<p>^^^: There is a difference between obsessive compulsion and being perfectionist.
One refer to unintelligent repetition in order to achieve a result while other refer to intelligent organization to achieve the best.</p>
<p>Yes, actually, most normal people would indeed label someone as “arrogant and obsessed with tests” for retaking a 2370. Because “perfection” in taking a test is merely … perfection in taking a test.</p>
<p>It would be one thing if the perfection actually achieved something in which the end goal was worthwhile. (For example, a medical student working to perfection in learning a surgical technique comes to mind – where not being perfect could lead to consequences.) This is just a test, though. It’s a means to an end. </p>
<p>My nephew (who is not on CC, to my knowledge!) was accepted to MIT today and while he’s very accomplished in a multitude of areas, he was not one of those “2400/800’s/4.0/#1/all 5’s.” However, in addition to excellent scholarship, he had interesting EC’s that he was passionate about. He wasn’t nationally recognized or state recognized in his EC’s. But he was interesting as a candidate for a number of reasons. And that in and of itself trumps the “rack up the points and act as though a 2350 is meaningfully different from a 2300” pseudo-model. Honestly, it’s so discredited.</p>
<p>PCP - maybe you need to start a new support thread called “2400/800’s/4.0/#1/all 5’s applying to top schools.” Maybe it’s those kids and their parents that need the love and assurance! :-)</p>
<p>WOW: This topic has generated a lot of discussion. In marketing, one of the ways to generate interest is to create an impression of “exclusiveness”. Being exclusive means creating a sense of the “unknown”, of “mystery”, of “secretiveness”. Ivy League’s have this aura of exclusiveness and hence attract attention. Ivy league’s are like a closed club where getting in means not only should be a top of your game, you should also have something that attracts them to accept you. I am not sure that there is one formula, but their are common theme that include: very high grades, very high scores, a passion for something, good written skills. We can debate till the cows come home as to what the minimum cut off point is or what combination will work, and we will never get an consensus as there are always exceptions and a certain unknown in the process.</p>
<p>So I think there are two different questions: “what is ivy league caliber” and “what does it take to get into ivy league”? Due to the randomness there may be many kids who are “ivy league caliber” i.e. have great stats, EC’s commitment etc, but never get into an ivy league. To me an ivy league caliber is a student who can succeed in a competitive institute filled with very bright kids. I think that is easier question to answer than the other.</p>
<p>
So in two sentences, not only are you labeling me “not ordinary” for retaking a test, whatever that means, but you are also equating a desire for perfection as arrogance?</p>
<p>I don’t know if you’re arrogant or not (was this thread about you? I don’t seem to recall) but yes, I don’t know any adults who would consider retaking a 2370 to try to get a 2400 a positive sign in a young person. It’s a poor use of time when a 2370 will get you everywhere a 2400 will. It says that you’re not getting that the test is something to evaluate where you stand in general terms, not something to be mercilessly attacked again and again in hopes of getting that perfect score. It says that your priorities are getting a 2400 instead of doing other things with your Saturday mornings.</p>
<p>I understand perfectly what the SAT is used for and how little difference a 2370 to a 2400 makes in college admissions. However, I chose to retake the test simply because I aim to perform at what I perceive is the best of my abilities. I don’t see how taking a standardized test a second time shows any errors in my priorities. </p>
<p>And just thought I should add this, acceptance data shows that a 2400 definitely has an effect on chances of admissions when compared to any other score. For you to say that a 2370 will always get you anywhere a 2400 will is quite presumptuous and wrong.</p>
<p>Jersey13 - I am sorry that there are people who feel that they need to judge you during what must be a very stressful time. You have obviously worked hard and should not have to regret anything that you have done or not done. I wish you all the best.</p>
<p>Straight from the horse’s mouth – here is what MITChris said on the MIT board just today.
