Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

What are my chances for Emory?

CaptainFalconCaptainFalcon Registered User Posts: 17 New Member
edited December 2013 in Emory University
Hey guys, I was thinking on applying for Regular Decision at Emory.I'm planning on majoring on International Business and/or International Studies if I were to attend Emory. I was wondering if you guys could chance me based on the information I provided below. Thanks ahead of time!

GPA
Unweighted: 3.6
Weighted: 4.3

SAT (highest)
Reading: 660
Math: 580
Writing: 690
Total: 1930

ACT (highest): 27

Academics
I'm in the IB program. I was in the Pre-IB program my Freshman and Sophomore year. I consider my classes rigorous. Right now all my classes are IB classes. Also I've had AP US History, AP European History, AP World History, AP Human Geography, AP English Language, AP English Literature. I was able to take these in areas where I didn't have IB classes yet. My other classes are considered Pre-IB classes in my freshman and sophomore year. The IB program in my school restricts me from choosing away from IB classes, but when I do, I've picked the AP options

Activities
-Future Business Leaders of America (4 years) (Former President, Current Vice President and Executive Board Member)
-National History Honor Society (1-2 years) (Founder and Current President)
-French Honor Society (2-3 years) (Secretary)
-National Honor Society (2 years) (member)
-National English Honor Society (2 years) (member)
-National Science Honor Society (1 year) (member)
-National Math Honor Society (1 year) (member)
-Leo Club (3 years) (member)
-Teen Court (2 - 3 years)(member)
-Big Brother Big Sister

Awards:
-Outstanding Volunteer Award from (Name) Hospital (Over 100 hours) (9th-12th)
-1st Place in Emerging Business Issues FBLA (11th)
-2nd Place in Emerging Business Issues FBLA (9th & 10th)
-Congres de la Culture Francaise en Floride (CCFF) 2nd in French Play (11th)
-CCFF 3rd in le discours III (Impromptu Speaking) (11th)
-CCFF 2nd in la declamation II (Poetry Recitation) (10th)
-Rick Scott's Recognition for Florida Boys State 2013 representative (11th)
-AP Scholar with Distinction
-(Name) High School Honor Roll (9th-12th)
-Teen Court "Honor of Outstanding Performance and Dedication" (10th & 11th)
-Big Brother Big Sister's certificate of appreciation (11th)
-New College Junior Scholar Award (12th)
-1st, 2nd, 3rd in TaeKwonDo Forms and Sparring competitions (9th & 10th)
-TaeKwonDo Judge and Volunteer Honor for "Outstanding Contributions And Support To The Art Of TaeKwonDo And The 2011 Suncoast Sport Fest TaeKwonDo Champsionship" (10th)

Volunteer Service:
I've volunteered in numerous areas, right now my total recorded is 514 hours

Work Experience:
I currently have a job at Mcdonalds and I've been working there since halfway through my Junior year. I also had another job as a paper grader/tutor at the beginning of my Senior year, but it was cut short since the company I worked for closed the branch I worked at.

Essay:
I don't want to be too confident but I want to say my essays maybe somewhat above average, but not too good (they won't knock your pants off).

Recommendations:
Same for recommendations. I want to say they will be above average, but not too good.

Thank you for taking time to read my information. Reply soon!
Post edited by CaptainFalcon on
«1

Replies to: What are my chances for Emory?

  • sundychen95sundychen95 Registered User Posts: 173 Junior Member
    Your GPA and standardize scores will hurt your chance a little bit. But your ECs are good. I would say it's a semi reach.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • aigiqinfaigiqinf Registered User Posts: 4,032 Senior Member
    Your GPA, SAT, and ACT are all below the 25th percentile. Your math score is particularly low.

    Give serious thought to applying to Oxford too. You apply to the business school after your first two years, so it doesn't matter which campus you start with. The political science department at Oxford is also really solid.
  • CaptainFalconCaptainFalcon Registered User Posts: 17 New Member
    Thanks for your replies. :) How would my chances be at their Oxford Campus?
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,311 Senior Member
    According to these stats, your chances are much stronger at Oxford (math below 25%, but verbal near the median. GPA within the middle-50):

    Admission Profile >> Fast Facts >> Discover >> Office of Undergraduate Admission >> Emory University

    That in addition to your ECs should make for a strong consideration for admission I would guess.

