<p>Well that’s obviously true. You don’t need a graph for that lol.</p>
<p>^^^ According to whom? Just looking at your Naviance graph, your school looks relatively weak (especially if it’s in NY).</p>
<p>US News Rankings. My school is not weak. SAT might be a bit weak, besides that it’s solid. Who said that SAT defines everything?</p>
<p>^ Seriously, do you not read?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously, you throw points and just leave them.</p>
<p>You said your school has to be like stuy etc etc.</p>
<p>I said it is. What now?</p>
<p>
No idea what you’re trying to say.
Well, based off the USNews ranking you provided, you go to Brooklyn Tech, which has a URM population over 20%. That would explain those weaker figures. I only said that it was highly unlikely for unhooked applicants to be accepted in those numbers and that frequency from a single school.</p>
<p>"No idea what you’re trying to say. "</p>
<h2>I was clear. You say sch things such as “I doubt your school is ranked etc etc”…when I tell you “it is”, you just stop talking about it.</h2>
<p>Most URMs at my school dont apply to Ivy Leagues.</p>
<p>I also hope you are not trying to tell me that all those Columbia appliers are URM.</p>
<p>
I said a Andover/Exeter/Stuveysant type school, aka top 10 or so feeders to schools like Columbia in the country, which your school is not.
I’m telling you that it is highly unlikely that those 10 applicants got in without a hook. That much is common sense. Either they are URMs, recruited athletes, developmental admits or the like. If you insist that they are hookless, then the most likely scenario is that they falsified their admissions decisions. I’ve now said this five times, it shouldn’t be that hard to process.</p>
<p>"I said a Andover/Exeter/Stuveysant type school, aka top 10 or so feeders to schools like Columbia in the country, which your school is not. "</p>
<p>First of all Stuy is thirty something (not top 10). I live in NYC and I know very well which schools are like Stuy. Those are the 3 original specialized high schools, Stuy, Bronx Sci. and Tech. Best three in NYC. And all are nationally ranked.</p>
<p>“I’m telling you that it is highly unlikely that those 10 applicants got in without a hook. That much is common sense.”</p>
<p>And I never said no to that. As a matter of fact Axel said so and I said that it is very possible. So before writing, READ. <—Good advice ;)</p>
<p>
Stuyvesant is generally regarded as the one of the top 10 feeders and their acceptance numbers attest to that. I wasn’t talking about whether the high school is a specialized high school, seeing as my examples were Stuyvesant, Andover and Exeter.
You never said no to that? Then why did you argue with me in the first place. My original point was that either most of the kids accepted with scores below 2000 are hooked or they probably falsified their decisions, and you continued to object to the statement. Not sure what you meant by “so before writing, READ”, seeing as nothing I’ve posted indicates that I haven’t read the posts I am referring/responding to.</p>
<h1>Do you have any website stats that shows you the best public feeders for Columbia?</h1>
<p>Nope. That’s funny. I should ask you that. Your argument was:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was arguing that it is plausible that Columbia took that much students below a 2000 SAT from my school. </p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p>“I’ve now said this five times, it shouldn’t be that hard to process.”</p>
<p>Ok and that relates to me how? You were arguing it for no reason since I did agree that there is a good chance that those people had hooks.</p>
<p>
No, it’s common knowledge. Just like everyone knows TJHSST and Harvard-Westlike (along with the aforementioned schools) are all top feeders.
Of course it is plausible, as long as they are hooked. And the post of mine which you quoted says exactly that. My original post summarized: “I think most of the sub-2000 score kids falsified their decisions. Unless they were hooked, it’s highly unlikely that they were accepted in those numbers with that frequency”.
Where did you say that there is a good chance that they have hooks? I must have missed that post.</p>
<p>No, don’t assume such. If you don’t have stats then it’s not info. of value.</p>
<p>Axel said such and I agreed after him:</p>
<p>“it’s absolutely impossible to say anything from that chart. all it says is that people from your school have been accepted with worse stats and people have been accepted with better. without knowing any more details about those dots and you you can’t really say anything about your chances at all, especially considering that all the gpas are contained in a relatively small range of scores. i guess the obvious thing to say is that you fall on the line, but as the many red x’s show that doesn’t necessarily suggest anything.”</p>
<p>^ There is no mention of hooks whatsoever in that post.</p>
<p>“without knowing any more details about those dots and you you can’t really say anything about your chances at all”</p>
<p>He was referring to hooks…what else?</p>
<p>Thanks to the other two people for sharing. Thought that I’d contribute.
Seems to be only showing ED candidates. (Talk about self-selection.)</p>
<p><a href=“http://imgur.com/np0oq.png[/url]”>http://imgur.com/np0oq.png</a></p>
![http://imgur.com/np0oq.png[/url]](http://imgur.com/np0oq.png%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>All that quote says is that you can’t use a Naviance graph to gauge chances… Seriously, there is not a single post in this thread where you “did agree that there is a good chance that those people had hooks”, quoting your post verbatim.</p>
<p>@n00b: Wow your graph is nice and clean :P</p>
<p>@Jersey: By this age you should be able to make simple inferences like the one that I just made. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say.</p>
<p>this thread has just turned into like…80% of subtle bklyn tech butthurt</p>