Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 4.0 uw 1550 public school DC denied by all T20s. Enrolled at UMD.

This was also my public school kid; 1550, 4.0 UW; excellent academic rigor; high AP test scores; average ECs. Enrolled at UMD for engineering. It wasn't surprising, b/c HS school peers had similar rigor and test scores, but excellent ECs.

I think there's a different threshold for Eng and CS.

DC scored 1580, 4.0/4.92 gpa from a magnet was waitlisted at Mich, denied at UIUC, GATech.. In at UMD with merit. Worked out well for DC in the end.

None of these are T20. These are heavily engineering focus schools with millions of same high stats applicants.

I bet your DC would have a much better chance applying to T20s with a different major, e.g., education. Then declare CS major sophomore.

Millions of applicants with an unblemished unweighted GPA, apparently substantial rigor based on their weighted GPA, and a 1580?

Can’t deal with this post-fact reality any more …

You’re going to be hit with a wave of “It doesn’t matter above 1520!” or whatever from the parents who have been referring to their kid’s 1520 as “top scores” since they super scored that 1520 on their 4th SAT attempt nine months ago.

This year's trend, yes. Once you reach 1580, they tend not to reject you, it's either accept or defer.

Anonymous wrote:If helpful, my one and done 1580, 3.94 ugpa, and good leadership got into t30...rejected by many t10. Lots of lessons learnt, focus on your essays and select major wisely. Stay away from business.

The only top ten with business major is Penn, so maybe it wasn’t your major.

Anonymous wrote:If helpful, my one and done 1580, 3.94 ugpa, and good leadership got into t30...rejected by many t10. Lots of lessons learnt, focus on your essays and select major wisely. Stay away from business.

Holistic review. This data point shows there is a weakness in the applicaiton, or multiple. I am guessing they are the ones you pointed out: essays and major, probably recommendation letters as well. The fact that he still got in a T30 actually demostrates his stats helped in the decision a great deal.

Anonymous wrote:Multiple 1580-1600 kids at our private got in ivies/T20 ED/ED2 this year with lack luster grades. Counselor was surprised.

Doubtful

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think anything above a 1500 is fine for top schools and even 1450+ if good grades/rigor/extracurriculars. MIT and CalTech may be exceptions that want to see 800s in math. A 1580 is certainly not going to be a negative but is not determinative in and of itself.

Neither CalTech or MIT care about an 800 in Math. They care about mastery and a 770 shows mastery per a MIT AO. If you have that the misses are just mistakes, not indicative of a lack of mastery.

Mastery is best shown with a high score.

Trouble with reading comprehension I see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think anything above a 1500 is fine for top schools and even 1450+ if good grades/rigor/extracurriculars. MIT and CalTech may be exceptions that want to see 800s in math. A 1580 is certainly not going to be a negative but is not determinative in and of itself.

Neither CalTech or MIT care about an 800 in Math. They care about mastery and a 770 shows mastery per a MIT AO. If you have that the misses are just mistakes, not indicative of a lack of mastery.

I want to believe that, but the MIT common data set shows that 770 is below the median for math and CalTech's recent statement coming directly from their admissions office says that CalTech puts 780 and 800 in math in Bucket A. If 770 was the same as 780, why wouldn't Bucket A also include 770?

I don’t know, I’m just relaying what the AO said to us. Also, the bucket piece didn’t make sense when it came out because a 770 and a 780 could result from the same number of misses depending on the particular SAT test. They are functionally the same.

We heard similar comments from a WashU AO where 770 is also below the mean. My kid was a recruited athlete with a 780/780 so they were fine in any case. I’m just reiterating what we were told.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think anything above a 1500 is fine for top schools and even 1450+ if good grades/rigor/extracurriculars. MIT and CalTech may be exceptions that want to see 800s in math. A 1580 is certainly not going to be a negative but is not determinative in and of itself.

Neither CalTech or MIT care about an 800 in Math. They care about mastery and a 770 shows mastery per a MIT AO. If you have that the misses are just mistakes, not indicative of a lack of mastery.

Mastery is best shown with a high score.

Multiple 1580-1600 kids at our private got in ivies/T20 ED/ED2 this year with lack luster grades. Counselor was surprised.

If helpful, my one and done 1580, 3.94 ugpa, and good leadership got into t30...rejected by many t10. Lots of lessons learnt, focus on your essays and select major wisely. Stay away from business.

Anonymous wrote:It checks the SAT box at T20 but that's about it.

1000+

Data from this high school demonstrates 1580+ helps T20 admissions.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/75/1312181.page
high test scores help top 30% GPA band in ivy/T20 acceptance:
page 19, 1560, Cornell
page 20, 1570, UM
page 21, 1540, Rice
page 21, 1570, Columbia
page 21, 1550, Cornell

high test schores help top 50% GPA band in top30 acceptance:
50% GPA, there are a few standout acceptances (T30 schools):
page 37, 1560, NYU
page 36, 1520, Boston U
page 29, 1520, Boston U
page 28, 1520, Emory
page 28, 1560, UM
page 27, 1540, CMU
page 27, 1520, UM
page 26, 1560, NYU

No

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think anything above a 1500 is fine for top schools and even 1450+ if good grades/rigor/extracurriculars. MIT and CalTech may be exceptions that want to see 800s in math. A 1580 is certainly not going to be a negative but is not determinative in and of itself.

Neither CalTech or MIT care about an 800 in Math. They care about mastery and a 770 shows mastery per a MIT AO. If you have that the misses are just mistakes, not indicative of a lack of mastery.

I want to believe that, but the MIT common data set shows that 770 is below the median for math and CalTech's recent statement coming directly from their admissions office says that CalTech puts 780 and 800 in math in Bucket A. If 770 was the same as 780, why wouldn't Bucket A also include 770?