    And as I've been telling everyone, if you have any strong AP or HL IB scores already, send them to Emory and Oxford when you can. At first I thought that selective schools mainly only took the amount into consideration but after seeing that video of a sample Stanford admissions candidate analysis, I have reason to believe otherwise. If you can show some more strength in testing via the AP/IB exams, it should help as it shows that you are indeed capable of performing well in certain subject areas (and thus will perform well in courses. ACT/SAT are kind of generic and broad). It's probably very important to show this to Oxford because it's actually pretty rigorous, so may select based upon perceived ability to handle it whereas, to be blunt, places like main campus Emory will primarily try to select the highest stats and best ECs possible without having a negative effect on yield.

    The threshold of stats. at many selective schools doesn't have much to do with whether or not they can do the work so much as it does prestige and marketing. The level of academic rigor at places like Emory and similarly ranked (I would say 15-25) schools is maybe only moderately challenging (though students at some schools will swear up and down that they're being challenged. Most of us have no idea.....) whereas it's higher for places like Oxford which are on an LAC model. I think you have a shot and could indeed handle main campus Emory, it's just that your chances are not that good for admissions on the type of model we have which is actually generous compared to the other selective schools, most who have a 25% of admitted students well above 1400 (damn near 1500 in many cases) by now. And then they enroll barely at the 1400 mark or lower, which just goes to show you it's a big game (only at a few places does the caliber of the coursework match the students and they're usually like in the top 5-10 or some sort of engineering/science oriented school. . This isn't to say the other schools aren't providing a good education, just that it doesn't push you to new heights or anything like that. It's more like an "I have to study very frequently to do well" type of rigor. Most development comes from more EC type of academic experiences). This reality is sad for you if you are really interested in main campus, but it's true. Make sure you have other options where you have a stellar shot (as in do not get very high hopes if you are applying to any other top 20 privates. The chances are much worse). If admissions was really about ability to perform decently in some field of interest and your potential to contribute to the social or EC life, you would get into a lot of top 20-25 schools, but oh well....I wish the best of luck.
  • aigiqinfaigiqinf Registered User Posts: 4,032 Senior Member
    Statistically speaking, an SAT 1930 puts you not far below the middle (1990). Your GPA is also above 25th percentile at Oxford.

    Beyond statistics, you're going to want to assess whether Oxford is a good fit for you and find how you can convey that well in an essay. Feel free to inbox me with any questions--I'm also happy to give you my name to put under "contacts with students" in the Emory supplement to the common application.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    I'm also happy to give you my name to put under "contacts with students" in the Emory supplement to the common application.

    Dangerous thing to say. Your inbox is going to get flooded. :P
    Statistically speaking, an SAT 1930 puts you not far below the middle (1990).
    Careful, man. It's most likely a normal distribution. Not a uniform distribution.


    I don't know about Oxford decisions, but the chances are against this guy for the main campus. If he does well in his first year in college (like 3.8+), he'll get in as a transfer in my opinion.


    I think I value the SAT/ACT more than most people. I just don't understand how people can do poorly on something that measures middle school math and English. How do you expect to understand college concepts when you barely have a grasp of what they taught you in 8th grade... know what I mean? I'm not sure when the deadline is for RD, but the OP needs to sit down and teach himself how to do the problems on the SAT.
    Not just for college admissions, but also to build a strong foundation for his college endeavors.


