Having talked to admissions officers of Ivy League schools, I disagree, but I'm not going to try and change your mind.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Applying to college
- Thread starter xenu
- Start date
idk what you're disagreeing with. the fact that the sat is scored on a bell curve? the fact that the difference between 2100 and 2400 is less than 1800 and 2400? the fact that people stress out a lot about the volatile nature of the upper scores of the sat?
these things really aren't that subjective last time i checked o_O
if you look at graphs of gpa vs sat scores with dots/x's for acceptance and denial, you'll usually find that GPA, which is relatively linear, is a much stronger determinant of entry than SAT score - even though the two tend to go somewhat hand in hand.
The implication that admissions officers see any differences of the magnitude we're discussing here as marginal. 2370 vs 2380 is marginal. 2200 vs 2300 is not. Disagree if you wish, it's not really in our hands anyway, unless someone chooses to pursue a career in college admissions.
2200 = 99.01% of people are below this point
2300 = 99.61% of people are below this point
obviously they're going to rate one over the other, but these are pretty marginal, especially given the inaccuracy of a single SAT test at this level of variation.
i don't mean to insult your intelligence by spelling out the bell curve at high standard deviations for you but the difference really is mathematically and practically so much less than you're implying it is.
2300 = 99.61% of people are below this point
obviously they're going to rate one over the other, but these are pretty marginal, especially given the inaccuracy of a single SAT test at this level of variation.
i don't mean to insult your intelligence by spelling out the bell curve at high standard deviations for you but the difference really is mathematically and practically so much less than you're implying it is.
Thank you, I know basic statistics. If you look at the number of people who take the SAT and who are competitive applicants for top schools, then 0.6% makes a difference.
Using your numbers:
1.66 million take the SAT per year (source: I googled it). 0.6% is around 10,000 students. Around 6000 more students have above a 2300. Top schools have class sizes usually around 1500 students, some much smaller (Dartmouth is around 1000, CalTech is around 300), not very many are much more (maybe Penn). If we assume 1500 as an average anyway and take the top 15 schools, that's 22,500 seats. Assume that 25% of these seats go to Athletes, extreme legacies, special cases, whatever (which is not unreasonable - my own school has 33% varsity athletes and many more legacies), that's just under 17,000 seats where the SAT matters. 17,000 seats where candidates are so good, minute variations in performance make a significant difference. Again, I would say anything within a 30-40 point range doesn't matter, maybe even a 50 point range. But a 100 point range is definitely significant, especially between 2100 and 2200 and then again between 2200 and 2300 (2300-2400 is debatable because the number of people scoring in that range is much smaller).
Obviously the SAT is not everything, and a 2200 student who has 3 published papers is better than a 2400 student with nothing. However, in this range, you have a group of people with very similar ECs, GPA, class rank, writing ability, and letters of recommendation. They were all presidents of some club in high school or did some volunteer service or whatever. Good, but not outstanding. Literally the only real distinguishing feature here is the SAT. That's when these differences matter and when 2200 and 2300 become vastly different numbers.
2100 vs 2200 would not matter significantly when applying to an average or even a good school. Both are great, if not stellar, scores. Applying to Princeton, you're really not going to see anyone (excluding the 25% special cases, and perhaps not even then) in the 2100s getting in. Remember that medians are reported with special cases in mind.
I'm not saying this is how it should be, or that it's fair or whatever, just that this is how it is.
http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/
Percentage of applicants by SAT range.
2100-2290 - 7.5%
overall acceptance rate - 7.4%
(of course this accounts for the people in the 2200s as well as the 2100s, but - 1900 - 2090 - 4.9%. we can infer that people with SAT scores in the 2100s are probably looking at around a 6.5-7.0% acceptance rate). The point is, getting a score of "only" 2100 isn't nearly as damning as you're making it out to be, and actually seems to be only a little bit below the average of people getting in.
However, I would like to point out another stat on this page that on the surface seems to give merit to your argument.
