Helpful Thread for Those Contemplating SCEA - Page 3

chair2 · 06-04-2009, 01:10 AM

not being rejected is a comforting thought--even if it's with a delayed one with deferral. i don't know, though.

just a quick question: i know that princeton throws out freshman year grades because they are "adjustment year" grades. but my adjustment year was actually 10th grade--i know colleges won't throw them out, but are they likely to forgive me a tiny bit? (3 B+'s and 4 A's all year, only that year, though)

silverturtle · 06-04-2009, 01:16 PM

I don't know if I'd call if forgiveness, but colleges prefer upward trends in grades. So, having three B's will hurt you, but not as much as if they were in your junior year.

noreally · 06-04-2009, 01:31 PM

Question: Does course rigor/school diffficulty/rank somewhat negate otherwise questionable grades, say a B in AP english and 2 B+ in AP calc? Does a top two in the class ranking also help? thanks

Hunt · 06-04-2009, 01:39 PM

While it may be tedious, I would recommend that everybody interested in SCEA read the 2013 SCEA results thread, all of it:
Official Yale 2013 SCEA Results Thread
While silverturtle has done some interesting analysis of this, I think it's very valuable to read it, and compare yourself with the students listed there. It will begin to give you a feel for the process and for what Yale is looking for.

silverturtle · 06-04-2009, 02:09 PM

^ Agreed.

The approach I took was intended to give an objective and fully quantified supplement to one's reading of the full results.

RFK68 · 06-04-2009, 11:02 PM

Silverturtle, thanks so much for reading everyone's posts and being so helpful!

silverturtle · 06-04-2009, 11:24 PM

No problem. It's all in the hope that when I'm applying in about a year and a half, I get the same kind of help.

And yes. I have been a regular on CC since eight grade.

Invoyable · 06-04-2009, 11:30 PM

Silverturtle - lol, I'd never have thought you were a soph.

While some of his points are valid, I'd like to point out the obvious that the sample size in CC is limited, and also especially considering that the could-be-more-important factors such as essays and recommendations are not within our access, one shouldn't necessarily not apply based on their GPA or something like that (in the case of chair2) or assume that you need to automatically match a score range.

Quote:

just a quick question: i know that princeton throws out freshman year grades because they are "adjustment year" grades. but my adjustment year was actually 10th grade--i know colleges won't throw them out, but are they likely to forgive me a tiny bit? (3 B+'s and 4 A's all year, only that year, though

I really don't think that grades will be the deciding factor of your admissions, and I think you should stop worrying about them (I've seen you post about your grades quite a few times).

drbigboyjoe9505 · 06-05-2009, 12:27 AM

^ I agree wholeheartedly. I am a firm believer that once you cross a certain "threshold" of grades and scores, (i.e. you grades/scores demonstrate you are qualified to handle the Yale workload) it's no longer about grades but about what else you can add to the campus. Worrying about an extra .01 or .1 in your GPA isn't going to help you too much. Rather, work on what can make you stand out to the admissions committee.

Also, I agree with Invoyable that the sample size is extremely limited, not only in terms of the general applicant pool, but also in terms of the race breakdown. You can't call a sample size of 6 or 2 significant at all.

silverturtle · 06-05-2009, 01:05 AM

"I am a firm believer that once you cross a certain "threshold" of grades and scores, (i.e. you grades/scores demonstrate you are qualified to handle the Yale workload) it's no longer about grades but about what else you can add to the campus."

I, too, had this impression before I did the SCEA analysis. But it's hard to argue with the implication of the fact that 30/32 of the unhooked SCEA acceptees had SAT 1 scores over 2310+. I assume your threshold of one's being able to handle the workload does not exceed 2300.

I do not want to imply that I agree with the seemingly continued consideration Yale has toward SAT scores even beyond 2300; I think that anything 2250+ should be treated almost equally given the minor differences in raw scores accounting for the total composite scores.

