To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me

[Stretch]

I lol'd.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324000704578390340064578654.html?m od=wsj_streaming_latest-headlines

[Bobmuhthol]

Her writing explains precisely why she wasn't accepted at an Ivy.

[Fallen]

I thought she did a pretty good job of explaining the situation as well.

[msconstrew]

Her writing aside, it's probably an accurate satire of the ridiculous issues within the application/admissions process.

[Parkbandit]

In before someone calls this young lady a racist, xenophobic, lazy bitch.

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't buy it. Surely there are people who are accepted into colleges primarily as a result of something they did outside of school, and colleges will admit to that. But I'm a white, American male with no extracurriculars to speak of, no volunteer activity, no evidence of charitable contribution, no mentionable musical talent, no internships (in high school, anyway), etc. I did not feel that I should be handed an acceptance letter to a college just because I showed up; I also didn't apply to any Ivy schools. I applied to four respected MA colleges; I got into 3. Then I got into the one that rejected me for grad school. At no stage did I complain like a little bitch about how it's unfair that I had to earn my acceptance with ability.

[msconstrew]

I don't buy it. Surely there are people who are accepted into colleges primarily as a result of something they did outside of school, and colleges will admit to that. But I'm a white, American male with no extracurriculars to speak of, no volunteer activity, no evidence of charitable contribution, no mentionable musical talent, no internships (in high school, anyway), etc. I did not feel that I should be handed an acceptance letter to a college just because I showed up; I also didn't apply to any Ivy schools. I applied to four respected MA colleges; I got into 3. Then I got into the one that rejected me for grad school. At no stage did I complain like a little bitch about how it's unfair that I had to earn my acceptance with ability.

Own your privilege, Jesus hair!

I agree, she is whiny. But when I look at what I had on my résumé to get into my college - and I did apply to and get into Ivies - I think I wouldn't make the cut nowadays, largely because the only stuff i did in HS was bsketball and those academic bowl challenges, or whatever the hell they were called. it is possible for her to be both whiny, privileged and semi-accurate in her observations.

[Bobmuhthol]

I watched about 45 seconds of the video of her. She's terrible.

[Fallen]

I wish colleges considered academic merits alone. You could make the case for why your lower GPA should be weighed higher due to the difficulty of your classes (Someone taking Honors P Chem versus Weightlifting 4), but beyond that unless your achievements are academic in nature IMO they shouldn't be taken into consideration.

[Bobmuhthol]

What do you do about people who are very smart but went to bad schools? Or do you consider the SAT to be an academic merit?

[Warriorbird]

I wish colleges considered academic merits alone. You could make the case for why your lower GPA should be weighed higher due to the difficulty of your classes (Someone taking Honors P Chem versus Weightlifting 4), but beyond that unless your achievements are academic in nature IMO they shouldn't be taken into consideration.


So how do you differentiate thousands of academically similar students with similar scores in the age of grade inflation?

[Gnome Rage]

Her writing explains precisely why she wasn't accepted at an Ivy.

lol'd

[Bobmuhthol]

So how do you differentiate thousands of academically similar students with similar scores in the age of grade inflation?My high school GPA was 4.2/4.0. Why do you think there's grade inflation?

[Whirlin]

I know the SATs aren't really the BEST way to objectively measure people... but it's the best that we currently have... It can help highlight individual schools with grade inflation, or add some balance between getting a B in an honors course compared to nailing that A+ in the remedial one. I find it's more objective than GPA.

And honestly, who sold the idea of "Just be yourself" is what you need to get into college? I NEVER thought that for a second in high school. I was always participating in the different school committees, and was a part of the team sports every season. And isn't due diligence on HER to know the expectations and requirements of the schools she's applying? Apparently, since she's the youngest in her family, she didn't think of leveraging the experiences of her older siblings.

Lastly, this article is being released in APRIL? What? I had my applications for Early Decision / Early Action by September and had the results by the end of November. (Give or take 1 month on each side). If you're really hellbent on getting into a place... act like it. General admissions is infinitely more difficult than early action to get into a place.

There are some situations that are a shame, that are a curveball, that lead to people needing support... This is not one of those times.

[Warriorbird]

My high school GPA was 4.2/4.0. Why do you think there's grade inflation?

Obviously no reason!

[Bobmuhthol]

General admissions is infinitely more difficult than early action to get into a place.This is very true. Showing an interest in the school goes a long way, especially applying in the earliest round. Although I was "just myself" when applying to schools. I happened to apply to good fits. Intentionally.

[waywardgs]

I don't know if she's a racist, xenophobic, lazy bitch (she is), but she sure blames everyone but herself for her failures. Particularly her parents. Colleges were right to reject her. An application that screams I SUCK! But it's everyone else's fault!! Isn't very attractive.

[Buckwheet]

She was pretty horrible to watch. I applied to ten colleges and got in to all but two of them. I got into the one I wanted and I certainly wasn't some rock star student. I feel like this is just an issue of maturity. By the time I was 15(graduated when I was 17) I realized that if college was in my future I had to be the driver of what to get into.

I think this girl should have realized in her Sophmore year that her destiny had to be her own. I don't know her true parenting situation, and she never mentions that she had a conversation with her parents about what she wanted to do to get into college. I find it odd that I knew these things in 1995 and she is here saying that she didn't know in 2011/2012.

[Drew]

I got into every place I applied to but I really only wanted to go to Miami so probably the best schools I applied to other than that were U of Florida and U of Texas. I had shitty grades but an awesome SAT.

[Taernath]

This just in: you won't get accepted to every college you apply to, and Ivy league is very difficult to get in to.

Suck it up Buttercup and go state (which she did, lol).

[Warriorbird]

Applied to 8, got into 7, and I should've made a choice other than "school that almost paid me to go there."

[Fallen]

What do you do about people who are very smart but went to bad schools? Or do you consider the SAT to be an academic merit?

SAT scores should most definitely be considered.


So how do you differentiate thousands of academically similar students with similar scores in the age of grade inflation?

See above.

Looking this link over... http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/faq.html#3 The only thing that stands out to me as silly is accepting people who are "well lopsided" in areas OTHER than academics. They also repeatedly claim they do not have a quota system to which they adhere. Does that apply to racial diversity, or is that considered separate? Is there some sort of desire to have non-white students simply for the sake of having them, as opposed to their merits alone?

Am I the only one who thinks race/gender/ethnicty/etc should not be asked nor offered in a college entrance application?

[crb]

She has drunk the koolaid for sure.