2300-2400 - 16.5%
Yes. This small group of people does seem to get significantly better odds of getting in. However, it's important not to look at this and immediately assume that this comes as a result of the SAT. As you said, people in this score bracket tend to be extremely high-achieving. They have multiple e-cs, volunteer, classes, gpa, etcetera. They may be also more likely to spend large amounts of time and money taking the SAT several times, taking prep courses, achieving perfection through trial and error and a playing into the system that most colleges go to (looking only at highest score, superscore, etc). People like to have SAT scores similar to those they consider their intellectual peers, and so they'll push themselves through whatever available means to get an inflated score. This doesn't completely account for it, of course, and it does seem to point that a higher SAT at these levels does give you a better chance. (the scale here is significantly bigger than 100 points)
tl;dr compromise, but I do have a couple more things to say that are relevant
If you look at stats like these and see that 2300-2400 people (The top .4%!) still only have a 16% chance of being accepted, that certainly raises some questions about the validity of the admissions process - if these nearly "perfect" children are being rejected on a massive scale. Part of this can be attributed to luck/chance/whatever, but there's another factor that people often overlook that ties in with the SAT-craze I mentioned earlier.
Everything has to fit.
What I mean by this is that a 2350 SAT with a shitty GPA and little to no E-Cs isn't going to impress any top-tier college. Because the SAT by its very nature is so variable and easily influenced through disadvantaging methods like prep courses, review books, prep classes in school, it's inherently discriminatory and not a good predictor of anything by itself. As such, admissions officers don't give it nearly as much weight as you would think upon first glance.
The comparison between a student with a 2200 SAT and a 2300+ SAT was valid, but a more likely scenario is one in which the 2200 student has a higher GPA, shows more ambition, and seems more talented than the 2300 SAT student. Because these two numbers are mathematically very close, the fact that the 2300 is higher than the 2200 is nigh irrelevant in the face of the superior other factors.
My point was never "you have the same chance if you're a randomly selected person with 2100 as 2200". My point was more that for a high-achieving student who excels in other regions than the SAT, the stress that they often feel to score within the "golden" zone may be unwarranted, and is at the least overblown. As seen by the very significant amount of people who get into prestigious universities like Princeton with "low" SAT scores, the SAT is more of a factor that tends to click with everything else than it is a deciding factor between two otherwise similar candidates.
We have no way of knowing the percentage within the distribution, but maybe.
I don't thing there is any difference in demographics (race, income, socioeconomic classes) between people who score in the 2200s or 2300s. People with the same preparation score 2210 or 2350. Amazingly intelligent people score in the 2200s.
6000 people, 1500 spots. They can't automatically accept everyone with a 2300+ or they would overflow. 16% acceptance rate at Princeton is outstanding.
Yes of course everything has to fit. But an otherwise great applicant with a 2100 and an otherwise great applicant with a 2300 are not going to be looked at the same way at all. If you don't have the scores, it's difficult for the rest of your app to save you (aside from special cases).
Depends on the specific case but could definitely happen. Everything is a factor. A 2200 4.0 class president varsity athlete vs a 2300 2.5 loser is not a comparable scenario. More like 2300 3.9 with lots of volunteering vs 2200 4.0 class president. What happens there? Which factor weighs in more? We have no way of knowing this, but saying that the SAT won't make a significant difference between these two candidates is as erroneous as saying the GPA difference won't make a significant difference. It's very case-by-case in these scenarios.
I think we're disagreeing with our own strawmen at this point and agree with what the other person is trying to argue.
I did the ACT once got 34(will retake it though), expect 2250+ in my SAT,but here in India we don't have have GPA's we straight up get percentages,er..so 82% in my 12th Grade passing out exam,and er..ranked in the top 150,000(#55,433) out of 1.75 million competitors in the JEE Mains(Engineering Entrance Examination basically),for those of you who don't know what that is...google it,lol. So I'm kind of worried :(. My ACT is fine ,will be giving the SAT,and er...also have prizes from a bunch of Olympiads I used to give when I was younger. We also have to submit essays and stuff to the colleges where we wish to apply right? But I'm worried..kind of. Because my school passing out %age is not that much. But on the brighter side when I was in Grade 10 I had a 92% so maybe it balances out? Some advice guys?
Last edited:
Kitten Milk getting into berkeley isn't too hard if you have good stats from what I've heard, I pretty much word vomited into my computer for my cal essays since i didn't really care for the school when applying but i ended up attending! some of my hallmates freshman year were the most retarded idiots i've ever seen too, one girl hadn't taken precalculus yet and hella other people can't even write with proper grammar or do basic calculus. obviously not everyone is like that but there are some f*ckin dumb people who go here...it only has its rep (deservedly) because the top % of students (i am not close to this) are REALLY f*ckin amazing at what they do and research is really good.
i also didn't get into duke with 2400 3.9 =[ or my nignog Stathakis and i would be 2gether 4evr
i also didn't get into duke with 2400 3.9 =[ or my nignog Stathakis and i would be 2gether 4evr
alright so how do i write good essays? i have no problem structuring my essays or expressing my ideas well; in fact, i'd say that i excel at that. the problem that i run into is twofold.
