions department. The admissions department, then, may find that the interviewer's evaluation corroborates your friend's otherwise excellent application.
The problem lies in the fact that most interviewers are just really nice people and they rarely say anything bad about anybody. Thus, if you "nail the interview" it won't be a particularly unique part of your application and it can't, alone, get you into the school of your choice.
|
On September 05 2010 12:16 Lurgee wrote: I have a friend who decided to apply to MIT, as he's an aspiring engineer. He winged the sat and got around 2000 (studying for VCE, our high school cert), and was granted an interview later this year with an admissions officer. His VCE results are probably going to be ~94th percentile and he doesn't have heaps of extra curricular activity, but has what I would call a reasonable amount. So my question is this: Are academic results considered a hurdle of sorts, and will the interview probably play a larger role in selection or are they both equally important (In which case i'd imagine he's screwed lol).
In addition to what love said...
For most people, interviews are a crapshoot to be honest, if you think it will help, do it. It certainly won't directly hurt you if you don't, but if someone else takes an interview who is around your level and does well, then you can be adversely affected. As an international student, I recommend it as long as the language isn't a barrier.
And no academics are not hurdles, I would say they are more requirements. If you want to think about it in an another way, you are scoring points on a bunch of criterion, some worth more than others, but all are important on some level. The more you score the better chance you stand to get into the school. The interview can help with the personal statement aspect if you suck at conveying you the person on paper; as in if your PS is average, but your interview was great, then college has a better feel for what kind of person you are if your interviewer didn't suck, but they can be not so good as love1another has pointed out.
So to answer your question, the interview can help in a limited aspect, but the academics are to clear the first big hurdle and certainly not to be undervalued even if your interview is great.
Word of advice on interviews with these schools, there's a chance that you'll run into someone who is fiercely loyal to their school. Like on my Yale interview with an alumnus, he was offended when I asked about the surrounding area and asked me why it would matter since Yale's campus is great. Except I knew that New Haven the city was shady as fuck with a ~10% crime rate. So tread carefully, what might be harmless can be insulting for some people.
|
On September 05 2010 12:36 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 12:16 Lurgee wrote: I have a friend who decided to apply to MIT, as he's an aspiring engineer. He winged the sat and got around 2000 (studying for VCE, our high school cert), and was granted an interview later this year with an admissions officer. His VCE results are probably going to be ~94th percentile and he doesn't have heaps of extra curricular activity, but has what I would call a reasonable amount. So my question is this: Are academic results considered a hurdle of sorts, and will the interview probably play a larger role in selection or are they both equally important (In which case i'd imagine he's screwed lol). In addition to what love said... For most people, interviews are a crapshoot to be honest, if you think it will help, do it. It certainly won't directly hurt you if you don't, but if someone else takes an interview who is around your level and does well, then you can be adversely affected. As an international student, I recommend it as long as the language isn't a barrier. And no academics are not hurdles, I would say they are more requirements. If you want to think about it in an another way, you are scoring points on a bunch of criterion, some worth more than others, but all are important on some level. The more you score the better chance you stand to get into the school. The interview can help with the personal statement aspect if you suck at conveying you the person on paper; as in if your PS is average, but your interview was great, then college has a better feel for what kind of person you are if your interviewer didn't suck, but they can be not so good as love1another has pointed out. So to answer your question, the interview can help in a limited aspect, but the academics are to clear the first big hurdle and certainly not to be undervalued even if your interview is great. Word of advice on interviews with these schools, there's a chance that you'll run into someone who is fiercely loyal to their school. Like on my Yale interview with an alumnus, he was offended when I asked about the surrounding area and asked me why it would matter since Yale's campus is great. Except I knew that New Haven the city was shady as fuck with a ~10% crime rate. So tread carefully, what might be harmless can be insulting for some people.
In fact, it is safe to assume that the interviewer will be fiercely loyal to his/her alma mater. Why else would he/she take time out of her day to interview little high school students? That being said, there are a lot of "no-talk" points you should know ahead of time. Yale's surroundings are definitely one of them. And Bush. Princeton's grade deflation/eating clubs also things you should not talk about. Harvard spending more time on grad students than undergrads. Yeah... don't needlessly provoke the interviewer's ire.
|
|
|
|
|