I have an interesting anecdote here. I'm from a very small poor rural town in northern Michigan. We had a rep from U of M come give a talk to our school about getting admissions to U of M. Of course, U of M is not the greatest school in the world, its no Harvard, but for a public university it has pretty high admission standards, I imagine what the guy told us holds true.

So the classroom is packed because Michigan is full of Walmart Wolverines (people who like U of M but have no ties to the school and would never be able to attend). The guy goes into his talk and he asks about how people are preparing for college. Are you in NHS? Work on the school paper? Yearbook? Student council? Hobbies? Charities? Volunteering? All the goodie girls are raising their hands. Then he does the hilarious thing. "We don't care about any of that." "Look, the fact is, 99% of the people who apply to our university have done those things, so we can't use them as part of the admissions process because they do not differentiate between anyone." Then he said they basically look at three mains things. ACT Scores (what we use in the midwest instead of the SAT), we need a score above X. We also give you some points if your parents are alumni. Finally we look at the classes you've taken, moreso than your GPA (hard/advanced classes being more important than a good GPA). He was asking for hand raising at these stages and very few were able to do so.

My own personal experience held that out. I was essentially Val Kilmer's character from Real Genius in high school. I did no volunteer work, no student council crap, no charity work. I was possibly the smartest kid in my grade, if not probably tied or no worse than third, and yet they didn't even bother inviting me to apply to NHS. If you looked around an AP class I was literally the only kid not in NHS in some of these classes. At one point a teacher redid his assigned seating and put my seat out in the hallway (of course this guy also would have me grade the other student's tests after I finished my own in a few minutes). I did play some sports. I was tardy constantly, and no stranger to detention. Our class awards I didn't get a single thing despite being the best student in quite a few subject areas (though I'm told I got 2nd in most likely to succeed). And yet, no problems whatsoever with college admissions, I could have literally gone anywhere I wanted. Because my test scores were through the roof, I took every AP class my school offered except Calc which they scheduled in the same block as AP English, I essentially graduated in 3 years, spent my senior year with 2 hours of study hall, a computer class I could have taught, drama, and then went to the local community college in the afternoons (at least, I was supposed to be).

I really do think all the extracurricular things are highly overrated. This girl probably just didn't have good enough test scores, or they were marginal, it likely wasn't her lack of starting fake charities.

[Bobmuhthol]

And yet, no problems whatsoever with college admissions, I could have literally gone anywhere I wanted.Please. I'm pretty sure you've said this before, and I'm pretty sure I responded in the following manner before, but I'll do it again. Just because you didn't apply to every college in the world does not provide you any room to make the claim that you would have gotten into every college in the world. Do you realize how routine it is for people to get accepted at Stanford, rejected at MIT, and waitlisted at CalTech?

In fact, weren't you making obviously nonsensical claims about your standardized test scores a while ago? Like you said you were 99.7th percentile on a score that doesn't report to that granularity or something? That was fun.
I essentially graduated in 3 yearsI always like these cries for attention too, and this isn't something unique to you. Hitting the minimum requirements in less time than you're allotted is not the mark of a genius. I graduated from high school in 4 years, but I took all the hard classes that were offered to me. I graduated from college in 4 years, but I graduated with 150 credits instead of the required 122. I had a hybrid major and two minors, one of which more than fulfilled the requirements for the major (something about AACSB requirements prohibiting dual degrees). Your value is not the speed at which you meet that minimum hurdle.

[Warriorbird]

SAT scores should most definitely be considered.



See above.

Looking this link over... http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/faq.html#3 The only thing that stands out to me as silly is accepting people who are "well lopsided" in areas OTHER than academics. They also repeatedly claim they do not have a quota system to which they adhere. Does that apply to racial diversity, or is that considered separate? Is there some sort of desire to have non-white students simply for the sake of having them, as opposed to their merits alone?

Am I the only one who thinks race/gender/ethnicty/etc should not be asked nor offered in a college entrance application?

So how do you tell the difference between the thousands of students with perfect GPAS and SATS and lots of IB/AP Classes that apply to your college without considering other stuff? You don't.

[crb]

Please. I'm pretty sure you've said this before, and I'm pretty sure I responded in the following manner before, but I'll do it again. Just because you didn't apply to every college in the world does not provide you any room to make the claim that you would have gotten into every college in the world. Do you realize how routine it is for people to get accepted at Stanford, rejected at MIT, and waitlisted at CalTech?[/COLOR]

Of course I didn't apply to every school in the world, I'm not one of those idiots that spends a fortune on applications doing that. But I have some very nice letters from MIT and Yale saved in a box somewhere for posterity and I guess I just assumed that, you know, if I can get in there....

The point being though, I was a degenerate troublemaker in high school who goofed off, talked during class, disrespected teachers (when they acted stupid, because I thought I was smarter than them), I played some sports but to no great acclaim, I did school plays for fun but otherwise was not involved in anything extracurricular, volunteered for nothing, skipped church every Sunday, and had no problems with college acceptance.

Plus, like I said, the U of M rep told us as much, and it makes sense. If everyone who applies was editor of the school paper, you can't use it as admission criteria.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that for most people, where you go doesn't matter. Its like, do you know what they call the person who graduates at the bottom of his class from the worst medical school in the country? "Doctor." In a few fields (science/technology) a few schools have unique facilities. Certain schools have Alumni networks that can help, but by and large schools are just signaling to employers. Lets say it takes an exceptional person to get into Harvard, when you graduate employers will more easily know you're exceptional because you got into Harvard and they know how hard that is. But none of that changes who you are. If you're exceptional you're exceptional no matter where you go to school, and in the long run you're likely to have as much success regardless. Harvard isn't necessarily giving you a better education, you're just paying for that signaling, which isn't even always needed.

[msconstrew]

She has drunk the koolaid for sure.

I have an interesting anecdote here. I'm from a very small poor rural town in northern Michigan. We had a rep from U of M come give a talk to our school about getting admissions to U of M. Of course, U of M is not the greatest school in the world, its no Harvard, but for a public university it has pretty high admission standards, I imagine what the guy told us holds true.

Michigan is a great school! Top notch! Except for the football team.

I don't think ANY of us who applied for school in the 80s and 90s (or earlier) can compare our experiences to kids applying to college today. It is not an apples to apples comparison. Saying you got into great schools with nothing more than good grades and a genius IQ is all well and good... I don't think you can do that today.

Though maybe you could since you're from a rural town in MI and you'd fill a demographic, kind of like affirmative action.

