I just did a prstats search on 2008 Columbia rejectees...

<p>..and only one person out of 18 had an SAT score of above 1500. </p>

<p>Waitlist stats were less encouraging, though...a few 1600s, many 15xxs. </p>

<p>What do you guys think about this? Good sign?</p>

<p>i don't think this means anything. columbia, as we all know, is less numbers driven than a lot of other top schools.</p>

<p>WAIT you mean most people had 1400s/1300s...this is such good news i heart you.</p>

<p>Anyone with a 1340? ;)</p>

<p>Misscompetent--I could be wrong, but I think she means the opposite...those who were rejected generally had SAT scores below 1500, implying that those who were accepted had scores above 1500.</p>

<p>Yeah, that is what I meant (although I am a guy, and not too metrosexual at that).</p>

<p>It doesn't necessarily imply that those who were accepted necessarily had 1500+ scores, it was just meant to reassure us 1500+ers a bit (no elitism intended...I'm sure many of the 1400s on this board have more of a chance than I do).</p>

<p>As a 1360"er" I find this concerning. </p>

<p>Hopefully my score from today's sitting will save me.</p>

<p>Haha, antisthenes, sorry about the anatomical mix-up. </p>

<p>25% of Columbia acceptees do have above a 1510, so most of the class is made up of sub-1500ers. We have to remember that only the college-obsessed (i.e. me) use prstats, so the numbers on that site are a bit inflated.</p>

<p>ive got a 1330</p>

<p>prstats is a disgrace to statistics, since they are completely unreliable, and possibly inaccurate. As someone said, the people who are overachievers, and do everything for the sake of getting into college are the ones who use prstats the most, and they obviously do not represent the general population (and if they do, something is terribly, terribly wrong)</p>