"While some of his points are valid, I'd like to point out the obvious that the sample size in CC is limited"

I have noted these shortcomings and hope that those who find these limitations minor enough to consider the data useful are, nevertheless, aware of the sample size and self-selecting nature.

"important factors such as essays and recommendations are not within our access, one shouldn't necessarily not apply based on their GPA or something like that (in the case of chair2) or assume that you need to automatically match a score range."

Other, subjective factors certainly affect admission, but the fact that the scores of those accepted SCEA are much more clustered near the top of the score range than are the scores of the general pool leads me to believe that scores do have a significant, threshold-like effect.

I doubt this threshold for admission SCEA is concrete, but it seems present and high.

This effect was not as present in my analysis of Princeton's RD decisions, which may be due to a different policy at Princeton and/or differences in early and regular decision admissions.

silverturtle · 06-05-2009, 10:48 AM

In case you guys are interested: Junie has now completed the Stanford SCEA analysis in the same format as I did for Yale and Princeton. You can find it here: "Race" in College Admissions FAQ & Discussion 3

Based on a quick study, it seems that there is less correlation between scores and acceptances at Stanford than at Yale. I can't easily draw any conclusions about thresholds for being accepted early at Stanford as I did for Yale.

Invoyable · 06-05-2009, 08:02 PM

I wasn't trying to argue anything, but okay..

Quote:

Other, subjective factors certainly affect admission, but the fact that the scores of those accepted SCEA are much more clustered near the top of the score range than are the scores of the general pool leads me to believe that scores do have a significant, threshold-like effect.

I never said scores weren't important, but you'll never know if they were accepted SCEA due to their scores - it could've been due to subjective factors you've never seen, or in comparison to the overall applicant pool.

Regardless, does Yale actually release an accepted % of stats in the ranges like Princeton does? It's be cool to find out that, to avoid this kind of speculation.

silverturtle · 06-05-2009, 10:09 PM

"I wasn't trying to argue anything, but okay.."

Sorry if I seemed hostile. Maybe the quotation/response format gave a bad impression.

entomom · 06-05-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Yale does not seem to give any admission advantage to those applying early. In contrast, the applicants accepted early are, overall, of a markedly higher (numerical) quality than those accepted RD.

This is what I've been saying for awhile. It seems only logical to me that the people Y accepts EA are those who would be accepted in ANY pool of applicants. Y accepts them early because they're the students that will get multiple acceptances at top colleges and this gives Y extra time to woo them. If there's any question about a candidate, they are just deferred to RD when they can be compared to the the rest of the applicants.

drbigboyjoe9505 · 06-05-2009, 11:59 PM

Quote:

But it's hard to argue with the implication of the fact that 30/32 of the unhooked SCEA acceptees had SAT 1 scores over 2310+. I assume your threshold of one's being able to handle the workload does not exceed 2300.

This is part of my issue with the sample size. The students on C.C. are more likely than not high achieving students who earn amazing grades/scores. So, the fact that their scores exceed 2310 doesn't mean that EVERY unhooked applicant needs a 2310+ score. The CC pool is consistently on the upper echelon of applicants to begin with.

Now, that being said, I will heed one point, as much as I hate to talk about "hooks" because I feel the conversation always has the undertone that "hooked applicants" are less qualified: the pool of "unhooked" applicants is larger than that of "hooked" applicants. Therefore, "unhooked" applicants NEED to standout within that pool by whatever means necessary. Usually, that means is academic which would explain why so many unhooked applicants have stellar academics, which agrees with your conclusion.

BUT, I think it's also important to keep in mind that academics isn't everything. Those with stellar grades/scores most likely also have really good essay, recs, and ECs. Do not forget about the "subjective" areas of admissions in an attempt to enhance only your academic portfolio. Sometimes, having stellar essays, recs, and ECs can make up for not having a 2310+/3.8+ for "unhooked" applicants.