    I also think the OP should read the second paragraph of http://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats.
    Although SAT scores do not determine an acceptance, there is a threshold that naturally occurs when scouting out for the top talent. And high SAT scores do correlate with outstanding students. Because the best students are both qualitatively and quantitatively strong. I think the OP is very strong in what he does outside the classroom, but the jury is still out on his academic skills.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,311 Senior Member
    I don't put stock in it that much because I feel it's too "gameable" and does not test reasoning as much as it should, and nor do a significant number of selective universities. I would maybe put more stock in it if they were trying to go to a particularly rigorous institution and intended to complete one of the more rigorous programs there (say, science, math, or econ. at Harvard, MIT or something). And also, yes often high scoring students are amazing in ECs, but to what degree. For example, Vanderbilt students statistically are the same as Harvard's, yet Harvard and places similar to it snatch up all of the very intense students in terms of ECs. There incoming science majors for example sometimes have medals in the international olympiads, Intel, and several other competitions, so often the the ACT/SATs don't predict much about the difference in caliber of the ECs. For example, if you have two pre-med students or something. It is very possible that one with a 2000-2150 may have won or placed well in engineering and science competitions during high school whereas the student with the 2200+ may be rather stereotypical (they have your standard list of leadership positions, and don't really display intense academic talent beyond their grades and test scores). In addition, I think AP/IB exams are tougher than the ACT/SAT 1 exams and many, especially those in history and language/lit (like let's be honest here. Those exams are usually more rigorous than the ones almost any selective school gives in introductor history and political science courses if exams are given at all. For example, most comparative politics teachers aren't going to give DBQ essays on an exam. It will often be a fact regurgitation tests) test more vital skills that you would want in an incoming college student (if you assume that the institution is indeed rigorous and does aim to improve critical thinking skills).

    If a student for some reason had mediocre SAT/ACT 1 scores and scored 4s/5s on AP and had a decent GPA, I would give them a good look because it means that they are obviously capable of displaying higher order thinking in those particular contexts, which is what all college courses are, particular contexts. Unless a student is trying to be challenged at a place like Emory by completing a challenging curriculum and taking the strongest instructors, a high SAT isn't needed to do well. Anyone who got mostly 4s/5s (or 5-7 on HL IB/good A level scores) and had courses with a decent workload will likely do fine at Emory. Places like MIT are different. It actually is very challenging and is science/engineering focused. As we know, most science and engineering courses, especially at the beginning are test based. Not only are they test based, but they are unusually challenging (not as gameable, fact regurgitation or algorithmic problem solving oriented). Needless to say, if my SAT were mediocre, I wouldn't want to compete on a curve with those folks. A significant portion of them are very similar to the students you see at places like Harvard, who have developed their talents in certain areas to ridiculous levels that the SAT scores do not even predict well (I feel like the SAT just says, well they can take multiple choice tests well, and can reason to some extent). Places like Emory don't get that many of those types of students. It's like most places, where the students just have high scores, grades, and solid, but often stereotypical ECs. Also, the course work in economics and business are not particularly challenging at places like Emory (which is what the OP wants to go into). Again, if the OP did well on course specific exams, they'll likely do fine at Emory so long as they just do the work (which I question because of the GPA). Would I be saying this if the student were trying to go to a place like Wharton, Harvard, MIT, Yale, or Chicago for Econ (or business in the case of Wharton, where I would imagine the math associated with Penn or its b-school to be more rigorous), Hell no. Most other places, sure. The SAT doesn't tell that much. I mean, the b-school students have a lower SAT than the college and yet they go out and represent well in things like case competitions, they've started business, etc. I'm sure that all of these students didn't have a 13 something on the SAT (hell, a lot of them didn't even take AP calculus, as indicated by the fact that there once used to be a business calc. up until this year. You think they should be good at math beyond SAT math, guess not).

    I just feel there is a difference in the type of high scorers places like Emory and other selective privates get vs. what places like MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Caltech get. They get a lot more of the people who were developing talent in an area or several areas for a very long time and then they took the SAT and did well (I would expect a person that is so good at science or whatever that they exhausted their HS's AP or IB curriculum and then won several competitions to do well on something like the SAT without much effort). We get students who maybe did well in school, maybe did some neat things, but then prepped for and did well on the SAT (basically, the SAT for them actually means a lot more than it does for the person above who has very high talent beyond normal academic settings). The former combination is more likely to do well at a place like Harvard or MIT than is the latter. I don't really know how to describe it, but I guess it's "extremely talented" vs. your normal "high achiever". I think the two are somewhat separable. You don't need the former (nor all of the things that define most high achievers) to stand out at Emory, Vandy, etc. For MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc, you do.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    There's a lot to unravel there.

    I'm probably going to skip a lot of stuff I was planning on saying when I read it.

