<p>@Colene- I had read your next sentence, and appreciate it as far as it goes. I just thought that the first sentence could use a bit stronger refutation.</p>
<p>… You mean qualifying what I said? I’m pretty sure it’s clear what I meant to say, but you can always interpret it that way just for the sake of argument. That was really beside the point i was trying to make there anyway.</p>
<p>No, I meant to refute that first sentence in no uncertain terms, since I thought that, even with your context, it was shortsighted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, oldfort. Why don’t you show me some of these kids who are good at seemingly everything? Let’s go through the list: academically strong? OP checks out (make that nationally ranked strong); social? you and I know nothing about the OP so you have no right to judge him as a socially inept robot; start a video game/programming club? people as smart and passionate like OP are highly likely to do this; oh, look, so why wasn’t he accepted when a bunch of 1900 key club guys were?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with everything norcal has said in this thread, esp. the above. Honestly, being president of key club, captain of some jv sport, and 300 hours of volunteering isn’t impressive at all and should no way excuse a 1900. The concert pianist or the genius programmer with nothing else could and will contribute much more to the school than the president of a random club of 5 members who’ll probably drop that “passion” when he gets here anyway. Someone like OP with genius level talent and some of the highest scores to boot should not have gotten rejected when I see tons of 1900s with average ECs getting in. </p>
<p>The problem boils down to 3 words: ILR, CALS, and HumEc.
*Yes, I know OP applied to engineering, which is why it makes no sense at all.</p>
<p>You see “tons of 1900s with average ECs getting in.” Talk about anecdotal over-generalization and exaggeration – there it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the hell? You just pulled that out of your ass. This thread has nothing to do with the contract colleges…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the issue is that when you compare the freshmen admit stats of the contract colleges vs. CAS and engineering, there is a noticeable difference in SAT scores. But, that alone I wouldn’t mind. However, most of the guaranteed transfers are also from the contract colleges. I don’t think anyone will dispute the conjecture that GT on average probably have lower SAT scores than the regular admits. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if most of the guaranteed transfers do indeed have SAT scores of 1900-2100. And then you throw in the fact that most of the regular transfers also flood the contract colleges. The reality is that the difference in SAT scores between students in CAS and Engineering and the students in the contract colleges is probably quite dramatic. We don’t know how dramatic because Cornell doesn’t release SAT scores for GT’s and doesn’t require SAT scores from its transfers. So, yes, if you only look at the released data, the average SAT scores in the ILR, HumEC, and CALS probably don’t look that bad. But, there is a large group of students in these colleges that don’t factor into the data. It would not surprise me if the TRUE average SAT score of the contract college students is 100-200 points lower than that of CAS and Engineering. To me, that’s a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It has everything to do with contract colleges because those are the least selective colleges at Cornell. I don’t buy the notion that these are “fit” schools and that SAT scores should be less important for admissions to these colleges. Guess what the top destinations for students from these colleges are? Law school. Business school. Med school. Grad school. Just like CAS and Engineering. I certainly didn’t see many fashion design, plant science, agriculture majors in the contract colleges when I was there. We should stop buying into the garbage about these being specialized schools because the kids in these schools are eyeing the same damn careers as other Ivy Leaguers.</p>
<p>I got a 1910 on my SAT’s…
and an 800 on the Math II…
and a 5 on AP Physics…
and a 5 on AP Stats…
and 5’s on BC and AB calc…</p>
<p>SAT’s aren’t a measure of academic ability, it’s a measure of “do you have the money for a good tutor”/“do you want to commit to the test”</p>
<p>I chose to spend my time on things that would directly benefit making me a better person; sports, independent exploration into math and sciences, politics, new languages, relationships with my friends/family…</p>
<p>In all honesty I don’t believe the SAT’s will ever be phased out of the picture, they are a good way to compare Student A from Haiti to Student B from Australia. At one point however they’re not going to be a major factor. Sure I got a 1900 but I probably care a hell of a lot more about physics and math (compare this to your intended major/study) than you do, and I probably know a hell of a lot more about that field than you. </p>
<p>If you want to surround yourself with people who know the SAT’s great but they will know the SAT’s. If you want to hang out with me I will give you a run for your money in any debate, I guarantee it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m going to be a radiologist. So I care and probably know more about physics than you. I also had a perfect score on the physical sciences section of the MCAT, which roughly 2 out of 1000 test takers get. And I didn’t even take physics in high school.</p>
<p>That’s why Cornell needs to admit more 2400 scorers.</p>
<p>@norcalguy</p>
<p>If people use the contract colleges just to get the “ivy league name”, then why aren’t there more applicants to the contract colleges? Believe it or not, colleges do not decide how “selective” they are going to be. It’s a function of supply and demand. The college can only SUPPLY a certain amount of spots, and the DEMAND is the number of applicants. Colleges accept the more qualified (how they decide that is a whole different issue) candidates over the less qualified ones. Therefore, the greater the demand, the more qualified the admitted applicants will be.</p>
<p>Not very many people apply to the contract colleges, compared to the others. Why? Probably because not a ton of people want to major in what the contract colleges have to offer. Why is CAS one of the most selective, if not THE most selective college at Cornell? Because it has the most applicants per spot available.</p>
