<p>Get over it.</p>
<p>In November 2007, the OP stated on these boards his SAT score was 2000 not 2390. Which is it? If the score was actually 2000, chances of admission were virtually nil.</p>
<p>cory, its offical: </p>
<p>your a jerk, support this depressed guy. being rejected sucks, give him some positive feedback.</p>
<p>sorry man…there’s always grad school…keep up the good work…im sure there missing out on a great student</p>
<p>Hi Sieken,</p>
<p>No I did manage 2390 at the end in my december SAT, coz I had 2 months summer break to study (coz i’m from S.Africa). I wonder why it neva made a blip in the collegeboard anomaly radar…or maybe it did.</p>
<p>SATs are dumb, one can just practice the pattern of questions that can come up…america relies on it 2 much.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to brag. But I was contemplating a rejection after february because Caltech said that it is v. hard for international students to get admitted with financ. aid…and i’m international and had asked for aid.</p>
<p>When you say it is very hard for internationals who ask for aid, how much aid are we talking about? Is it difficult for internationals with good credentials who ask, say, only 2000 dollars of aid?</p>
<p>My question is, does it matter how much money you ask for? Or does the fact that you simply asked for aid (regardless of how small) screw you over? Is there some kind of cut off policy that they don’t want to let us in on? By they, I mean Caltech and Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just goes to show that a 2390 isn’t a ticket to college.</p>
<p>Hi Anik,</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how much aid you are asking for…atleast for caltech…which I think is pretty stupid…because there is a lot of difference between a person asking for $2000 and a person asking for $20000.</p>
<p>There was an extra form which I had to fill send (for international applicants only) when I applied for caltech. I had to sign whether I was gonna ask for aid or not. Maybe I could have got admitted if I had decided not to apply for aid…who knows.</p>
<p>Ishwar, sorry for your loss. And good point! The form which they ask us to sign, about our intent for aid, clearly shows that simply asking for aid gets you a thumbs down. Do you tinker with spare parts/build models of stuff from household items? Caltech really digs that. </p>
<p>Of course, many people lie about doing that on their application, but that doesn’t help. The committee uses techers (admitted students) to detect bull-****, and nobody’s better at judging applicants than former applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would’ve been of little use. Even if you did get admitted with no aid, you wouldn’t be able to attend. And that would’ve lead to a rejection for a student who wished to attend.</p>
<p>Eh, stinks. I don’t really like the letter because you can’t tell what decision it is by reading the first sentence. I know when I read my letter, I can hardly even comprehend the words (because of being so nervous and excited). If the second word hadn’t been “regret” I might have missed the whole point, haha. </p>
<p>That sentence just stretches out the anxiousness.</p>
<p>@Anik,</p>
<p>check this out: [Caltech</a> Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://admissions.caltech.edu/]Caltech”>http://admissions.caltech.edu/)</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s pretty stupid but I’m not complaining. Maybe I can attend grad school there…gotta start prepping up for GREs soon haha.
Did you get into caltech?</p>
<p>@gouchicago</p>
<p>It would have been hard, but I could have managed the first year without fin. aid. After that, I will definately be looking at grants and maybe the caltech SURF or something. But its risky coz i can get deported if i dont arrange finances.</p>
<p>@brillar</p>
<p>True, it stinks alright. All I knew was that if I didn’t get a FedEx package from caltech…then the time spent opening the letter wouldn’t be worth half the paper used to write the letter.</p>
<p>sdchargers i hope you’re being sarcastic</p>
<p>Ishwar, see even if you were able to pay for the first year without aid (like me), you’d still have to apply to Caltech as an aid requiring student because Caltech has the whole ‘speak now or forever hold your peace’ policy. If you need aid after the first year, you’d have to let them know before hand.</p>
<p>By the way, have any of those people whom Caltech refused with ‘regret’ tried to reply to Richard Bischoff’s email? Has anyone asked him or Caltech’s office as to why he/she was rejected? I’m dying to know if they give a straight forward answer. Anyone?</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> .</p>
<p>Anik,</p>
<p>So I take it, that you got in?</p>
<p>Actually, my friend said that getting into Caltech is the main problem…if one manages that…then after a semester or 2 …one can get scholarship opportunities…or grants or something</p>
<p>I didn’t try to reply…but obviously if they reject you then your not worth enough.</p>
<p>No Ishwar, I didn’t get in. If I did, I wouldn’t be asking if Caltech reveals specific reasons as to why certain applicants were rejected. Oh well, maybe I’ll reply to the rejection email. At worst, it’ll go to Richard’s junk mail. At best, he’ll give me some rehearsed excuse and tell me to try again next year.</p>
<p>So what you’re saying is, I can apply to Caltech saying I can pay in full, and then when I’m in, I can use scholarship and grant money to make ends meet, even though I made it clear that I would never ask for assistance in the future? That’s preposterous!</p>
<p>it’s a lot easier if you’re a girl with 2390… 5 girls from my class already got accepted to cal tech… no guys…</p>
<p>What’s all this about gender having an influence on admissions? Yeah, yeah, Caltech wants a more balanced ratio of male to female, but I doubt the admissions committee goes out of it’s way to select girls when there are more qualified male applicants. </p>
<p>What’s more likely is that out of the applicant pool, the female ones have greater talent. Why might this be?</p>
<ul>
<li>despite feminist movements, women are still faced with the unspoken bias associated with belonging to the ‘weaker sex’, so they unconsciously strive harder to accomplish more than their male peers; obviously they succeed.</li>
</ul>
<p>*males have monopolized the fields of technology, invention and research for past decades, so most males have a natural inclination towards techies, even those with poor credentials. But females don’t possess this bravado, so only those females who are very certain of their extraordinary abilities in science would apply to places like Caltech and MIT.</p>
<p>P.S, I am male, and not a feminist. Theories about women benefiting from higher acceptance rates simply because they’re women are very poor theories indeed.</p>
<p>congrats you now have something in common with 9,999,999 other people</p>