<p>calcruzer is pretty much right about franklin olin… i think that it will be more competitive than MIT next year</p>
<p>They had 800 applicants this year… a 44% increase… which means theyre probably going to have well over 1100 applicants next year I think… which makes me sad :(</p>
<p>Given that practically every math nerd I’ve met with decent grades is planning to at least apply(not necessarily go) to MIT, I doubt it’d help to put down AMC/AIME scores at all unless you were one of the top scores in the state.</p>
<p>The acceptance rate to MIT from Olin candidates wasn’t that high this year. I’m not sure about the other way around (MIT students to Olin). I do think Olin will emerge as a power house in 5 years or so, but it’ll be gradual. The admissions office barely barely able to handle those 800 applications this year.</p>
<p>“Nevertheless, lots of those accepted at Franklin Olin will go to the Ivies for the same reason–the prestige and name recognition that come from going to these schools.” </p>
<p>Lots? 50%? 75% 25%?</p>
<p>I’m really interested in your stats on Olin.</p>
<p>It’s not that big of a number that will go to the Ivies for prestige. I know in my case it was the size that discouraged me from going to Olin (coming from a school that is the same size as Olin). Other people that I know who chose school X over Olin aren’t necessarily going to more prestigious schools; they simply didn’t feel like they fit into the social atmosphere at Olin.</p>
<p>bump
bump bump</p>
<p>mathwiz,</p>
<p>take a look at your statistics and the Op’s numbers:</p>
<p>The SAT verbal score puts them at about the 20% number for acceptances.
The SAT match score puts them at about the 50% for acceptances.
The SAT II math score puts them at about the 75%-100% range for acceptances.
TheiSAT II science score puts them at about the 75% for acceptances.</p>
<p>If we add these up (and use just the 75% on the SAT II math) and average them we get about a 55% acceptance rate average–even though it’s probably slightly lower, since I would expect more emphasis on the SAT I scores–so let’s say the chance at acceptance is around 45%.</p>
<p>If you’ll recall, my estimate was that MIT is a slight reach for this applicant.
I would say that 45% chance is a slight reach, wouldn’t you?–or does someone have to be at 80% to be a slight reach now?</p>
<p>Calcruzer,</p>
<p>What I was showing by posting my stats is that those type of SAT scores are commonplace at MIT. Just because you have good numbers does not mean you will get in. I know plenty of people with similar scores who were rejected. Check the MIT decisions thread if you don’t believe me.</p>
<p>I never said this person would get in–I said they were a slight reach. Also, I would say someone is a match if the statistics said they had about a 65-75% chance of getting in.</p>
<p>The point is, you never know where someone will get in–but you can give your best estimate of their chances, which is what this thread is for.</p>
<p>I realize that MIT is one of the toughest schools to get into in this country, but some people will get in–my son’s sailing partner got in last year–but he was the only person from my son’s high school that has been accepted to a school of this caliber in the three years the high school has been open. So obviously, the competition to get in is intense.</p>
<p>I never denied that people don’t get in MIT. I was just saying that of 100 people with similar stats as the OP (decent scores, no major EC’s/awards), 90 will be denied.</p>
<p>Well, I’m estimating 6 out of 10 will be rejected–maybe 7 out of 10 versus your 9 out of 10.</p>
<p>So, we’re probably closer to agreeing on the exact number than it would have originally appeared.</p>
<p>bumpity bumpity :)</p>
<p>Suze, what about schools that don’t rank, such as mine?</p>
<p>I’d say very few (i.e. <5) kids end up with a 4.0 or higher in classes of 350-400. We’re very well known among colleges, though public, and we don’t rank or weight GPA. What happens in that sort of situation? From what I can gather, it seems like the GCs themselves sort a lot out since they know who had the hardest teachers, etc.</p>
<p>There seems to be some confusion about numbers here – having statistics in the 75th percentile of admitted applicants is not the same as having a 75% chance of being admitted. </p>
