<p>Bc UT is awesome. But anyway could anyone gauge my chances to get into UT Engineering Honors for Mechanical Engineering?</p>
<p>My stats:</p>
<p>Race: Black
Rank:16/526
GPA:3.86 UW 5.49 W
SAT: 2070 (790 CR 650 M 630 W)
SAT 2: no taken yet</p>
<p>Work Experience
6/1/07-7/25/07 Target (Missouri City, TX)
6/7/08-7/25/08
Employee Food Ave.
Provide high-quality food service
Mitigate customer relations problems </p>
<p>Activities</p>
<p>9th Elkins High School Track and Field Team
Ran 10 x 10 hurdles and 300 meter hurdles
2nd-10th Elkins High School Football Team
Linebacker, Kickoff, and Receiving Team
Directed the Defensive formation
(Quit because I broke my wrist and had to get surgery)
9th-11th Elkins Band
Concert Band(9th) Symphonic Band(10th-11th)
6th-12th Trumpet Player
Participated in UIL concert and sight reading contests
10th-11th Member 12th Captain Elkins Forensics Team</p>
<p>11th-12th Mu Alpha Theta
Member</p>
<p>11th-12th Science Honor Society
Member </p>
<p>11th Member 12th English Honor Society
Treasurer</p>
<p>Awards </p>
<p>9th District Runner-Up Football
2nd Place in district
10th District Champions Football
1st Place in district </p>
<p>Debate Awards</p>
<p>5th Place Team out of 197 Schools (State)
1st place UT Longhorn largest tournament in Texas (State)
Two time State Qualifier in Lincoln Douglass Debate (State)
1st Place Aldine Debate Tournament (Region)
3rd Place UIL District Extempt Speaking (Region)
6th Place NFL District Extempt Speaking (Region)
National Forensic League Special Distinction Honor (National)
State Quaterfinalist Extempt Speaking (State) </p>
<p>Science Fair Awards</p>
<p>Evaluation of Photon Tunneling Probability by Spatial Variation published in Citizen Scientist
District Oustanding Science Achievement Award (2006,2007,2008)
Top Chemistry Student 2 years (School)
4th Place Science and Engineering Fair of Houston
4th Place American Physics Society-Texas Chapter</p>
<p>Self Taught Quantum Mechanics research:
9th Quantitative Analysis of Electron Transition in Helium (150 hours)
10th Evolution of Time Independent Wavefunctions in an Electrostatic Field (240 hours)
11th Evaluation of Photon Tunneling Probability by Spatial Variation(200 hours)</p>
<p>Ya, I mean it seems incredible to me, someone who is completely not a mathy person to have scored higher than a person like you on the math portion of the SAT, it just astonishes me when I see that you have nearly “600” hours of combined research in the areas of quantum mechanics, a field of study that necessitates a mastery of advanced calculus to understand and even begin to do any realistic “research” into the subject…knowing all of this and then I see wow in order for this kids to be doing this kind of research then he must of mastered calculus and trig in the ninth or tenth grade which obviously requires an ABSOLUTE mastery of every SAT math concept. A 650 huh, well I’ll tell you this I am a Plan II liberal Arts Honors major and if you include this blatant dilation of the truth I can guarantee any logically thinking, sensible, and educated admissions staff would recognize that this type of “resume” if you will is stretched and not a true reflection of the candidate. With this in mind however “small” a detail others may see I highly question the validity of the rest of your profile. Unless you can convince them through essays beyond comprehension that you did all of this research for nearly 600 hours with knowledge of calculus (evidently its probable that you can master calculus and other concepts vital to any meaningful research in the field of quantum mechanics while also scoring lower than a liberal arts major who’s highest math was Statistics, not calculus not Quantum Mechanics! And if you thought you can or could get closer to an 800 on the SAT you would have prefaced your SAT score with something like ("I really must have misbubbled on this section…I know I can get around or above a 750) </p>
<p>Now if my argument seems ridiculously overblown to some of you, maybe saying to yourself… jeez this guy must really be out to bring this guy down, sure his math score seems a little low but… My point is this if you made the decision to post a thread asking “your chances” you can’t expect the posters on CC to be real happy when they see a blatantly cocky (Why not go better…than what UT’s Engineering Honors???) and than you proceed by touting off nearly 600 hours (I know 3rd time I’ve said it) of Quantum Mechanics research, and then you throw in the fact that you think your qualified for schools of a higher caliber than UT’s Engineering Honors>>(maybe 10 schools in the world!..prbly less) again with the titles “why not go for better”…Its seems hilarious that someone can claim this while only having a 650 on the Math portion of the SAT…are you kidding me. I mean aside from perhaps class rank I believe that SAT math portion is the most important in deciding acceptance to a highly selective engineering program…and to mitigate the relatively low SAT score he could have taken the Math Level II subject test and score about a 750 to show that he has at least a mastery of early college math I think the ability for us to answer his in my opinion over confident chances.</p>
<p>PS: Prove to me in some objective (statistical/measurable) mean that you have mastered calculus, until then I hold your chances and applicant info in question</p>
<p>Wow schissmmanifesto that is really rude, Bc I indeed taught myself the concepts for that physics and it was published and did recieve those awards. And if you knew anyone the quantum mechancis like Heisberg equation, or braket notation, or the Hamiltonian equation, or the transmission coefficient for the probability for a photon to undergo quantum tunneling (which btw has to be adjusted bc the former equation is usually denoted to be based on math, and since photons are massless it has to be derived without mass). If you knew ANY of that you would KNOW that the SAT DOES NOT test higher level math ability, but rather reasoning based on simple math.