[msconstrew]

Also, are we really getting into a dick-wagging contest here about where we went to school, what we majored in, how fast we did it, and how fucking smart we are? Because, please. No one cares.

[Catts]

Michigan is a great school! Top notch! Except for the football team.

damn right (OSU here)

[diethx]

Also, are we really getting into a dick-wagging contest here about where we went to school, what we majored in, how fast we did it, and how fucking smart we are? Because, please. No one cares.

^

[Buckwheet]

Fuck that. Roll tide!

[msconstrew]

Yes, let's do some football trash talk! That is the appropriate measure of our schools anyway.

[crb]

Michigan is a great school! Top notch! Except for the football team.

I don't think ANY of us who applied for school in the 80s and 90s (or earlier) can compare our experiences to kids applying to college today. It is not an apples to apples comparison. Saying you got into great schools with nothing more than good grades and a genius IQ is all well and good... I don't think you can do that today.

Though maybe you could since you're from a rural town in MI and you'd fill a demographic, kind of like affirmative action.

Why not? Weren't we all also told to do all this volunteer crap? I don't see how things have changed. As far as I can tell the messaging to kids seems to be the same I heard when I was in high school, and it would appear to be incorrect, from my standpoint anyways.

[Buckwheet]

Yes, let's do some football trash talk! That is the appropriate measure of our schools anyway.

I wish you were a Badger fan. I could trash talk you in 2015 when they play 'Bama.

[msconstrew]

Why not? Weren't we all also told to do all this volunteer crap? I don't see how things have changed. As far as I can tell the messaging to kids seems to be the same I heard when I was in high school, and it would appear to be incorrect, from my standpoint anyways.

Because for the more elite institutions - and I don't just mean the Ivies - there is a whole network of tutors and classes and skills that most of us didn't do. I took the SATs, got a great score, and didn't have tutoring, awesome for me. But kids who strive for greatness now are expected to have the great grades, test scores, activities, and etc.

You're right, they wanted that stuff back in 1997 when I applied to college, but I don't feel like it was anywhere near as de rigeur as it is now. My cousin recently applied for college (last year) and I helped her with her essays a little. She was explaining all this shit to me and all I could think was how happy I am not to be applying to schools anymore.

[msconstrew]

I wish you were a Badger fan. I could trash talk you in 2015 when they play 'Bama.

It's on. I root for two teams in red, both of which have a terrible history of choking at the last minute.

[Buckwheet]

Why not? Weren't we all also told to do all this volunteer crap? I don't see how things have changed. As far as I can tell the messaging to kids seems to be the same I heard when I was in high school, and it would appear to be incorrect, from my standpoint anyways.

I was never told to do volunteer crap. Here is what I was told to do to make sure I could get into the schools I wanted to apply to and this was in 1998.

1. 3.5 or higher GPA.
2. 27 or higher on ACT.
3. Great Attendance
4. Strong admission essay
5. Sports, Band, or things like Scouting.
6. Religious participation for private schools like St. Olaf or Bethel was recommended.(I applied to St. Olaf, Bethel, St. Thomas, and Northwestern here in MN)

[Catts]

degrees mean a lot less than they used to anyway...espec with a ton pouring in (or being used from) overseas, from people who, on average, test a lot higher for IQ.. talkin india and china from the stats I saw. They're also way more disciplined and have less of an entitlement mentality imo.

[Gelston]

Do state schools usually accept/decline people? I never took an SAT or ACT and had a 2.7 or something GPA in HS... I basically just walked up to the LSU Shreveport admissions office and said "I wanna go here" and they were all "Okay" and then I signed up for classes and crap.


degrees mean a lot less than they used to anyway...espec with a ton pouring in (or being used from) overseas, from people who, on average, test a lot higher for IQ.. talkin india and china from the stats I saw. They're also way more disciplined and have less of an entitlement mentality imo.

They mean more than ever before. You won't even be looked at for most decent jobs without one these days.

[msconstrew]

Do state schools usually accept/decline people? I never took an SAT or ACT and had a 2.7 or something GPA in HS... I basically just walked up to the LSU Shreveport admissions office and said "I wanna go here" and they were all "Okay" and then I signed up for classes and crap.

Some state schools are very competitive. I am guessing you had that experience because you're going to an offshoot campus instead of the main campus. The university of Wisconsin, Michigan, UC Berkeley, and Ohio State are very competitive and all of them are state schools.

[crb]

You're right, they wanted that stuff back in 1997 when I applied to college, but I don't feel like it was anywhere near as de rigeur as it is now. My cousin recently applied for college (last year) and I helped her with her essays a little. She was explaining all this shit to me and all I could think was how happy I am not to be applying to schools anymore.

That is my point though, you have a student telling you this now because someone told that student this. It doesn't make it true just because that the student believes it. It is the same situation as our generation, we were told such things by teachers, parents, and guidance counselors, which didn't make it true. I was still told all those things by everyone, it was stressed how important it is (except the U of M guy I mentioned). Looking back into popular culture you see it in the movies and TV shows of the 80s and 90s.

Maybe it comes down to people feeling intelligence is set, and if you can't increase that, work on what you can increase, I don't know, but I think the importance is definitely overblown.

[Bobmuhthol]

It really does come down to Warriorbird's point of differentiating yourself among a cohort of qualified people. Anyone I've ever talked to who had a relationship with admissions offices at selective schools has basically said that 25-50% of applications are immediately discarded for failing to meet the standardized test threshold. After that, standardized tests aren't looked at again -- whoever is left has passed that criterion. So a 4.0 GPA 2400 SAT with nothing else to speak of is at a disadvantage compared to a 3.9 GPA 2300 SAT with a stronger essay or other achievements. I pulled / never completed all my pending grad school applications except for Princeton the day I got my acceptance, and I ended up being rejected at Princeton, so this plays to discrediting the "Well if I got into Yale and MIT I can do ANYTHING!" argument. There was something intangibly better about my MIT application, where it was clear that I should be here and relied solely on academic credentials to justify Princeton, and the respective admissions offices did their jobs correctly.

[Fallen]

So how do you tell the difference between the thousands of students with perfect GPAS and SATS and lots of IB/AP Classes that apply to your college without considering other stuff? You don't.

I'd love to see the numbers on you saying that they have thousands of literally identical TOP scores applying for a school.

[Showal]

Some state schools are very competitive. I am guessing you had that experience because you're going to an offshoot campus instead of the main campus. The university of Wisconsin, Michigan, UC Berkeley, and Ohio State are very competitive and all of them are state schools.