PCP – I do, sincerely, hope you are reading this in light of your attempt to “model” based on scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PCP - this is why your model couldn’t ever work. You reduced it down to factors without controlling for context.</p>
<p>I’d like to get back to our discussion, but I’m still too euphoric over S1’s results this weekend to engage in serious discussion. I’ll quickly respond to a few things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never claimed the last model I put up works or that it is a finished product. I’m trying to build one, so it is work-in-progress. I’m being honest with what are some of the difficult things to integrate and I hope other people may have ways to overcome them. We may discover that at some point, the model may not work too well for a particular school or two, that’s fine too. I don’t want to be the only one on this thread trying to build this abstraction. If it comes to this, then we can end this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The model is concerned with only the apps and results. It does not necessarily need to quantify all aspects of an applicant or all aspects of what goes on in an admissions office. It does not even necessarily need to sort out all causal relationships. Yes, I/we lack both enough data points and details within each data point. That’s why I asked other CC parents who are interested on this topic to join me in this adventure. It is great that people are finding faults with the model, so we can continue to tune and improve it until it becomes useful in some capacity. This is the whole point of the exercise.</p>
<p>The recent MIT results are very interesting, but I would not say too surprising. The model allows for various “merits” to come in with different weightings. The transcript/test scores combo, albeit carries a lot of weight, is not necessarily decisive. One can rack up enough points on the EC and other categories to have decisive credentials. </p>
<p>Assigning more weight to a 2400 than a 2300 does not necessarily imply the adcoms are given more weight to the former in individual cases or as a matter of practice. It is assigned more to allow for the statistical possibility that on average, the students who achieve the former may also come with stronger or more “interesting” areas elsewhere, areas that may or may not be captured in the model. We may also discover that at some point, the model may not work too well for a particular school or two, that’s fine too. </p>
<p>When we say an applicant is interesting beyond just stats, what makes that applicant “interesting” must be found somewhere on the app. Yes. We do have an issue with how to evaluate and integrate essays into the model. If it comes down to feeding in a subjective self-evaluation to the model, then so be it, but I’m hoping we don’t have to come to that.</p>
<p>Guess my quick response isn’t so quick after all.</p>
<p>PCP - first off, congrats again. Your son did phenomenally well! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes – and that’s not found in GPA, SAT’s, AP’s … Or, frankly, in many (most?) EC’s. There is nothing inherently interesting about being on the tennis team, or winning the science fair, or whatever. It is the qualitative “what sticks out, what is unusual.” For example, my nephew that I just posted got in at MIT presented an unusual profile in that he had a combination of certain EC’s and interests that very few applicants would have. Built on a basis of solid academics and test scores, of course. </p>
<p>Elsewhere MITChris mentioned that a successful applicant had designed some US stamps. Now how cool is that?? Imagine that kid – he gets the label “that’s the stamp kid” and he stands out in a sea of 2300+, science-fair-winning, varsity-sport-playing kids. But how can you “model” the sit-up-and-take-notice aspect of that kind of EC?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually funnily enough that’s where I think the “kickers” are. In the subjective part. And honestly, that’s where I’ve asked my kids to spend their time when it comes to thinking about apps. That’s not to say that it’s not important to have a base of solid academics, but they won’t <em>distinguish</em> themselves from other applicants based on academics. What will make an adcom sit up and take note is that they are whatever their version is of the “stamp kid.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that you then refused to take seriously the raw data they provided to you, because it didn’t fit your preconceived statistical model.</p>
