<p>Rejected from MIT, Caltech…do I have any chances for Stanford, with a SAT of 2050?</p>
<p>Not if that is all your have, please elaborate on yourself. Nobody can tell you anything based on just an SAT score. This is especially true for schools like Stanford that can afford to reject people regardless of their score.</p>
<p>What does it matter now? You’ve already applied, and there’s nothing you can do about your chances. 2050 is low. They will need to find a reason in your application to overlook your score. If you were trying to sell yourself as a math/science type, then I don’t think you have much of a chance. You will not be able to handle technical courses at Stanford.</p>
<p>“If you were trying to sell yourself as a math/science type, then I don’t think you have much of a chance.”</p>
<p>That is so not true. I know at least 3 people who have gotten in as science majors and have SATs barely above 2000.</p>
<p>With due respect, it is completely ridiculous to think if you have a 2050 SAT you can’t handle a college course. Since when did SAT start really evaluating people? What, if Einstein took SAT he would get a 2400? Or would J.K Rowling or Stephen King get 800 on literature? </p>
<p>SAT, like any other standarized test or any kind of ‘educational’ test for that matter, can never truly analyse who you really are. There is so much to being a human being that you can never be analysed by a score. No one tests your risk-taking or your courage or your imagination anymore. So don’t judge yourself via SAT. You have a shot.</p>
<p>^Like it or not, the SAT/ACT is one of the main criteria that schools like Stanford use to evaluate their applicants, and a 2050 on the SAT severely impacts one’s chances.</p>
<p>Last time I checked, Stanford’s average SAT scores were about 2150, so saying that someone can’t handle courses at Stanford because of a 2050 SAT score is absurd. </p>
<p>Also, your SAT score is evaluated based on your background. 2050 would be acceptable for a low-income student in a “No Child Left Behind” school, but would be a black mark for a Northeastern prep schooler. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SAT scores have a high positive correlation to IQ, so it can be reasonably assumed that a person whose IQ is in the upper percentiles will perform at a comparable level on the SAT. Your overall point is correct though-- the SAT only measures a limited scope of abilities, and there are myriad other considerations when evaluating a college app.</p>
<p>Keep in mind Einstein did horrible in his early schooling years. It is quite possible he wouldn’t have even close to breaking 2000. But he lived in different times, and who knows how he would do were he brought up in our modern world.<br>
Don’t define yourself by your SAT scores. Yes they generally help in differentiating between a kid with a 1600 and a kid with a 2200, but there’s more to a person than how many multiple choice questions they can correctly choose (along with writing a good quick essay!).
Just my two cents :)</p>
<p>Madshock, he did poorly not because he was dumb or a late bloomer, but because he always argued with his teachers and hated they school system because he felt it was to intellectually constricting, thus causing him to get poor grades because he didn’t give a damn. he was always a genius and probably would have aced the test (at least the math).
however i agree with your second paragraph
also to the OP, 2 kids from my school got in last year with SATs of 2000 and 2100 (however they did have great ECs), so really anything is possible.</p>
<p>Two people from my school got in Early Action with high 1900s and then some got rejected with 2100+. Hmm. It’s crazy. You’ll find out soon enough!</p>
<p>What matters most is that you are an absolutely amazing person with a contagious passion for learning, free-thinking, expression and ideas which will make Stanfords’s college community for the class of 2015 a better place. This will show up in so many factors within your application, body of work and recommendations, its hard to list them all. </p>
<p>Remember also that the Stanford Class of 2015 applicant pool may have three “identical-zainrocks” and only a spot for one or two “zainrocks” in this class [where they wanted and took four “zainrocks” last year]. </p>
<p>Also, remember that just about every school has broke records this year for the number of applications, but the number of slots to be filled hasn’t changed at all. There may be five to ten students that can do the work at the rigor that Stanford demands for every one that they admit. Being a 2300-2400 with an unweighted 4.0 and 10+ APs [all 5’s on scores received to date] does help one’s odds, but still many candidates with those numbers can still get rejected.</p>
<p>You guys realize that Stanford has officially said that test scores are looked at last during admissions process and don’t matter that much…?</p>
<p>^ lol…so young, so naive</p>
<p>Is that true what Jasonvdm is saying?</p>
<p>Jasonvdm, I don’t think that’s quite correct, though if you have a source to point to, I hope you’ll post it. My understanding of the role of test scores is this: it’s true that Stanford doesn’t have a strict cut-off of test scores that they use as an initial filter. (Many public colleges do use that technique, but few private colleges do.) However, test scores do count as a very significant factor among many others. The adcoms read the applications holistically, and interpret the test scores in their overall context. Students in situations that may have adversely affected their test scores (economic disadvantage requiring lots of employment during high school; persistent illnesses and other misfortunes; very low-performing school district; etc.) will still be looked at closely for other indicators of ability and potential, and some of them will be admitted on the basis of those indicators, as well as essays, recommendations, etc. This is the basic review process used at most selective private colleges, from what I understand.</p>
<p>btw…I was rejected :P</p>