1) my essay topics sound trite and uninteresting
2) when you elaborate on trite and uninteresting essay topics, the result is trite and uninteresting.
like...i'm 17. i haven't had some mind expanding spiritual experience. i haven't gotten an internship at a fortune 500. i haven't really done anything that i would consider interesting enough to not bore an admissions officer to death. i have good enough stats to not be auto-rejected to any school; but as we all know, there are tens of thousands of students with a 4.0 and 2200+, so what should set one apart from the other is the personality or passion conveyed in essays.
help
1) my essay topics sound trite and uninteresting
2) when you elaborate on trite and uninteresting essay topics, the result is trite and uninteresting.
like...i'm 17. i haven't had some mind expanding spiritual experience. i haven't gotten an internship at a fortune 500. i haven't really done anything that i would consider interesting enough to not bore an admissions officer to death. i have good enough stats to not be auto-rejected to any school; but as we all know, there are tens of thousands of students with a 4.0 and 2200+, so what should set one apart from the other is the personality or passion conveyed in essays.
help
this doesn't really answer your question but it might at least assuage some of your worries. a good deal of the reason they ask you to write essays is not only for the content (which they stress way too much e.g. "we want to learn about you!! ur not just another number xoxo". The content is obviously important, but they're also looking to see if you're a competent writer (which I know you are from all the times we've taken it upon ourselves to argue with each other about suspects lol). Admissions officers are increasingly spending much less time looking at the SAT Writing portion, because the essay is formulaic and determines ability to write at a high-school level, not a college level, so they're instead turning to the essay to try and see how you write and get a concept of your inner voice.
Ultimately, the only way your voice is going to show through the essay is if you talk about stuff you're genuinely interested / care about. If you haven't gone and constructed a replica of the space needle in nicaragua or whatever, don't try and blow up your accomplishments to more than they are. Just talk about the things you like, even if they're relatively mundane - they'd much rather see a coherent and heartfelt essay that shows a unique view on a standard topic than a trite and predictable essay about how traveling to a third-world country made you realize just how lucky you are, or whatever.
thanks, i appreciate the reply kitten ;] i want to ask you this: if the opportunity came up naturally, would you mention smogon / competitive pokemon in your essays (or would i). i have been playing for >5 years, put as much time into this hobby as a football team captain or whatever, and for what it's worth the ATP-style rankings put me in the top 10 (mentioning this because a lot of people could think they are "good", but having an objective ranking puts it beyond personal opinion). but on the other hand, e-sports are not really taken all that seriously...
if you take something seriously and express how you do so and how you've gotten as good as you have, it'll impress whoever is reading it regardless of what it is. if you can weave smogon into an essay that deals with a larger topic or something even better. do you really think the top dota or lol players aren't putting that shit on their resume?
but yes, the best essays are on subjects that you could personally write pages about but are limited to just 1500 words, rather than those that you need to stretch to reach 1500 words. i've seen amazing essays from people talking about how working at the summer pool changed their perspective on the community they lived in, and how building a computer from scratch made it apparent that that's what they wanted to do for a living. the people reading these essays want to see you talk about something you like/have an understanding of and that you can do so well.
but yes, the best essays are on subjects that you could personally write pages about but are limited to just 1500 words, rather than those that you need to stretch to reach 1500 words. i've seen amazing essays from people talking about how working at the summer pool changed their perspective on the community they lived in, and how building a computer from scratch made it apparent that that's what they wanted to do for a living. the people reading these essays want to see you talk about something you like/have an understanding of and that you can do so well.
I know Bad Ass said he doesn't have trouble expressing himself, but for everyone else who may have issues with essays, please, please read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" essay. It has great advice on brevity and avoiding awkwardly stuffing thesaurus-derived SAT vocabulary and other inflated language into your writing. I know it helped me make the mental switch from the "BSing" of high school essays to actual writing.
I know this is cong but I was really hoping for a pun at the end there.
32-34 ACT would be where to aim imo, but that should be the 42104672967th thing on your mind right now. I have no question you can get your score there in 3-4 years when it will matter.
Also, I think Duke might have some G/T program for kids like you (CTY, maybe?) I know Northwestern, JHU, and Wisconsin have programs like that.
Nah...I wouldn't risk it imo, it's not as bad as putting "candy stripper" on there, though.
I would rather be undecided for the first year and then pick a major starting sophomore year. You can always change it then, but locking yourself in freshman year without trying anything is not a great idea.