Yeah, some of the state schools are really competitive. It is getting a lot more difficult to get into them here in mass. Part of the reason is the cost of private schools. As costs go up, more state schools are flooded with applications allowing them to be much more selective. I am at Umass Boston for my second degree and for program, it is the hardest to get into. Now it is certainly not more challenging, but they accept roughly 4% of applicants. My girlfriend's school for the same program is more challenging and carries a much better name, but has an acceptance of 74%. Why the difference? My program costs 28000 to finish, hers costs over 60000. I spent way too much on my first degree to be foolish enough to spend it again for the same degree.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'd love to see the numbers on you saying that they have thousands of literally identical TOP scores applying for a school.Look at my post above. Scoring 10 more points on the SAT doesn't give you first place in line, nor should it. You're really advocating that a 99th percentile score on one iteration of one exam is indicative that this person is more deserving of admittance than the person who had a 98th percentile score on one iteration of the same exam? If I took the GMAT today, I'm not sure I'd be able to get the same score. If I took the SAT, I would almost certainly do better than I did before. Showcasing your ability to be intelligent when called upon is a lot more important than an 800 vs. a 790 on a subject.

There are probably something like 1.5 million people who take the SAT in a given year, so let's call them the body of people applying to colleges. 1% of 1.5 million is a cool 15,000. That places 75,000 people in the top 5% of test takers. I don't know the application volume at most elite undergrad institutions, but it's easily in the 10,000 range, and easily a quarter of those people are top 5% scorers if you look at the right schools. So you have 2,500 people who are coming to you, each of whom are smarter than 95 people in a room of 100 random individuals. You can only admit a class of 1,000. How do you pick?

[msconstrew]

Yeah, some of the state schools are really competitive. It is getting a lot more difficult to get into them here in mass. Part of the reason is the cost of private schools. As costs go up, more state schools are flooded with applications allowing them to be much more selective. I am at Umass Boston for my second degree and for program, it is the hardest to get into. Now it is certainly not more challenging, but they accept roughly 4% of applicants. My girlfriend's school for the same program is more challenging and carries a much better name, but has an acceptance of 74%. Why the difference? My program costs 28000 to finish, hers costs over 60000. I spent way too much on my first degree to be foolish enough to spend it again for the same degree.

No debt FTW! Thank you state undergrad institution!

[Warriorbird]

I'd love to see the numbers on you saying that they have thousands of literally identical TOP scores applying for a school.

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/harvarddean-part1/

80-90% of applicants make the cut scores. Those are tremendous.

35,000 apply. 2,000 are admitted. How do you differentiate BUT the other stuff?

[Fallen]

Look at my post above. Scoring 10 more points on the SAT doesn't give you first place in line, nor should it. You're really advocating that a 99th percentile score on one iteration of one exam is indicative that this person is more deserving of admittance than the person who had a 98th percentile score on one iteration of the same exam? If I took the GMAT today, I'm not sure I'd be able to get the same score. If I took the SAT, I would almost certainly do better than I did before. Showcasing your ability to be intelligent when called upon is a lot more important than an 800 vs. a 790 on a subject.

How are you showcasing your intelligence when called upon via volunteer work? That's the point I am making. I'm fine with things other than straight grades being considered, but they should be academic in nature. Not how many homeless shelters you slung soup for.

[Tgo01]

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/harvarddean-part1/

80-90% of applicants make the cut scores. Those are tremendous.

35,000 apply. 2,000 are admitted. How do you differentiate BUT the other stuff?

Lottery. Or whoever has the nicest rack.

[Fallen]

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/harvarddean-part1/

80-90% of applicants make the cut scores. Those are tremendous.

35,000 apply. 2,000 are admitted. How do you differentiate BUT the other stuff?

Sounds like they need to raise the score thresholds, unless you believe 80-90% of the people are managing 4.0's with near perfect SAT/ACT scores.

Also, you do see that was in the QUESTION part of the link you sent, not the answer, yes? "Let me assume that 80 to 90 percent of the students who apply to Harvard are qualified and could reasonably be expected to do well there."

[msconstrew]

How are you showcasing your intelligence when called upon via volunteer work? That's the point I am making. I'm fine with things other than straight grades being considered, but they should be academic in nature. Not how many homeless shelters you slung soup for.

I disagree. Colleges are right to look at matters other than academics. Working with the homeless, for example, may show altruism, maturity and caring for others that most college students (people?) lack. Between two very similar candidates, I pick the one who's got that extra thing. Of course, before you misconstrue my words, I am not saying that outside volunteer activities should count more than scores and grades.

[Showal]

How are you showcasing your intelligence when called upon via volunteer work? That's the point I am making. I'm fine with things other than straight grades being considered, but they should be academic in nature. Not how many homeless shelters you slung soup for.

I think the argument is they are looking for a person attached to the set of scores, not simply the scores themselves. There is a lot more that makes up a person to fit into a school then merit alone.

[Fallen]

I disagree. Colleges are right to look at matters other than academics. Working with the homeless, for example, may show altruism, maturity and caring for others that most college students (people?) lack. Between two very similar candidates, I pick the one who's got that extra thing. Of course, before you misconstrue my words, I am not saying that outside volunteer activities should count more than scores and grades.

But unfortunately, that is exactly what is being said. They will take someone with a slightly lesser score who has on record some deed of charity versus someone of a higher score who does not.

[Keller]

Ooooo! One of these threads where we get the normal people "subtly" bragging about their pedigree under the guise of discussion.

I'll play!

I didn't do many extracurriculars in HS. I was first-chair clarinet in the Wind Ensemble starting in seventh grade and I played varsity football for 5 years. My grades weren't great, but I did have a 5.2 on a 4.0 scale. I wasn't aware enough to take the ACT, but I had a 1530 on my SATs back when it was out of 800. I applied to mostly regional schools (UofM, Chicago, NWU, etc), but I got into 8 of the 6 schools I applied to.

[Drew]

I disagree. Colleges are right to look at matters other than academics. Working with the homeless, for example, may show altruism, maturity and caring for others that most college students (people?) lack. Between two very similar candidates, I pick the one who's got that extra thing. Of course, before you msconstrew my words, I am not saying that outside volunteer activities should count more than scores and grades.

This is probably true 20 years ago but I feel that 99% of high school volunteerism is just to check the box, at this point does it really mean something? It's like saying you are a "self-starter" on your resume now. Everyone knows the "trick".

[msconstrew]

But unfortunately, that is exactly what is being said. They will take someone with a slightly lesser score who has on record some deed of charity versus someone of a higher score who does not.

