<p>I would say just having a perfect application is a false sense of security.<br>
You never know, the admissions officers who read your essay might just be having a crappy day and boom!!! out goes your college aspirations =/</p>
<p>well trins, a dream school for one is a safety for another, but if she’s happy and gets in then she can have whatever sat she wants. as for you heplayer, you can take a deep breath because two admissions officers go over every application, and then present to the entire adcom. then at the end they either recommend an admit, waitlist, or rejection. they don’t just look at gpa and throw out an app. or take it out on an applicant because they’re having a bad day because it would be unfair to the student who paid the application fee.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure RISD is not anyone’s safety, any more than any Ivy is. :-)</p>
<p>you have yet to respond to anything I have said thus far. All you have been doing is arguing off topic, claiming that people can be happy and succeed even if they don’t get a high SAT or go to an ivy, which we’ve already established in the very beginning. You have failed to provide any logical thought, any actual evidence of anything you said, except for your wonderful daughter, whose intelligence I would imagine is about your level. </p>
<p>
Define low. Low is different for different people.</p>
<p>
Frankly, we don’t care. It doesn’t really help in your argument, either</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Just because your daughter isn’t focused on the SATs, doesn’t mean it’s not useful.</li>
<li>So now you’re admitting, that for many schools, especially the top ones, SATs do matter. </li>
</ol>
<p>
No. However, we are talking about STANFORD, and why a 1300 just won’t fit. Bringing in your daughter who has no ambitions (which is perfectly fine) doesn’t really mean much.</p>
<p>Even you have said that an ivy applicant would need more focus on the SATs, you have absolutely nothing to defend yourself.</p>
<p>Then again, you’re probably going to avoid my post again.</p>
<p>
LMAO!!! wow man that’s dirty. but seriously trins, you really do argue off topic, and fail address the points being discussed. either way at Rhode Island School of Design, i would totally get in. their middle 50% for sat bottoms out at 1660 (garbage), but also still above 1300. i don’t mean to sound mean, but really it’s no stanford, and i’m sure it’s no one’s safety school because not that many kids wanna go to a design school. it appears that this is obviously the case, or they would have room for more than 1900 kids, my high school has more students.</p>
<p>a 2300 on the SAT will help one to get accepted whether he/she is URM or not lol</p>
<p>Calm down guys, can we please talk about something less controversial and nowhere as important like abortion,universal healthcare, gay marriage etc? You know, conversation starters?</p>
<p>
no. seeing as i am a straight male, and unable to vote, none of these topics are relevant to me. until i get accepted somewhere april 1st, or hopefully ed december 15. nothing is as important to me as college is. in addition if you want to talk about that, don’t post in the thread called “things that give a false sense of security about getting into college” and on a website called collegeconfidential no less.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that Morsmordre’s comment was tongue-in-cheek.</p>
<p>mahomushi68, I’ve got something for you. It’s a chill pill. You’ll like it, I promise.</p>
<p>I think maho is just responding back with the same type of tone. but I could be wrong ;)</p>
<p>anyway </p>
<p>how about my sibling got in so so should i?</p>
<p>
yes. but anyway, fine. i agree with my sibling got in, so i should too. my sister was waaaaaay smarter than me. she didn’t get rejected from any school she applied to (wash. u in st. louis, northwestern, boston college, etc…). i also don’t have anything close to her 3 varsity letters and 4.6 gpa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me how.</p>
<p>Many URM’s, by no fault of their own, are less wealthy than the general populace. Less wealth means less access to prep classes, tutors, etc. It’s a proven fact that the wealthier populace usually does better than the lower-income.</p>
<p>so again, the only argument for AA is because URMs tend to be less wealthy. Yet people still think URM AA is better than economic AA. weird.</p>
<p>i think it’s nonsense. i have never had a tutor, and anyone who can afford the collegeboard book can study for the sat with the same effectiveness of a prep class or better. i think what really makes it difficult for the urm’s of low income are the areas they live in. it’s the culture of drugs and gangs that distract kids from their studying. a friend of mine tutors in the inner city (8th graders) and they didn’t know long division. one of the kdis in the class asked if he sucks phalas, and when asked if they wanted to go to college several responded that they wanted to deal drugs and could hit him up for a nickel bag. when such things are seen as status symbols or levels of achievment there is really no hope, so that is why when one manages to rise above their circumstances, go against the grain, and put forth effort in school colleges see reward them with admission.</p>
<p>^That’s just horrible. But I wonder if the admissions process feels that way towards a person who wasn’t really raised in the inner city(but not super wealthy). Or would they hold them to higher expectations</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t arguing for or against AA. I was using income statistics to support the fact that there are few 2300+ URM’s.</p>
<p>Yeah, being a URM is probably only a real boost when the person is lower income. I am middle class (120K) and being black certainly didn’t help at Princeton or Harvard. I was flat out rejected while other URMs with lower scores were accepted. I was just as qualified as the Asian applicants too.</p>
<p>Dbate, best not to get your own stats involved in this since we can have a real “dbate” about that and that would sort of get away from the purpose of this thread…</p>
<p>But I will say you broached an interesting point: someone will almost always be rejected while someone with lower scores will be accepted when it comes top college admissions. Now of course, that exact 1300 story may not be true, but there are people with lower than the national average on the SAT’s in at least one section at Stanford, and I’m sure the same can be said for all other top schools, save Caltech and math.</p>
<p>Yeah, scores really don’t matter as a pure barometer for attainment, everyone seems to acknowledge that pre-admissions but afterwards that is what people look at when gauging if people should have or should have not been accepted. It is rather myopic IMO.</p>