<p>The majority of the applicant pool (the admissions officers have said around 70%) have approximately statistically equivalent scores, and looking at the admitted student statistics is misleading, because you’re not looking at the strength of the applicant pool as a whole. The OP’s stats put him in the ballpark, but once you’re in the ballpark, it’s not about scores anymore.</p>
<p>Hey antonkarrman, I was wondering if a time like 4:30 was able to get you some recruitement letters from any colleges, especially ivy league. I ask this because that’s my goal time next year as a junior.</p>
<p>Oh, and for those of you who say he has weak ECs, you’re underestimating how much distance running it takes to run a time like 4:32.</p>
<p>Mollie makes an appearance outside the MIT forum! Hehe, anywho… she’s absolutely right. Once MIT sees 700’s all across and an excellent GPA (3.9 UW area), they start looking at “your hook”. You have great ways to input potential hooks, but are you able to put some passion behind those? Even with that, most people are still reaches for MIT.</p>
<p>Calcruzer- your logic is completely flawed. OPs stats fall at around 45% of admitted students. That means slightly above average stats for applied students. And with an acceptance rate of around 10% that means the OPs chances are slightly over 10%. If we’re generous and say the OP has a 20% chance of being accepted, I would still consider that a reach, not a slight reach.</p>
<p>I agree with you wholeheartedly cory123. A 4:30 mile is an incredible time. It’ll get you some looks from Ivies and D-II schools. I’m not exactly sure how it plays out for MIT however.</p>
<p>I think the important thing to remember here is that numbers aren’t everything. I had a 1460 on the SAT and pretty much all my math scores are worse than my english scores. I didn’t take the AMC, and I didn’t do math team. However, you have demonstrate that you will ADD something to the MIT campus. MIT, im sure, could have their pick of the 1600s with four years of USAMO, etc. etc. But, they still accept the rather average(compared to the rest of the pool) kids like me than can add something else besides amazing math skills. Cause that gets boring after a while. So enough with the fuss about where numbers place you, and focus on things like running that are your extracurriculars that you are good at and enjoy. I don’t know for sure what got me into MIT. I’m sure I will never know. But I DO know that it sure wasn’t my scores, all though they might have gotten me through the first weeding out part. I also know that I wrote about my ecs in my essays and about how they’ve affected my life: Science Olympiad and aviation mostly. And the interview is important as well. Focus on your personality, not your scores. Because your scores are the same as about 5000 other people applying.</p>
<p>chocolatelvr88, if someone is at the 50% range on all the criteria ranked by the school, and if they have good ECs, want to major in a standard program offered by the school, have good teacher recs, and have a hook like an expertise in a sport or academic olympiad, I am not going to be swayed by your argument that “everybody applies with these stats and only 10% of these people get in, so at most this person has a 20% chance”.</p>
<p>Why am I not swayed? Because your argument presumes that the application pool follow an exact bell curve with the averages being at the 50% numbers. </p>
<p>But the statistics given are for applicants accepted, so obviously the statistics for those that applied will be much lower. Not everybody that applies is at the 50% range at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Caltech, Duke, Stanford, Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn, Brown, Columbia, Michigan, and UC Berkeley. In fact, I would go so far as to say not even 30% of the applicants will fall at or above the average GPA/test scores at most of these schools (HYPS possibly being the exceptions). Why–because tons of “reach” candidates apply to all of the top schools–hoping to beat the odds. And if less than 30% are at the grade/test score cutoffs, then even fewer are at these levels with the ECs, and good recs, and even fewer have focused, excellent essays, and even fewer have some kind of “hook” like a legacy, or sport/academic specialty/awards.</p>
<p>Thus, most people at the 50% range that have all of the “extras” are not competing against all of the other applicants–they are competing against something like the 20% or so of applicants that have similar or better stats as them–meaning that if acceptances average 10%, than a 50% shot for these people is a reality.</p>