How does a slightly lesser score harm the college? It shouldn't be all scores and grades. Volunteering demonstrates attractive qualities that colleges want to foster.

[Fallen]

I think the argument is they are looking for a person attached to the set of scores, not simply the scores themselves. There is a lot more that makes up a person to fit into a school then merit alone.

I seem to be in the minority here. I'm fine with that. I haven't quite yet stumbled across any paragons of virtue at my school, but i'm sure they've made room for a few of them.

[Bobmuhthol]

How are you showcasing your intelligence when called upon via volunteer work? That's the point I am making. I'm fine with things other than straight grades being considered, but they should be academic in nature. Not how many homeless shelters you slung soup for.You missed my point. Doing well on a test qualifies you for consideration. That is the showcasing argument: prove to the school that, at least once in your history, you've demonstrated the capacity to be statistically very intelligent. Beyond that, there's little (or even no) value. If I hadn't been accepted at a college because my 2120 SAT score wasn't as good as that other guy's 2130, I would have had a stroke then and there.

[Fallen]

How does a slightly lesser score harm the college? It shouldn't be all scores and grades. Volunteering demonstrates attractive qualities that colleges want to foster.

I don't think it harms the college at all. It harms the person who was rejected despite having the higher score.

[Keller]

But unfortunately, that is exactly what is being said. They will take someone with a slightly lesser score who has on record some deed of charity versus someone of a higher score who does not.

And why shouldn't they? Can you imagine how terribly boring Harvard would be if they looked only to grades and test scores?

Our validictorian in HS (class of 900+, at least one person admitted to each Ivy every year) went to Washington University in St. Louis because it was the best school she could get into. She was the biggest nerd I've ever met. Absolutely no personality and spent every waking minute studying. It wasn't that she didn't know to do extracurriculars - but that she choose to forego them to study.

[Keller]

This is probably true 20 years ago but I feel that 99% of high school volunteerism is just to check the box, at this point does it really mean something? It's like saying you are a "self-starter" on your resume now. Everyone knows the "trick".

Maybe it doesn't mean HAVE to mean you're altruistic anymore - but not volunteering shows a lack of ambition.

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't think it harms the college at all. It harms the person who was rejected despite having the higher score.Which again goes to my argument: doing marginally better one time on one test doesn't make them the better student. That's insane. The same person could take the SAT 10 times and get a different score each time. Admissions, externally, appear to be luck of the draw, but that doesn't mean we should explicitly start penalizing/rewarding people for scores that are within a standard deviation of each other.

[crb]

Some state schools are very competitive. I am guessing you had that experience because you're going to an offshoot campus instead of the main campus. The university of Wisconsin, Michigan, UC Berkeley, and Ohio State are very competitive and all of them are state schools.

And in fact many are better than private schools. The very top tier of universities are private, but hardly every private school is better than public ones, many are mediocre. This is especially true of the hard sciences where so much infrastructure is needed. The best school for nuclear physics in the world is MSU, why? They have a cyclotron, formerly the most powerful in the world. The big public research universities definitely have fields where they are tops in, despite their public status.

[Bobmuhthol]

I live like half a mile from a cyclotron. Are they that rare?

[diethx]

Ooooo! One of these threads where we get the normal people "subtly" bragging about their pedigree under the guise of discussion.

I'll play!

I didn't do many extracurriculars in HS. I was first-chair clarinet in the Wind Ensemble starting in seventh grade and I played varsity football for 5 years. My grades weren't great, but I did have a 5.2 on a 4.0 scale. I wasn't aware enough to take the ACT, but I had a 1530 on my SATs back when it was out of 800. I applied to mostly regional schools (UofM, Chicago, NWU, etc), but I got into 8 of the 6 schools I applied to.

Ahaha, Keller, you're a gem.

[msconstrew]

Ahaha, Keller, you're a gem.

His presence embiggens us all.

[Showal]

I seem to be in the minority here. I'm fine with that. I haven't quite yet stumbled across any paragons of virtue at my school, but i'm sure they've made room for a few of them.

That's an issue as well. Extra shit outside of school is often done to fit a mold of what colleges want. So for a lot of people, it doesn't show true initiative or virtue, it just is a sign they were taught how to play the game.

[crb]

I disagree. Colleges are right to look at matters other than academics. Working with the homeless, for example, may show altruism, maturity and caring for others that most college students (people?) lack. Between two very similar candidates, I pick the one who's got that extra thing. Of course, before you misconstrue my words, I am not saying that outside volunteer activities should count more than scores and grades.

It goes to motivation. Are they doing it to fill out their resume, or because they are selfless? Most I knew did it to check off a box. They're James Taggarts.

My older brother is a good case study. He did all these things in high school, and in college. He founded an honor society in college, like big, the first year they inducted 1500 people, he was the founder and president. He was also president of the student alumni association (which was a big deal) and did a variety of other things. He checked every single box off, graduated with a good GPA, applied to medical schools, and was rejected. You probably would be hard pressed to find someone who did more extra curricular stuff in college, and he was rejected. His MCAT scores were not good enough (years later he eventually got in after having a few nervous break downs, quitting, coming back, studying harder, and finally improving his scores). Meanwhile my wife, who did nothing of the sort, did part of her undergrad at community colleges, got in on her first try, because she had better MCATs. You might claim that it was affirmative action or something, some girl quota, but her class in medical school was over 50% female, so that certainly wasn't it.

[Keller]

His presence embiggens us all.

Are you calling me fat?

Diversity!

[Fallen]

It goes to motivation. Are they doing it to fill out their resume, or because they are selfless? Most I knew did it to check off a box. They're James Taggarts.

My older brother is a good case study. He did all these things in high school, and in college. He founded an honor society in college, like big, the first year they inducted 1500 people, he was the founder and president. He was also president of the student alumni association (which was a big deal) and did a variety of other things. He checked every single box off, graduated with a good GPA, applied to medical schools, and was rejected. You probably would be hard pressed to find someone who did more extra curricular stuff in college, and he was rejected. His MCAT scores were not good enough (years later he eventually got in after having a few nervous break downs, quitting, coming back, studying harder, and finally improving his scores). Meanwhile my wife, who did nothing of the sort, did part of her undergrad at community colleges, got in on her first try, because she had better MCATs. You might claim that it was affirmative action or something, some girl quota, but her class in medical school was over 50% female, so that certainly wasn't it.

