<p>I’m totally with NorCalGuy. I don’t want to be around a bunch of 1900 scorers with no actual “talent.” I almost picked Berkeley at the start, but then I realized that they were there too.</p>
<p>Can’t believe Cornell passed on OP.</p>
<p>Uh, OP was a state and national level programmer. I was the Governor of all Interact clubs in Los Angeles County. Pretty sure that’s “passion.”</p>
<p>Seriously, look through the threads and you’ll see URMs with literally only NHS and “soup kitchen volunteering” getting in. It’s ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There aren’t that many 1900 scorers, and the very few that there are have mostly do with great talent in the specialty programs, or URM status, or recruited athlete standing, etc. …do agree, however, that OP should likely have been accepted, but we can’t see the entire picture that the adcoms have at their disposal, so we can only really surmise.</p>
<p>^
Look in the decisions thread for this year. I don’t know if it’s skewed because this is CC or something, but there are a LOT of sub-2200ers getting in. And none of them have any “passionate” or outstanding ECs.</p>
<p>A 1900er just isn’t smart enough in nearly any case. You can make the argument for a 2100er with amazing ECs over OP, but not 2100ers with weaker ECs but a different race. Cornell shouldn’t be using affirmative-action when we lose in cross-admits to almost everyone anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is why there are hardly any 1900 +/- acceptances, and that is why there aren’t excessive sub-2200 acceptances – despite what you’ve chosen to focus on in a very, very sub-standard sample with too much un-trustable data, that is a short CC thread. You can’t trust all the extremely high stats you see “reported,” just as you can’t trust all the extremely low stats listed. Plus, again, it is a sub-standard sample in general.</p>
<p>Saugus, you sound a lot like a tool! I hope you are nicer than you sound in here.</p>
<p>An SAT score is not the sole determinent of one’s worthiness to be at Cornell! You sound like you think those with 1900s might pollute you in some way. I suggest you open your mind and try to understand what these other students bring to the University as you will find you have so many opportunities to learn from your peers. Its very arrogant to say you don’t want to be around a bunch of people with 1900s.</p>
<p>And, at Cornell, no one talks about their SATs, class rank, etc.</p>
<p>I agree, that is an arrogant statement and you are right TKsmom, it is not the sole determinant. It is about half the determinant, with the other half being GPA/class rank.</p>
<p>The SAT is overrated. I think the subject tests actually give a better indication of collegiate success.</p>
<p>This is one of the most elitist threads I’ve seen in a while. Do you guys interrogate people you “suspect” are dumb with questions asking for your high school stats? If you guys had to interview people and guess their SAT score/high school stats I bet the majority of you all wouldn’t be able to guess even within 200 points or a 3 people (rank).</p>
<p>I really feel bad for Saugus. It is sad to be so bitter at such a young age.</p>
<p>He is not going to be happy unless he has the best - best school, best career, best house, best spouse - because he has worked so hard to get the best. And the best will always be what other people have perceived it to be. </p>
<p>He was very down about Cornell initially, but once he decided to go to Cornell then it must be the best. Now after reading some posts here, he is thinking maybe Cornell is not that great, but it is ok because it is just a mistake he is not at HYPS (due to AA). So now whenever he meets someone at Cornell, he is going to ask, “Hey dude (or dudette), what did you get on your SAT? below 2200? Well, not sure if I could be friends with someone like that.”</p>
<p>Its a little funny how many people who posted on this thread assumed I was just a robot who studied all day and did little else. Thats not really the case: I do like 1 or 2 hours of schoolwork a day, play sports, hang out with friends, etc. But if all of you came to this conclusion about me, Im sure that the adcoms would have as well. Its unfortunate that perception beat out the reality here, but thats partly my fault as well. I didnt realize how important it was to market yourself in this process. However, the one part of it that I found irritating was that it was my scores that made me seem obsessive. If I had, say, a 2250 and 34, I dont think I would have seemed so extreme. So, I would have benefitted from not being as good? That makes absolutely no sense. </p>
<p>On the topic of the SAT and standardized tests, I feel that its a measure that was so overrated before that its now become underrated. After they were big in the past, so many people have bashed them as meaningless that theyve lost too much value. Stats arent perfect measures, but they do show that an applicant is intelligent, hard-working, or both. They are also the only objective means of comparing applicants. Everything else is subjective and ultimately creates a more chance-based system. </p>