    I'm not saying the person needs to score a 2250 on the SAT. BUT I do expect around a 2050. I'm not comparing someone with a score of 2250 with a score of 2050. They're both "good enough" to handle Emory. We agree on that. But a score of 1930 doesn't indicate "good enough" (doesn't necessarily indicate "not good enough" either). When you're scoring 1930, then I have to question whether or not you understand very basic concepts.

    I don't think the SAT is gameable. I also don't think it's perfect. But I don't know a single dumb person who did well (of course, I know some smart people who did poorly). Even if it is "gameable", the OP needs to game it and score 2150. I also think the SAT tests reasoning because it, unlike the SAT2 or AP tests, is based off stuff you learn when you are very young. It's not something you need to be taught. You already know it and need to figure out what to do with it.

    I agree that AP exams are tougher than the SAT. But they're very different. I could walk into a SAT test tomorrow and score above Emory's 50%. Because it's very simple stuff I've learned in 8th grade and used since then. I can't walk into an AP Bio test and expect to pass.

    You wont find many intel/olympiad participants who are scoring 2000 btw. Maybe 2150. But definitely not 2000. And, since they're scoring, 2150, they fall into the "good enough" category. FWIW, most of them are going to be closer to 2300. I think you can go to a different forum (maybe AoPS?) and check this. But I would bet so.

    Also, you're still dealing with selection bias in what you said.

    In your second paragraph, most people with multiple high AP scores DO have high SAT scores. I can't back that statement up with data but I'm sure the two are correlated. GPA - not as much because schools all give out grades with their own criteria. Yea, MIT and Chicago Econ are on a different level form Emory, but Emory still attracts great students (sometimes, we forget how much smarter a person at Emory is compared to the general public). The B School students might have a lower SAT score than the college, BUT it's still 1360 average. That's still high. The OP has a 1240.
    The people at Harvard "who have developed their talents in certain areas to ridiculous levels that the SAT scores do not even predict well" still had high SAT scores. Maybe the scores didn't predict how amazing the student would be, but it still indicated that the person is smart.

    FWIW, I don't tihnk the students at Emory have stereotypical ECs. But maybe I'm just that boring lol.


    Also, not all APs are equal tests. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.
    AP English and Government are more reasoning based than AP Bio (which is just memorization, correct?). I'd bet it's less common for people to score high on those than Bio even after accounting for the international student disparities.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    I went on the AoPS forums just because it's been so long and I was nostalgic.

    AoPS Forum - Sat Preparation (First Time) ? Art of Problem Solving

    Not proving anything definitively. But this is more common than you'd think for the intel/olympiad participants you were mentioning. They're not scoring a 2000.

    I missed USAMO by like 2 questions when I was in high school. And I scored higher than a 2000. So add another data point to that.
  • aigiqinfaigiqinf Registered User Posts: 4,032 Senior Member
    Dangerous thing to say. Your inbox is going to get flooded. :P

    Hasn't been a problem when I've said this in the past. Also, I don't give my name to people who just e-mail me like, "Give me your name." I find that people know little about Oxford and there a few resources for them to get more information about it before applying.
    Careful, man. It's most likely a normal distribution. Not a uniform distribution.

    Of course it's not a uniform distribution... A 1990 is the midhinge, which is the best estimation we can make about the middle given what we have.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    That's a good way of doing it.



    1990 is the middle, for sure. But a 1930 could be 1.5 standard deviations from the mean (but I think 1.5 is an exaggeration). So saying 1930 is close to 1990 isn't necessarily true.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,311 Senior Member
    I can agree on that. It shows some talent, but not much (not going to lie, I strolled into the SAT with no prep and was near the 75% for enrolled Emory students, but I don't consider myself talented. Though, since Emory, I've apparently picked up a talent in organic chemistry and some facets of biochemistry and biology. I didn't have these before I came). However, the correlation with income concerns me. For example, if I was not in a magnet/gifted sort of program, 8th grade for me would have been horrendous (still kind of was) as I come from a low income background. What saved me on the SAT (and last year, my GRE) was the fact that I am naturally nerdy and did things like read a lot for pleasure (fiction, science, social science, whatever). I don't know how I picked up such habits (maybe because we didn't have cable for a while), but it saved me.