I've always wondered about that. Is it hard to transfer into an Ivy league with a degree? I transferred right into a 4 year school without sending anything but my transcripts. No idea how choosy they are, but everyone told me if your GPA is high enough and you have a degree you'll get in. I never took the SATs or ACTs as I knew I would be piss poor in them.

Edit: googled my own question a bit:

Top Transfer-Friendly Colleges
* Cornell
* Emory
Georgetown
** Grinnell
Northwestern
** Notre Dame
* Rice
** UNC
* USC
** Wake Forest
Washington U in St. Louis
** Vanderbilt

All of the above schools have transfer acceptance rates above 20%.
* Indicates a school with a transfer acceptance rate above 25%
** Indicates a school with a transfer acceptance rate above 33%

It is definitely a good method for some schools, but many Ivy league schools will flat out not accept transfers, or as few as 1-2%.

[Warriorbird]

Sounds like they need to raise the score thresholds, unless you believe 80-90% of the people are managing 4.0's with near perfect SAT/ACT scores.

Also, you do see that was in the QUESTION part of the link you sent, not the answer, yes? "Let me assume that 80 to 90 percent of the students who apply to Harvard are qualified and could reasonably be expected to do well there."

Moving between 700s, which is the 25th percentile and high 700s, which is the 75th percentile, gets pretty narrow. Most of them probably 4.0s of some variety.

FOLLOWUP ON YOUR EDIT:

The average applicant's SAT is about 2240 using the Princeton Review numbers. 80-90% doesn't seem far off from that.

[crb]

I live like half a mile from a cyclotron. Are they that rare?

Big ones are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Superconducting_Cyclotron_Laboratory), yes. They're expensive. They're building a new facility (http://www.frib.msu.edu/) at MSU now, its half a billion dollars. You've heard of CERN right? Facilities like that aren't just everywhere (this new one is supposed to be CERN-like in stature, though studying different things).

[Keller]

But seriously - this girl sounds like an entitled bitch. I grew up with a kid who is a trust-fund kid. Despite his emense wealth, he was a very hard worker, but not super bright. Did reasonably well in college, but not extraordinarily well. Didn't do so hot on his MCAT. He applied to a bunch of med schools and didn't get in. His mom, who raised him to think he deserved life on a silver platter if he worked hard enough, couldn't get it through her head that her son wasn't smart enough to cut other human beings open. Every year (this will be his fourth) that he's applied to med school and not gotten in, she drags her anti-affirmative action soapbox to facebook to tell us how terrible these schools are for appreciating her son's hard work and dedication. It's pretty embarrassing to her son.

While this girl's parents might not have taught her that she needs to do the dance to get into the right schools, I can almost guarantee you that they taught her that if she works hard she will have no limits to her success. That is just wrong and she would have done well to learn that before submitting her temper tantrum to the WSJ.

[Parkbandit]

Also, are we really getting into a dick-wagging contest here about where we went to school, what we majored in, how fast we did it, and how fucking smart we are? Because, please. No one cares.

This is April 2nd... and I agree completely with you.

So this is no joke.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, let's do some football trash talk! That is the appropriate measure of our schools anyway.

Why do you have to do football trash talk? MAYBE SOME UNIVERSITIES DON'T HAVE A GOOD FOOTBALL PROGRAM!??

Racist.

[AnticorRifling]

PB fell in a sarchasm.

[Parkbandit]

PB fell in a sarchasm.

Wha?

[msconstrew]

Why do you have to do football trash talk? MAYBE SOME UNIVERSITIES DON'T HAVE A GOOD FOOTBALL PROGRAM!??

Racist.

Hey, I can say whatever I want because my own school's football program was terrible! I am reclaiming the concept!

[Buckwheet]

I work in the field of student information systems so while I have millions and millions of records I could exploit to try and prove my point, I am not going to risk my job.

Here is what I can tell you from memory looking through and helping districts and states post ACT scores.

I feel like more kids are taking the exams multiple times compared to when I was in school and taking it in 1997/1998. I took the test three times. I scored 24, 27, 31. The 31 coming after my parents purchased a computer program that let me take practice tests and I enrolled in a class to help you with the exam. I believe the computer programs and "teaching to the test" like courses are more prevelant today then before. I help import so many students taking the ACT more than five times now its crazy. Today I worked with a file of students that was 500 rows long and it was their 9th or 10th time taking the exam. Many of them started with 17s and ended up with high 20s and there were some 30s over the 9 or 10 times they took the test. How can the test be worth anything if you can take it 10 times and bring the score up to what someone who scored that on their first or second attempt did. Its not a great measuring stick anymore.

I don't know if its a state decision or not, but there was no such thing in MN where you could do a "best score" option with the ACT when I took the test. You took the test and you got what you got. If the overall score was lower you could not report that score. So if I had gotten 27 and then the 24 I could report the 27. Today however, many of our clients are picking and choosing the best score sections from the test so that you end up with a much higher composite score then each individual test. Its weird because you can see three tests on a student and they composite at like 27, 27, 27 but they have a 33 or something that is being overall reported because they did better on certain sections at different times.

Anyways, we just need to look at places like Georgia where "teaching to the test" and cheating were so prevalent and why if you had a upper 20s ACT before you probably need something different now to differentiate you from everyone else who took the ACT 15 times.

[Warriorbird]

I do agree that Clinton/Bush/Obama educational testing policies certainly play a role in what's wrong.

This girl's a whiner though.

[TheEschaton]

I took the SAT twice. The first time I was high, and I scored a 1500. The 2nd time, I practically aced the thing. Coupled with a mediocre 95 average in the honors track at a Jesuit private Catholic HS was enough to get me into most of the schools I applied to, including Cornell (which I didn't go to for some rather ridiculous reasons, now that I think about it) and Brown. I didn't get into Harvard or Yale or even Penn (my father's alma mater), but I wasn't expecting to because my only extracurricular was working 25 hours a week as a dishwasher to support my liberal use of drugs. I was voted by our yearbook staff as "Most likely to be seen lighting up in the parking lot" but our faculty advisor refused to let them publish that. I, like CRB, wasn't invited to NHS, and was the only one in my homeroom (the Honors homeroom) to not be in NHS.

If it wasn't for my ridiculously high score on an arbitrary test, I probably wouldn't even have gotten into these 2nd tier schools. Should I have gotten in over this girl? IDK, she seems like an entitled bitch. I didn't think I was owed Harvard just because of my grades. I didn't try at all in high school. Surely that has to count against me. TBH, I don't know how I got into the schools I did get into, but I've always been a good essay writer.

