| | |
CC Resources for Yale University
 | |
08-18-2009, 06:19 PM
|
#46 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,112
|
I am bumping this thread up because I think it contains information that some current browsers may have missed and is even more pertinent now as applicants decide when they want to apply to schools. Furthermore, the thread housing the posts has been lost behind many pages on the College Admissions forum.
I am still willing to answer any questions! I'm not biased in a relevant way yet; my turn comes up next year.
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 08:38 PM
|
#47 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,112
|
Bumping again because I think it's a valuable resource for those who find no significant fault in the methodology.
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 09:30 PM
|
#48 | | New Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 26
|
Great analysis, Silverturtle. You are a whiz at this statistical stuff. One follow-up question: Assuming an unhooked candidate is over the apparent SAT I/GPA "threshhold" (for this purpose, let's call it 2300/3.9 gpa) what are the odds of acceptance based on the data you analyzed? I'm assuming for this purpose that no information is available about the subjective elements (EC's, essays, recs, etc) to distinguish one candidate in the "pool" from another. Does the answer differ by white vs ORM? You've probably answered these question already in one of the threads, but, on quick review, I couldn't find it.
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 09:39 PM
|
#49 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,112
|
That's a good question; about 40% of those who passed the "threshold" were accepted.
Nonetheless, I think the most important conclusions that can be drawn are more about what one must have in order to get accepted early. The sample size doesn't make conclusions about the chances of this viable group very convincingly.
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 09:47 PM
|
#50 | | New Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 26
|
Yes, and it also occurs to me that the cc bias towards overachievers (as against the overall population of candidates over the threshhold) may particularly skew the % acceptance statistic. In other words, cc participants in the "pool" may be more likely as a group to have outstanding subjective elements relative to their non cc counterparts. On the other hand, perhaps the reverse is true, since spending a lot of time of cc may get in the way of developing outstanding EC's. |
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 09:49 PM
|
#51 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,112
|
Your comments about the perhaps unrepresentative strength of the applicants' subjective elements may be true, which is why the data should be used only in determining thresholds; the subjective elements' relative strength is likely not so great as to meaningfully skew the practical threshold.
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 09:53 PM
|
#52 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 81
|
Assuming that my objective elements (2370 SAT, 3.95 GPA), are up to par with the SCEA number, would it be more advantageous to apply early or during regular decision?
I've heard mixed messages, with saying that SCEA is best only for hooked applicants (which I'm certainly not...middle class ORM) and others saying that SCEA is best for those with 'different' subjective elements as compared to most Yale applicants.
Which is true?
I have fairly 'unique' ECs (A lot of political/debate stuff and math/science stuff), and otherwise stereotypical Asian stats. The only thing I think that sets me apart is my interest in politics.
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 10:10 PM
|
#53 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: sin city
Posts: 1,226
|
do meeee!!:
3.9uw GPA , 4.0 when you discount that stupid grade in PE(electives kill)
2290 sat I, 2360 sat II
5 5 5 5 5
and here's the iffy part:
female(yay) and chinese (nay) and engineering (nay or yay)
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 10:18 PM
|
#54 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,112
|
Vaeliant,
As you'll see from the results, Asian applicants with stats on your level were accepted; it's definately possible.
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 10:20 PM
|
#55 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,112
|
Pigs,
You've got a decent chance. However, your SAT may be a little low: none of the Asian applicants in the study were accepted with an SAT score below 2300.
(And yes, only on CC could I call a score at approximately the 99.7 percentile too low.)
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 10:23 PM
|
#56 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: sin city
Posts: 1,226
|
^lol fo shizzle
thanks for the honesty
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 10:24 PM
|
#57 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,112
|
^ I have trouble believing that ten points makes or breaks an applicant. Alas, the data support it. |
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 10:40 PM
|
#58 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 76
|
Did you consider blocking the academic stats (GPA, SAT) by school type? I have a 3.80 (I think eight B/B+'s) at a rigorous prep school (but 2360 single sitting) and am an ORM--is that an absolute killer?
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 10:43 PM
|
#59 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: sin city
Posts: 1,226
|
^I love you you use statistics terminology, ex: "blocking"
|
| Reply
|
11-04-2009, 10:48 PM
|
#60 | | Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 307
|
I can has chancez?
2320 (720 in math), 800, 770, 750 SAT 2s
102 GPA
5 5 5
White male from NJ?
|
| Reply
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 PM. |