<p>For example, here’s your most recent statement that is pure conjecture (probably personal preference) and does not add up with actual admissions results:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no evidence, even on CC, that that is true, and in fact it is more often true (looking at postings alone) that the 2300 scorers are the ones with more interesting areas elsewhere. I can think of somewhere between 3 and 5 admits who have posted in the last 6 years that had 2400’s and also outstanding outside accomplishments, but by far they were outnumbered by < 2400’s who had rockin’ great e.c.'s. For the last 7 years minimum in college admissions, “The Action” (the competition), at least for the institutions students drool over, has been in e.c.'s. If you haven’t noticed this, you haven’t been awake, or you’ve been in denial.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl –
Thanks so much for that quote from MITChris. It’s likely it will be used in thread responses many times. (And disregarded for one reason or another many times!)</p>
<p>With the exception of a few scholarship competitions that may require a 2400 to qualify…what I’ve seen is that the highest tier admissions offices do not look so favorably on the kids from our community who have a single sitting 2200+ and then take the test multiple times. It’s why a few of the schools are not allowing score choice - they want to see how many times an applicant took a standardized test.</p>
<p>(There will be exceptions and I’m sure there are posters who have examples of kids with 2200+ in one sitting and took the test a bunch of times after that and got into HYPMS. I would suggest that there is much more in these applications that actually helped over-ride the multiple high score tests.)</p>
<p>The advent of the public CDS and the AI seems to have really fueled this speculation over the value of statistics. We’ll never really know if these high stats on the CDS are causal of admission, or just coincidental (excellent students just happen to also generally have high stats). And unless we sit on adcoms we’ll never accept explanations given by admissions officers, especially since they often conflict.</p>
<p>If I were on one of these committees (thank the good Lord I have another job), I would probably find it appealing that a kid thought it was more valuable to spend an extra 5 hours a week on their research project than sweat the A in 10th grade health. I would also probably look favorably on a kid who scored 240 on the PSAT, but stuck with a single sitting 2280 on the SAT because they couldn’t see the value of spending another Saturday stuffing vocabulary words into sentence blanks when they could be at the homeless shelter.</p>
<p>But I understand those are big risks to take.</p>
<p>S scored 1550/1600 at a single seating and decided he had better things to do on a Saturday morning than try for a 1600. He also got a B in PE. He was in 2/2.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quantitative models don’t try to predict who is admitted where, they try to usefully estimate the probability of various admission outcomes. The latter is a perfectly reasonable problem and there are enough published data for a smart modeler to go to town.</p>
<p>Yes, but even the things that may raise acceptance rates over the single digits they are at the most competitive schools still don’t raise them to levels that are worth drooling over. One would have a point of being a valedictorian or having a 2400 raised acceptance rates from 10% to 80%, as an example. Those are meaningful differences in odds. When being a valedictorian or getting a 2400 raises your chances of acceptance from 10% to 15%, what’s the point? It’s still very much a crap shoot.</p>
<p>Frankly what I think is sadder is all the kids who are now “afraid how they’ll break the bad news to their parents.” A big for-shame on parents who have put so much emphasis on getting into only a few schools and convincing their kids that they are losers if they don’t get into them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, siserune. And the OP said he was interested in probabilities, and in all-Ivy qualification. The problem was that the published data (e.g., CDS) do not correlate the quantitative with the qualitative for any particular admit. And when provided with self-reported quantitative + qualitative data (via CC and via direct knowledge), the OP refused to acknowledge that such data directly opposes his long, minute, hierarchical model of the predictibility of particular quantitative factors. The data suggests rather that his categories are arbitrary and much too layered to be of any use. </p>
<p>The dynamic is much more like an updated AI, added to the quite unpredictable factors of variety in personal background (geographical, financial, family of origin, other), which can throw off probability models. Even there, though, judging from how the OP ranks what is important to him, he’s way off in what’s important to the committee, particularly as it comes to weighting.</p>
<p>Well, I save Guatemalan midgets from extinction, cure dolphins of facial acne and break through windows in a dress and heels just in time to save the hero from a shark pit. I was ranked #1 in biblical quiz bowl, where I out-competed Noah. I’m a quadriplegic with a stutter and I was born with only one nostril. My SAT is 2500 and my ACT composite is 37. I hope I make it in!</p>
<p>completelykate, best answer ever!</p>