ETA: And, like msconstrew, I think if I applied now, I'd be boned. I was applying to schools in fall of '98.

[Merala]

I remember the first time my father ever talked to me about college. We were in the car, driving home from some store. I was in the passenger seat and he was driving. He randomly turned to me and asked, "Are you going to college?" I replied, "Probably not. I don't really know what I want to do. Maybe I'll just work for a couple of years." He replied with, "Yes you are, you need the insurance."

That was the extent of my college conversation with my parents. I was 4 months from graduation and had just turned 18. I wasted a semester in CC majoring in English. Then I went to one of those career colleges and graduated with an associates that's totally useless in a field I now have no interest in pursuing. I come from a family in which no one has ever graduated college. They're all laborers up until this generation. My older brother works in Systems Security, though he has no degree, he's the only one who isn't a laborer, actually.

I'm now in CC again, finishing up G.E. because nothing I did in that school is transferable. I'd like to transfer to U.C. Davis for my graduate work, and end up at Stanford for post-grad, but we'll see.

I'm a reasonably intelligent, hard-working student who decided not to give a flying fuck about academia because I had no plans for college. I had never even seriously considered college. I didn't even take the SAT, graduated with maybe a "C" average in high school (mostly because I spent a lot of time not going).

The moral of the story, talk to your children when they're still young about their future! If I had been talked to while I was younger, I still may not have known what I wanted to do when I was 18, but I would have been working on my G.E. and I might have cared a little more about my education.

[Parkbandit]

including Cornell (which I didn't go to for some rather ridiculous reasons

Meh... Cornell might be a great school, but it's literally 10 miles from where I grew up and that is literally in the middle of nothing. Closest "city" is Utica.. and Lord only knows what that old textile town looks like today.. last time I was there was 20 years ago.

[Latrinsorm]

How can the test be worth anything if you can take it 10 times and bring the score up to what someone who scored that on their first or second attempt did.Even if this was true for every person, it shows with high fidelity which people put that much effort into it. If you have a choice between someone who took the test once and was satisfied with a 27, or someone who took the test ten times to get that 27, whom do you admit?
Cornell (which I didn't go to for some rather ridiculous reasons, now that I think about it)A Catholic from Buffalo in the college suicide capital of the United States, what could have gone wrong?
Meh... Cornell might be a great school, but it's literally 10 miles from where I grew up and that is literally in the middle of nothing. Closest "city" is Utica.. and Lord only knows what that old textile town looks like today.. last time I was there was 20 years ago.They've nicknamed it "Shootica", but mostly it's the same old depressing rust belt shtick.

Also, we may have been there at the same time, you and I. Bumper buddies.

[Category Mistake]

The replies to the original WSJ article are much more interesting than the original piece. The author does come off as bitter and she doesn't say a whole lot.

I believe it is true that top schools could triple their undergraduate admissions without diluting the quality of applicants accepted. The process is incredibly competitive and somewhat arbitrary.

When I was a student at Harvard, several articles appeared in the school newspaper (The Crimson) concerning the admissions process. Many complained about the unfair advantages afforded by services like IvyWise that provide life coaching even at the preschool (!) level for students looking to get into a top college. I also remember reading an editorial commenting on the Harvard student talent for begging. If you can write a strong application letter or admissions essay, you have a real advantage in life. Few teenagers are able to do this.

I also interviewed for a job as an undergraduate admissions officer at Princeton University a few years ago. As part of their extended interview process, I was allowed to see several admissions files and their evaluations. I learned that the Princeton was interested in admitting students from across the U.S. and the admissions office was divided geographically at that time. Had I been hired, I would have been able to recommend students from my own geographically determined pool. They had at least one counselor dedicated to international students. I do not buy the WSJ author's claim that being Muslim or homosexual would have changed her results.

During one conversation at Princeton they presented me with three cases: one was admitted, one was wait-listed, and the third was denied. One of these students had insane academic credentials. She had a perfect SAT score, the highest score of 5 on 10 AP exams, and she had received A grades in several undergraduate courses at Stanford University. This student was wait-listed. The admitted student had strong but not perfect academic credentials and he had also participated in a few athletic and volunteer activities. More importantly, this student's application essay and recommendation letters gave you an image of a slightly more well-rounded person. The candidate who was denied had once been caught helping a student cheat at his prep school. Being up front about this won him no praise from the admissions officers I spoke with. Personally, I liked the candidate that they denied. He had a great sense of humor that came across in his essay and all of his teachers loved his contribution to their school community. Again, at the end of the day, Princeton would have benefited by taking all three students but the process can't allow that. Their office struggles to put together the best cohort that they can from a pool of outstanding applicants that increases each year.

[TheEschaton]

Meh... Cornell might be a great school, but it's literally 10 miles from where I grew up and that is literally in the middle of nothing. Closest "city" is Utica.. and Lord only knows what that old textile town looks like today.. last time I was there was 20 years ago.

Yeah, Utica is a nightmare and when I toured Cornell someone told me the cliffs made for good jumping. Also there was this bizarre requirement to swim like 8 laps to get your degree. But mostly I didn't go because I thought it was too close to Buffalo and my parents would visit too much. ;) Was definitely overestimating how much my parents would want to visit central NY. I'm glad I went to school in Boston though, great city.

[Buckwheet]

The school doesn't know you've taken the ACT 10 times or one time they just get the single report of the highest score or the score you choose to submit.

Additionally what if you had a student who scored the maximum score on the first try but it took another student 30 tries to get there which one would you rather admit?

I would rather admit the first one because it would show that they knew the subject matter and they were well prepared to take the test the first time around. It's a much more natural testing environment I think.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't know, I think the first scenario tells you only that a kid did well on the test. Natural ability? Preparation? Luck? Could be all or none. A kid who grinds out 10-30 reps tells you that the kid is a grinder, and that mindset is widely applicable.

[radamanthys]

I understand the point she was trying and failed to make. It was supposed to be some social commentary on how most of the "extracurriculars" That students have are either benefactions of their parents or are complete bullshit. Kids don't really do any work. They don't have to work to pay dojo dues, they don't drive themselves places to get the ability to join things and participate. That's all at the behest of the parents. And typically none of the shit a high school student does is worth a goddamned thing anyway.

However, those kids that were pushed in that direction, though lucky, are likely the best candidates for a top-tier school. They're the ones who are most likely to succeed in life. It's not unless you work really hard that you can surpass that. And in fact, true colors will show eventually. Down the line, that begins to matter less, and merit comes forth- look at the mcat example above.