    Also, when I say "stereotypical", I am doing a selection bias I admit. I basically mean, when compared to other elite institutions. You generally expect a long list of ECs, with some of them being leadership positions. Admittedly, my freshman year, I met some quite unusual students (many of them did not have amazing SAT scores 2050-2150 or something), but had unusual ECs. Also, I do know at least one person with 2000 (or slightly below) who was an Intel participant. Also, I was also trying to say that many of the people at some of those schools were extraordinary in certain areas (beyond standard in class performance) well before high school, whereas often students who come to places like Emory are indeed smart (can make the grades and take the tests, and are leaders outside of the classroom in many non-academic areas, which is great), I don't know if they mostly have that sort of talent (as in, developed talent in an academic area of interest was in the making for a long time, kind of like some of these folks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBhLyYWOSi0) regardless of what their SAT came out to be (I speak of academic/intellectual talent here. The talent in the other areas definitely matters a lot, but to keep it simple, I'm just talking academic talent. The level of passion for everything else among Emory students is generally great, but would be nice to also have a decent amount of people, such as yourself, who were already actually passionate about academics to that level; as in, a level greater than that needed to look good to elite schools on paper).

    As for AP: Yes, the social science and literature exams were historically more reasoning based. However, the AP biology has recently changed. It appears to be a pretty good exam (damn sure better than those given by some general biology instructors here). They focus more on reasoning and experimental design and interpretation (it looks more like IB HL).

    Also, I'm going to rag on the institution I love to rag on (I always thought Emory, ND, and G-town were over-rated academically, and then I found this and was in shock at what places can get away with). How much do you think the SAT 1s mean when students claim this: Teaching
    is difficult (60 averages even in 2012. And teachers rarely change the caliber of their course)
    Compare any of that to: [url]https://****/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BLXB1a1hraXA1a3M/edit[/url]
    or: [url]https://****/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BSUpfNl9MeXl1UU0/edit[/url]

    Both averages in 60s or 70s. I'm sorry, I know that these 2 may be of higher quality than that person, but I don't think differences in instructor quality can really explain that much of a difference. One class appears to be regurgitation/algorithmic and the other (the Emory equivalents. And BTW, these instructors are demanding as much if not more than their advanced courses in the area): "here is stuff you have not seen before, figure it out". Shouldn't the 150 point difference in SAT 1 scores predict that the Vanderbilt students get 75+ (maybe 80) on average on their own exams which don't require much skills beyond what was required to master a science course in HS (regardless of instructor quality. Apparently, like all the others, the dude uses powerpoints and transparencies or something. This style should lead to success on those types of exams. You fill the damned ppts. in, memorize them somewhat, practice, and then put it on the test)? And then if you assume the SAT 1 predicts reasoning and problem solving well, this certainly doesn't support that.

    The same could be said for physics where the patterns are the same (in that case, I just compare it to Bing's. Bing is at the same level or slightly more conceptual, and the averages are the same. If compared to 151, which it should be, it their physics would not do well. I only compared it to 141 because they are both the ones that most pre-healths take. supposedly theirs uses some calculus in the explanations, and then like most of our instructors in 151, won't put it on exams).

    Math (intro) was also as easy as many of our sections. Just weird (I just don't see how some places can have students with credentials like 100-150 points higher than places like Berkeley and Emory and then have classes the same or lower. To be fair, Vandy is not the only place guilty of this. Just makes me wonder if these places should be performing better in the admissions armsrace). The SATs should predict that the performances be different, right? Or are there environmental factors at play? Just something tells me that if you switch the two student bodies from these courses, the grades aren't going to change, at least not for these 2. You are right in some way. I think there must be some threshold beyond where it doesn't really matter, and once beyond that threshold (let's agree with you and say somewhere between 2050-2150 for harsher grading depts/ones that need curves, and shift it lower for those that are less intensive in terms of earning the grade), "experience" (non-classroom and non-formal academic experiences) is much more important.
  • aigiqinfaigiqinf Registered User Posts: 4,032 Senior Member
    1990 is the middle, for sure. But a 1930 could be 1.5 standard deviations from the mean (but I think 1.5 is an exaggeration). So saying 1930 is close to 1990 isn't necessarily true.