THe math that i did was based on teaching and doing equations and learning for months, so that i could do it. Does the SAT give that time? Um no. So before you go insulting ppl realize that the SAT does not tell jack squat about a persons math ability, and the other shows my ability bc I worked like crud on that. I started doing the basic of electron transition when i was in the eigth grade. So don’t go insulting someone, bc if you had a better math score WHAT DID YOU DO WITH IT?
And if you every crack a book like Feynman’s Lectures that i used to learn the concepts you will see, that equations that are used rely on simple differential equations and integrals that are not severally complex and can be learned.</p>
<p>And UT is like the only school i am applying for I posted the title of the thread to get ppl’s attention, or did you not read the next line:
Bc UT is awesome.</p>
<p>Midwest mom, you would be correct the transmission coefficient only requires calculus when dealing with an object with mass, because you have to integrate over a region based on definite value to find the energy transmitted over the energy prior to the tranmission. Since the transmission coefficient is only a measure of probability the simple setup is: energy after/energy before, to yield the overall effectiveness of the transmission which is interpeted as the probabilty to undergo transmission given a certain set of condidtions. In my project i used photons which have no mass and therefore did not need to be integrated (now if it was considered as a wave packet then it may have needed to be to allow for the distribution factor, but i neglected that for ease). And so that project was easier than the one before that bc then all i needed to know was the mechanism behind the tunneling, which really just simple based on the classical model for energy and the limitation that if the potential V is greater than the energy then mass would have to be imaginary.
See alot of the concepts of quantum mechanics are not in the realm of math, but conceptual and the math is the method by which the concept is study.</p>
<p>Btw I did not post this to brag, but bc someone insulted me by saying that i somehow lied about my work which i take great offense to, bc i have but so much work into those projects and have earned everything i have.</p>
<p>Oh and since you wanted proof here, I better this is darn beter than any SAT score:</p>
<p>Evaluation of Photon Tunneling Probability by Spatial Variation</p>
<pre><code>The experiment investigates how the probability for photons to undergo quantum tunneling in affected by the width of the barrier the particle has to traverse. The purpose of the project is to understand how the width of a barrier effects the probability to undergo tunneling for optimization. My hypothesis was that the probability would decrease as the width of the barrier increased. The experimentation revealed that the probability to undergo quantum tunneling is inversely related to the width of the barrier.
In order to perform the experiment a gunn plexer generator was used to produce photons of a wavelength 2.56 cm. The photons entered into a large paraffin wax prism cast to present a turning point whereby photons should classically undergo total internal reflection into the primary gunn detector where their voltage is recorded. The tunneling effect is observed when the photons tunnel underneath the barrier of air into a secondary prism and from there into the secondary gunn detector where the voltage is measured. The measurements are then used to calculate the transmission coefficient:
[the equation wouldn’t copy and paste]
</code></pre>
<p>which denotes the probability for the photons to undergo quantum tunneling in the Wentzel, Kramer, Brillioun approximation. Due to the mass less nature of photons the approximation was adapted to:</p>
<pre><code> [the equation wouldn’t copy and paste]
</code></pre>
<p>The transmission coefficient was calculated at five different widths (8 cm, 6 cm, 4 cm, 2 cm, 1cm) for five different days. The transmission coefficient yielded an increase when the width was decreased from -62.243 at 8 cm to -16.257 at 1 cm.
An anomaly at the 2 cm mark yielded a lesser probability than at 4 cm because the transmitted power at 2 cm was less than at 4 cm, -17.5 mV to -15.6 mV. This occurrence lead to the conclusion that the probability to undergo quantum tunneling has a positive correlation to the amount of power of the photon after transmission.
The result of the experiment was the validation that there exists an inverse relationship between the probability to undergo tunneling and the width of the barrier, and therefore for tunneling optimization the barrier should be decreased.</p>
<p>And you know what schismmanifesto I looked through your thread and you come on hear insulting me with and you only got:
SAT I 2000 (V690, M660, W650) -1350-, you got 10 points higher than me on Math and you come insulting me?</p>
<p>You have a very good chance of getting into Engineering. I think the cut off last year for getting into Engineering Honors was an SAT of 1400. It may change from year to year so just call them and find out what they are looking for this year.</p>
<p>Good Luck and Congratulations on all of your hard work and awards!</p>
<p>Hey guys the person causing all this commotion. To Dbate I congratulate you on debunking my assumptions. Obviously you have displayed the knowledge on Quantum Mechanics that you studied. This is ridiculous, I made a statement that by my measures seemed plausible and justified. In some sense I am glad this happened because no matter who you are, someone in life will try to do something similar to what I did to Dbate. No matter how confident you are you must be ready to defend and protect the achievements that define who you are.</p>
<p>Dbate through this mere “incident” I feel that the review community of college confidential has truly seen a side of you academic and intellectual adeptness that goes beyond what numbers and EC’s could relay.
I wish you the best of luck and ironically I will not apologize based on this simple truth. I believe more good has come out of this (clarity, and increased interest in your case considering my measures were drastic, and better feedback)</p>
<p>No problem, the truth is I know that math is not my strongest suit, but the research stuff was just me working hard (and GOD ;)). And to the person talking about being an english major. I would be a good one, but what can you do with an english degree and I am better at science than english.</p>