We are a product of nature and nurture. Our successful parents are likely by genetics to breed a successful child. The work ethic the parents have by genetics also lends itself to pushing their children as hard as they're able to be involved in activities that look good on the resume- the nurture side.

It's not the end-all, though. People are perfectly capable with much hard work to do well for themselves and improve their situation, and as well to fail miserably even with the most pure of silver spoons. But the trends show that successful kids are the product of successful parents. If hers didn't give a fuck, she's allowed to be a little bitter. But keep it private, or you look like the dingleberry pie that posted this article.

[Atlanteax]

She has drunk the koolaid for sure.

I have an interesting anecdote here. I'm from a very small poor rural town in northern Michigan. We had a rep from U of M come give a talk to our school about getting admissions to U of M. Of course, U of M is not the greatest school in the world, its no Harvard, but for a public university it has pretty high admission standards, I imagine what the guy told us holds true.

So the classroom is packed because Michigan is full of Walmart Wolverines (people who like U of M but have no ties to the school and would never be able to attend). The guy goes into his talk and he asks about how people are preparing for college. Are you in NHS? Work on the school paper? Yearbook? Student council? Hobbies? Charities? Volunteering? All the goodie girls are raising their hands. Then he does the hilarious thing. "We don't care about any of that." "Look, the fact is, 99% of the people who apply to our university have done those things, so we can't use them as part of the admissions process because they do not differentiate between anyone." Then he said they basically look at three mains things. ACT Scores (what we use in the midwest instead of the SAT), we need a score above X. We also give you some points if your parents are alumni. Finally we look at the classes you've taken, moreso than your GPA (hard/advanced classes being more important than a good GPA). He was asking for hand raising at these stages and very few were able to do so.

My own personal experience held that out. I was essentially Val Kilmer's character from Real Genius in high school. I did no volunteer work, no student council crap, no charity work. I was possibly the smartest kid in my grade, if not probably tied or no worse than third, and yet they didn't even bother inviting me to apply to NHS. If you looked around an AP class I was literally the only kid not in NHS in some of these classes. At one point a teacher redid his assigned seating and put my seat out in the hallway (of course this guy also would have me grade the other student's tests after I finished my own in a few minutes). I did play some sports. I was tardy constantly, and no stranger to detention. Our class awards I didn't get a single thing despite being the best student in quite a few subject areas (though I'm told I got 2nd in most likely to succeed). And yet, no problems whatsoever with college admissions, I could have literally gone anywhere I wanted. Because my test scores were through the roof, I took every AP class my school offered except Calc which they scheduled in the same block as AP English, I essentially graduated in 3 years, spent my senior year with 2 hours of study hall, a computer class I could have taught, drama, and then went to the local community college in the afternoons (at least, I was supposed to be).

I really do think all the extracurricular things are highly overrated. This girl probably just didn't have good enough test scores, or they were marginal, it likely wasn't her lack of starting fake charities.

Unless I misunderstood ... the girl was satirizing the emphasis on extracurricular activities and saying that the emphasis on them was a joke. Of course she says naught about her academics and I agree that was probably the culprit.

I only applied to like 3 schools, and got accepted by all 3, and it was a no-brainer, as far as I was concerned, to go to UofMichigan ... the other 2 were what they were, backup choices. We had the same kind of breakdown of UM acceptance standards, and I recall being delighted at the time, because IMO extracurricular activities *are* a joke. To me, it is a means of keeping youth busy/per-occupied as to not require as much adult supervision. I think my sole extracurricular 'achievement' was Eagle Scout in the BSA. I ultimately graduated UM within 2 years, due to walking in as a sophomore (due to AP classes) and I would take 20-24 credits of classes per semester (and I still do not understand how some students think 12-16 credits are burdensome) ... and had to go thru an annoying process of getting permission to take 23-24 credits because obviously it was 'more than normal expectations'.

[msconstrew]

Unless I misunderstood ... the girl was satirizing the emphasis on extracurricular activities and saying that the emphasis on them was a joke. Of course she says naught about her academics and I agree that was probably the culprit.

I only applied to like 3 schools, and got accepted by all 3, and it was a no-brainer, as far as I was concerned, to go to UofMichigan ... the other 2 were what they were, backup choices. We had the same kind of breakdown of UM acceptance standards, and I recall being delighted at the time, because IMO extracurricular activities *are* a joke. To me, it is a means of keeping youth busy/per-occupied as to not require as much adult supervision. I think my sole extracurricular 'achievement' was Eagle Scout in the BSA. I ultimately graduated UM within 2 years, due to walking in as a sophomore (due to AP classes) and I would take 20-24 credits of classes per semester (and I still do not understand how some students think 12-16 credits are burdensome) ... and had to go thru an annoying process of getting permission to take 23-24 credits because obviously it was 'more than normal expectations'.

I'm sorry, we already dealt with the academic dick-wagging in this thread. ;)

[Keller]

I'm sorry, we already dealt with the academic dick-wagging in this thread. ;)

He reminded me that I forgot to detail my Advanced Placement exam success.

Of course I took Calculus (AB my sophomore year and then BC my junior year), Bio, Chem, micro and macro econ, US and European history, physics B and both C exams, english lit, french and spanish languages, and, of course, studio art. I got 5s on all of them, except studio art, in which I received a rare 6 and a placement in MOMA.

[msconstrew]

He reminded me that I forgot to detail my Advanced Placement exam success.

Of course I took Calculus (AB my sophomore year and then BC my junior year), Bio, Chem, micro and macro econ, US and European history, physics B and both C exams, english lit, french and spanish languages, and, of course, studio art. I got 5s on all of them, except studio art, in which I received a rare 6 and a placement in MOMA.

Since football is the only stat that matters, how did you do in Phys Ed?

[Keller]

Since football is the only stat that matters, how did you do in Phys Ed?

I hold nearly every athletic record in the state of Indiana.

[Jarvan]

I only applied to two schools, got accepted to both. Penn State and Carnegie Mellon. I didn't see the point in applying to numerous places. Actually, I only applied to Carnegie due to prompting by my counselor.

As for my Football scores.. considering in the first day of 9th grade in gym class we played tag football, and a kid stepped on my left hand breaking my index finger. I guess you could say I scored a -1600.

[Category Mistake]

I read the WSJ piece again this morning. The surest sign of the author's privilege is that she went into the college application process while still under the illusion that life is fair.

[TheEschaton]

Oh man, my football score was "Me not even making the freshman football team that cuts nobody because I didn't want to get out of bed the first morning of practice."

From there it just plummeted.