<p>If the contract colleges received a similar number of applicants as the others, would they be equally selective? Of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is one important factor that you leave out of your conjecture regarding the “actual” average SAT stats at the contract colleges. I am referring to the fact that they receive a larger amount of in-state applicants due to the 10 thousand/semester savings available to them. This may actually give the adcoms additional high scoring applicants from the in-state middle class, who need the break. Your contention regarding the supposed low stats of GTs may not be true. We don’t really know how low or high their stats are, do we.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you really believe that? How many state schools are ranked in the top 20? Even Berkeley, which draws from the largest state and arguably has the best applicant pool to choose from, can’t measure up to private schools. The applicant pool for the contract colleges is not stronger than the applicant pool for CAS and Engineering. You are one of the more reasonable posters, Colm. Don’t make me doubt that lol</p>
<p>^ The contract colleges are actually hybrid private/public, and I was merely arguing that your conjecture might not be as low as you hypothesized for the average stats at those schools. There is an important factor you left out, and we don’t really have the data.</p>
<p>@norcal that wasn’t directed at you it was at Saugus sorry I didn’t make that clear</p>
<p>wavedasher - I know nothing about OP other than what he posted, and what I wrote wasn’t targeted at OP. </p>
<p>
Ok, why don’t we give it a shot…D2 with over 2200 SAT, 98 UW GPA (probably will be Val or Sal), IB course load, ballet (danced with a will known ballet company while living in the States, 15-20 hurs per week), played piano, senior officer for the student government, editor in chief, president of a children cancer society, selected for a competitive summer program, photographer, debate team, track, volunteered at Bridge…My kid wasn’t good at everything, but she did a lot more than just study. She participated in many ECs, had an active social life, and was still able to maintain her GPA. She didn’t do anything for the purpose of getting into college. She enjoyed what she wanted to do during her spare time. I don’t think D2 is unique at a school like Cornell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s fine. Passion counts for something. It’s hard to do something well (particularly something that’s difficult) if you don’t have passion. I don’t have qualms about Cornell looking for passion. I think most people would agree that the OP is passionate about something. It’s not dance or rugby or football. It’s programming. It’s not sexy but he has passion.</p>
<p>My main point in bringing up myself is that you also need talent and intelligence. I didn’t have any passion for physics in HS (obviously, since I didn’t take a single physics class). I didn’t have any passion for physics in college. Now, I’m entering arguably the most physics-heavy field of medicine (maybe second only to radiation oncology). But, I’m good at it because I have the intelligence to deal with physics. </p>
<p>I don’t mean to imply that I scored a 2400. I didn’t. I scored close to what would be 2400 today (back then the SAT was out of 1600 for you youngun’s). No one scores 2400 on the SAT and 36 on the ACT by accident. That’s why I think it was a mistake for Cornell not to admit the OP despite whatever flaws he may have had on his application.</p>
<p>I also would like to apologize to the OP for calling him an “Asian robot.” It really irks me when people stereotype Asians and I’m guilty of that myself.</p>
<p>I really hate the fact that the OP is somehow penalized for having typical Asian interests. So what if it’s stereotypical? It’s his interest and it matters to him.</p>
<p>Way back in 2003, I was rejected by UCLA (if you wanna talk about baffling rejections) as an in-stater. That’s how I found this site in the first place. I posted about my essay topics on here. I wrote about my experiences growing up as an immigrant in the Midwest, having a family income of $8000, and going to a really really bad school (that has now been shut down by the district). People told me that my essays were “cliche” and stereotypically Asian. To this day, those comments bother me. I can’t help it if 50,000 other Asians did the same thing. It certainly didn’t make my life easier. The double standard that we apply to Asians in admissions is atrocious. If a black person does premed and plays college football, he gets the Rhodes Scholarship. If an Asian person does premed and is an engineer, he gets a big fat rejection for being too stereotypical. If the OP is passionate about Asian things, then he’s passionate about Asian things. He shouldn’t be penalized for it.</p>
<p>norcalguy</p>
<p>I don’t think any of us can meaningfully comment on OP’s application, as none of us have seen the entire application, and none of us are familiar with what goes on in the admissions committee.</p>
<p>Since I haven’t seen his application, let me share some views generically.</p>
<p>Grades and Scores are just two factors in the application process. There is an essay. Almost everyone says they wrote a great one. For Cornell, I would venture to say that most essays are grammatically correct, but relatively few truly stand out. Even where a teacher says it’s great – Does this mean the top 10% of ALL essays the teacher reads, which easily could be middle of the pack for Cornell.</p>
<p>Recommendations – Do they stand out, are they average, or in a rare case, did the teacher or counsellor stab the student in the back.</p>
<p>I could go on … but I think you see my point – it is impossible for us here at CC to say why any one student did or did not get in. 2400/36 is evidence, probably even proof of a very intelligent person. It is not, and I don’t think it should be an automatic admit.</p>
<p>zephyr15, I understand that. I think you can tell from my comments that my frustration with Cornell’s admissions policies (which I have voiced in the past) goes beyond just this rejection. The rejection of the OP is just the epitome of Cornell’s admissions policy which simply does not place enough emphasis on objective factors (as evidenced by the fact they don’t require any standardized test scores from transfers). Obviously, that’s just my opinion. And obviously many people disagree with me.</p>
<p>norcalguy</p>
<p>I think we’ve each read each other’s posts and it’s safe to say that you and I have certain philosophical disagreements about where Cornell is and where it should be. In case it doesn’t come through, I respect your passion for Cornell and your desire to make it the best it can be. More importantly, despite the fact that we often disagree I take pride in the fact that each of us can air these opinions and have this debate in a civilized manner, respectful of each other.</p>