    Given the IQR, I think we're okay--but what I'm really trying to emphasize is that a 1990 is far from grounds to find that admission to Oxford is unlikely (on the basis of test scores), particularly when we compare that to the College of Arts and Sciences.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    Your first paragraph, I think, shows exactly what the SAT is supposed to hint at. An ability to pick up more complicated concepts. Nobody expects you to know OChem coming out of high school, but the SAT (supposedly) should hint at your ability to pick it up.
    I think the goal of the SAT is to be able to pinpoint students like you (not necessarily the best schooling in the past but the raw mental horsepower to succeed). Of course wealthier people generally do better (even after accounting for external factors), the aim is to make it a universal test.

    As for the bulk of your post, I would wager a lot of it has to do with how much effort people actually put into learning.
    The SAT should hopefully show that they have the capability to do well. But whether they actually put in the work to reach their potential is a different matter. I mean, if they don't memorize the powerpoint, it doesn't matter how smart the person is. They will have no idea what the test is about. Is that what you mean?


    For Math and Physics, Emory and Vanderbilt students are both above the threshold. So you can't really use the SAT to say one will do better than the other. Just that both should theoretically have the ability to "get it".

    You did mention environmental factors. Vanderbilt has D1 distractions. That might have something to do with lower scores as well. Lots of confounding variables.

    As for the math link you posted, you don't use SAT scores to measure those guys. You use putnam scores. LOL.


    aigiqinf - You'd know better than I would. I haven't looked at the IQR. Sounds good to me.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,311 Senior Member
    What is interesting about these standardized test scores is that often they are kind of just testing "who can take a test". For example, exams like the SAT and GRE often have a correlation (and MCAT to some degree) which means that even though say, Vanderbilt and Emory are probably equal academically (caliber wise), they'll likely have more success with grad. school/prof. school placement because they will ultimately test better on the entrance exams if you assume the level of the courses was the same (this mainly applies to pre-health and maybe pre-MBA where the courses taken during undergrad and UG experiences may be similar). And what this means is that, if you are at the lower stat. school (and would not be in the middle 50 of a comparable school with higher stats), the primary way to I guess close the gap and increase the chances is take higher caliber courses or instructors in hopes that it'll improve preparation for those exams (as shown at places like MIT. These students have high scores, which would maybe predict a 31-32 average for pre-meds on the MCAT, and then the courses are rigorous, so they actually end up with a 34 average among their test takers. I'm basically calibrating vs. Washington University which has an average of 32). However, this can risk the GPA if these courses are graded on a curve, tougher instructors tend to get a higher amount better calibrated students (as in beyond the SAT/ACT. This especially goes for advanced and intermediate courses with such instructors where you'll be competing against many more students who aced the per-requisite with a tougher instructor and may also be/have been involved in research in the field and the like. All students who are relatively fearless).
    It's just inexplicable how these patterns can persist after basically putting forth the same level of performance in similar level course work in university settings. I mean, I would say that in the NCLB era that students, especially high achieving ones are trained to take and prep for those sorts of exams through any means possible, and some students are better at it than others from the get go. However, again, beyond a certain threshold, if you put many of them in the same classroom (this is excluding some of the insane HYPSM types), you won't really notice any differences because course exams are "tailored" to a very specific situation and may often take the "multiple choice advantage" away. Often you actually hear students at elite schools get annoyed when the prof. gives an exam that has a significant free response portion, especially if it isn't the vocabulary, definitional type or the "write whatever you read on the power point/lecture notes or in the book". (I may be unusual in that I personally no longer like multiple choice at all and had to retrain myself to take the GRE because I tried to avoid classes that stressed them like the plague at Emory). For example, biology (and even some chemistry teachers) teachers that design exams outside of these norms often catch hell in evaluations unless they grade softly.

    Either way, any differences in performances can often be explained by simple will to work/ work ethic more so than intellect which could mean that perhaps GPAs (unweighted I guess) in conjunction with HS courseload are better predictors of caliber in some environments (the standard "work hard play hard" elites) beyond whatever threshold.
«1
This discussion has been closed.