<p>@T26E4 </p>
<p>“I think this is GENEROUS. They plug the nos into their algorithm and move on. That’d be 2 seconds. Then they may muse over the overall academic picture, sure – but I’m sure it’s a psychic blow to HS students to wrack their brains over these exams and then to see that in reality, it’s just a data blip for colleges.”</p>
<p>Could you please clarify this position? I’m not particularly targeting you-- I’ve seen this said by many of the adults and other ‘experienced members’ on the site and I’m interested in understanding it further. In essence, I see people saying that ‘GPAs and test scores are vital for top schools’ and then, conversely, I see statements such as the one I quoted above. I can understand that, below a certain level, scores and GPAs can make an applicant uncompetitive, and that above that level, perhaps the distinction between scores (760 vs. 800) is meaningless-- but the extent to which you minimize the impact of scores by saying that they’re barely given ‘2 seconds’ seems incongruous with what I’ve heard elsewhere. </p>
<p>It definitely makes it seem as if the subjective analysis of the applicant (assuming it gets the other 9mins and 58secs) is weighted far more heavily. If this is the case, why are applicants with 3.7s or 3.6s told that they’ve got a long shot (more so than a 4.0)? </p>
<p>Perhaps my question is a bit vague. Please let me know if you’d like it reframed. </p>