As somebody who changed his major four times in his first year of school and now isn't in school largely for that reason, I recommend giving yourself time to figure things out before you declare your major. You spend your first year or two with prerequisite courses anyway, so there's not too much immediate pressure. During that time, explore your options. As an example, if you're thinking about going into teaching, reach out to some local teachers and talk with them about what it's like. Ask them if you can sit in on a class or two and pay attention to their perspective rather than that of the students, which you've almost definitely grown accustomed to. Most teachers are excited to talk to college students about that kind of stuff. The same goes for any other career path. People who are passionate about the things they do really love to talk with others about those things. It doesn't make sense to charge headfirst into college with only vague ideas of what you might like and then make a decision based on them, even if that's what many people do.
here's how I did it. I wrote 2 different common app essays, one "serious" one for schools I wanted to get into, and one experimental one that I wrote about pokemon. I wrote about being pushed to perform in tournaments with your reputation on the line, questions about being "washed up" and the general pressures that come with being one of the best in the world at something. I also wrote about the intense exhilaration you get when making something innovative and the pride when you see people copying your strategy and spamming it on the ladder, the pride knowing you influenced an entire metagame. if you focus on things like that i.e. the tangible connections to real world and life lessons you learned, it's a nice unique essay, and top colleges love having kids that are the best at random shit. a lot of kids write about how random activity X teaches them lessons about the real world, but I think if you're highly ranked or considered one of the best/innovators/etc. then you can write about lessons that most kids don't i.e. pressure to perform at a top level and the influence you can have on other people. at least that's what I wrote about and with wild success. but there are plenty of things to write a meaningful essay about. pokemon is full of themes ranging from decent to great depending on how good your writing is, including but not limited to: understanding your opponents better than yourself in order to get in their head and outplay them, innovating the metagame and influencing hundreds of other people, toeing the line between satisfying the masses with tiers and creating a balanced metagame, the pressure of official tours, bonding through team tours, coping with luck as a part of the game in high-stakes situations, being moral vs. leaking other ppl's teams, dealing with ghosting, and many others that I'm missing. I just thought of this list in the past few mins. personally I chose dealing with pressure and innovating/affecting other people, because I thought these could showcase qualities in me that would make me an attractive candidate (namely that I'm no stranger to pressure and that I am an influential person if I want to be), and they were also relevant to me and stuck with me as a person.
anecdote: I applied to 7 schools, sent the pokemon essay to 4 of them and the "serious" bullshit one to the other 3. got into the 4 pokemon schools including a full merit scholarship to 1 (state school), a nearly full merit scholarship to a 2nd (top 20 school), and a likely letter to a third (top 10). all 3 of the schools to which I sent the bullshit essay rejected me, though to be fair one of them waitlisted me and then took nobody from the waitlist that year. I think if I had sent the pokemon essay to those 3 other schools I probably would have had a good shot at getting into one or more of them, as one of the schools that accepted me looks for a very similar type of student to the 3 that rejected.
if you do mention Pokemon my advice is to only have it in the essay and not actually mention it anywhere else as an extracurricular, because really a video game is not an extracurricular activity. I think having something really quirky like pokemon that you're the best at can be a huge advantage in a sea of identical candidates, but of course it's best if you are still quite good at everything else (i.e. "well rounded" on paper, good stats, etc.). if you can back up the themes in your essay with other things that show off the qualities you wrote about then that's even better as it lends credence to what you wrote.
Last edited:
I'm curious as to how easy/hard scholarships are to get for undergrads? I'm currently entering my senior year of high school with a 4.18 weighted GPA (3.89 unweighted), 2140 SAT, and 32 ACT. I've been part of a Fantasy Sports Club since my freshmen year but I haven't done anything too special with it, I've played soccer since I was 4 and I'm on the Varsity team, and I've done some decent community work such as helping my city's mayor run for State Assembly this year as well as constantly volunteering in the local soccer club community. I'm planning to apply to about 12-15 schools and major in Business Management and I'm just wondering how much will be covered through scholarships and how much I will have to cover through loans. Obviously I have to get accepted first and it varies by school but for out of state schools I'm mostly interested in schools like Oregon, Washington, Purdue, Penn State, Michigan (parents are alumni), and Illinois. My counselor also said she wants to nominate me for the Jefferson Scholars Award at the University of Virginia which is a full 4-year scholarship but that award is for valedictorians and the like and I doubt I could get that honestly. I'm from California by the way, any help would be appreciated.