<p>Granted, ECs are valuable as well, and I would gladly lose out on a school to someone with a truly impressive activity, like the National leader of an organization or an incredible musician. But Ive found that too many activities that are believed to show passion are just shams. President of a bunch of clubs? Popularity contests. Founder of a club? Only you and your 4 friends go. 500 volunteer hours? You sat at a desk and did nothing constructive. I dont see how such achievements, coupled with stats that demonstrate nothing about their ability to excel academically at a school like Cornell (they may or may not be able to handle the work), are so deserving of admission. This hurts not only the school, but these students as well who have a good chance of struggling in classes. The whole admissions process is definitely flawed, and I dont just say this for myself, but also really accomplished peers who were shafted by many top schools.</p>
<p>You guys are getting ridiculous. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re probably right, but remember that we’re on the topic of affirmative action. There is no justice in taking someone with a 1900 over someone with a 2400 and better ECs due to race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, this is why I want to be around people with high critical reading scores. I don’t like replying to foolish rants.</p>
<p>1900 is not a strong score. The SAT is as much a test of willpower as it is anything else. If someone cannot even put in enough effort and practice to secure a 2100, well, then… You get my point. They won’t “pollute” me. They will just not be intellectually stimulating, in general. No, none of those skills are used in architecture/ecology, etc., which is why I said 2100 and not 2200. But it’s correlation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The best is what’s best for the individual. But you’re getting off-topic here, because this isn’t about me. OP worked hard to get as far as he did and yet it amounted to nothing due to affirmative action. It’s absolutely ludicrous to suggest that had OP been a URM, he would still have been labeled a “robot” and rejected.</p>
<p>It is purely racism.</p>
<p>What you are suggesting is that “backwards racism” case that someone brought to court ages ago. Well, they didn’t win the case, so now we still have it. Granted, it was supposed to make it so that people of poorer socioeconomic backgrounds would have “curved” chances of getting into good colleges because they were disadvantaged, but then we take URMs from richer backgrounds anyway so there is no point. If they were not disadvantaged this way I kind of agree that they should be subject to the same standards that we face. I feel like it’s a good idea but it’s implemented poorly.</p>
<p>So Northwestern and UC berkeley are “nothing”? You have got to be kidding me.</p>
<p>As far as AA being racism, its intent was exactly the opposite, that is, it was meant to rectify the atrocious deal African Americans received in the United States for something like 200 years or so. You can argue that it is time to phase out AA, but you can’t justifiable say that it is purely racist, since the reason for its existence was exactly the reverse. This is the only place where African Americans actually received some much deserved restitution for the horrendous legacy of slavery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A 1900 SAT score doesn’t mean one is not intellectually stimulating and curious and aware of the world around him. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Scoring very high in critical reading doesn’t mean you are good at arguing and giving your opinions. The CR tests vocabulary and comprehension of basic reading passages. This isn’t the LSAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OP got accepted to Northwestern and UC Berkeley, two excellent and just as competitive schools as Cornell, arguably more so. And he still has all the knowledge and ability gained from his hard work over the past four years.</p>
<p>"This is the only place where African Americans actually received some much deserved restitution for the horrendous legacy of slavery. "
That’s not them, that’s their ancestors.
Anyways you can kind of argue that they still have it because of the aftereffects - leaving their children in the lower echelons of society. However, I don’t feel that the kids should have the leg up if the parents already have it made for them. If they’re born into riches, they don’t deserve the extra boost (which some of them clearly still get because colleges just get more underrepresented minorities to show off and boost their rankings)- but otherwise yes I would agree with AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you trying to tell me that African American culture has today completely recovered from the ill-effects of slavery? Your joking, right?</p>
<p>Colm, the thing is, Obama’s children will benefit from AA. If Bill Gates adopted an African child, that child would benefit from AA. It’s not about the background one grows up in; it’s about the color of one’s skin. Nothing else.</p>
<p>Yes I know being a first generation college student is a bit of a bump, too, but that’s not the issue at hand. This is just about how colleges look at race in an applicant.</p>
<p>@Colm
Please, read my next sentence.</p>
<p>I have some AA friends back in high school who have made it just as far academically as their asian counterparts, maybe even more, because of their equal socioeconomic standing. However, that’s when college admissions set them apart. AA, i feel, should be only considered strongly when the applicant is from a poorer background (in terms of opportunities and finance).</p>
<p>@GregFields- I agree with that, which is why I conceded in my post above that it may well be time to phase out AA, and that that was a perfectly valid contention.</p>