<p>Dude, someone at my school got about 1900 on the SAT, had a 3.1 GPA and got into Cornell!!</p>
<p>Of course, he had done a bunch of EC stuff involving boy scout and ranching stuff (this is AZ i'm talking about) and was a really interesting guy. And he got in!</p>
<p>While the Maine location may have been important (geographical diversity), I agree with post 14. There was a similar post recently by a parent who repeated some excellent results from her s's or d's high school, but further emphasized how nice the accepted students were. A similar observation came up over a year ago on PF, from a parent noticing the character of other students at his student's college of matriculatoin. It's heartening to see sincerity rewarded now & then at some of the nation's elites -- and a wake-up call to those who assume it's only about competition & gamesmanship.</p>
<p>^^ Yeah that feels great and much better also puts into prespective that high SAT scores and crazy GPAs and just a list of ECs is not whats it all about. Character should count.... also gives hope for those without high scores and high GPAs</p>
<p>Hear hear. Standardized test scores say so little about a person's character and potential in the long run. Congratulate her for us!</p>
<p>Well...she is also 1st in her class and most likely had near straight-As. People seem to think SATs are what counts most heavily, but grades & difficulty of schedule are the most important factors of all (often by far).</p>
<p>I think admissions saw someone real, a true personality coming through the application, instead of a collection of numbers, that they thought had the potential and fit to flourish at Harvard. Very nice thread.</p>
<p>are you all open to the possibility that she should not have been admitted? Caltech would not admit someone because he/she is a rural valedictorian, etc. Essays mean little, who knows who writes them. Also, we can hardly guess at someone's character, character is very difficult to tell, especially in a teenager. Adding 200 points to her SAT, (because she is first generation, etc) would bring her SAT to 2200 and when you have Asians with 2300 rejected then we know the holistic process is a cover for all sorts of social engineering.</p>
<p>In 30 years when these kids graduate and run America this country will be finished because the competition from the BRICS nations will involve people chosen for brainpower. The strongest predictor of leadership is IQ, not high school ECs. Since the SAT correlates strongly with factor "g", it can safely be used as a surrogate for intelligence except that it is against the zeitgeist to say some are not bright. We shy away from judgments. Hence the discussions on Brown sites about how no book is superior to another; by this argument, Maya Angelou and Shakespeare are co-equal. Sorry for getting off track.</p>
<p>^it's ok ramaswami. once you realize that college admissions is just a game, and that decisions are all made through politics, you won't care anymore that people like this are getting in. it is not about admitting who's superior--it is a business. so when someone "inferior" gets in, it's not something to be outraged about. some higher standard has not been violated. we are taught that the elite colleges represent the ultimate reward, goal, and haven for top students. but that's not necessarily true. harvard is not for the best students, it's for the students that harvard wants. the best students can go elsewhere and they will still succeed. harvard is not the be-all and end-all of education, it's just another congregation of 18-22 year olds, many of whom are smart, many of whom are not. harvard is not the holy grail of anything, although the marketing spiel has convinced everyone that it is. so when someone like this gets in, good for them, i dont really care. it's good actually--now society will realize how inflated harvard/college admissions are.</p>
<p>^^good post b4nnd20 (although frankly I agree with ramiswami...) There's nothing any of us can do about it.</p>
<p>In what microcosm of an existence is IQ the greatest predicting factor of leadership? How many professors do you think there are in America? How many fortune 500 leaders do you think have IQ's equivalent to those Fortune 500 leaders? Stop pulling facts out of thin air. How dare you.</p>
<p>^ya i agree he's probably wrong about the leadership impact of IQ (and the life impact of IQ in general)...but his message is still true. better students are better students, and if i had a university (lol) that's who i'd admit, without fear or waffling. that said, i don't consider seeking well-roundedness to be waffling. there are plenty of well-rounded high-scorers who've gotten the shaft this year and THAT is what's sad. especially when I see people with 1980s getting in. sure, these students with 1980s are not just their test scores...they are accomplished, but do their accomplishments really outweigh the 400 point difference on a standardized test? obviously the accomplishments are much better standards/indicators of human worth and character. but obviously, intelligence DOES matter when we're talking about college admission--entrance to places that are defined first and foremost to be institutions of higher learning.</p>
<p>so, basically, my point is: if you want to be a real top college, don't seek out people who just have high test scores...look for smart and intellectually curious, well rounded students...but also, don't seek out people who are accomplished but just--bottom line--not smart. i worry that harvard is just admitting these people to make a point--i mean, how else can you justify brilliant, motivated, well-rounded 2400s getting denied, and people like this girl getting in? (all due respect.)</p>
<p>iq does not even indicate academic success let alone the totally unrelated topic of leadership. where are you getting these claims from?</p>
<p>my friend is a TA for a freshman course at harvard, she's currently a sophomore, and she says she is unpleasantly surprised by the cluelessness and lack of skill of many of this year's freshmen. maybe she is too harsh but when a sophomore, albeit one published in several research journals, says freshmen lack basic writing and thinking skills at harvard...that's a sign that something is wrong. i feel bad for harvard...its games are backfiring.</p>
<p>With respect to your friend, I don't think from that little snapshot that she's qualified or experienced enough to pass that kind of judgment on the freshman class, especially considering that she was one of them not even a year ago. Of course, I don't know your friend, but as someone as accomplished as that could probably say the same of most groups of "intellectuals" she is placed in, simply because of her own intellectual maturity (published in journals, etc.). Regardless, it's the equivalent of me as a junior in high school calling the freshman class immature, when I was probably the same when I was at their level.</p>
<p>These incoming kids are not fully matured intellectuals spring from the head of Homer, they are learning students, just like any other. I find it hard to believe that Harvard is careening wildly off course or admitting stupid students after centuries of education.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/43924%5B/url%5D">http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/43924</a></p>
<p>(That is not to say that I do not find, for example, even high school Jr/sr year writing lacking, as well as a lack in critical thinking for that age; only that even if the friend's perception is accurate, I would doubt it would be a dominant trend at Harvard, particularly those in humanities fields.)</p>
<p>IQ alone is not an indicator of leadership ability. I know so many people who are off-the-charts brilliant but who are incapable of working with people or who have zero initiative. I like what the OP says about this young woman from Maine and I bet in the future she has a big and positive impact in her community and beyond. Good for Harvard and thanks for telling us this story.</p>
<p>I'll probably start a CC war with this comment, but her ACT and SAT scores were well above average. A 29 ACT and a 1980 SAT I would put her in about the 90th percentile, would they not? Now I realize that these scores are certainly nothing special for Harvard, but compared to her peers nationally, she did just fine. Actually, the fact that she was admitted makes me admire Harvard's process for applicant review. Obviously, they took a wholistic approach and saw a lot of potential in this kid. Good for her!!!</p>
<p>The first link doesn't work =|</p>
<p>Maybe Harvard is just the popular kids. and they don't want a lot of nerds at their school. So if your application ooozes geek, they'll reject you. You have to be cool.</p>
<p>I am very familiar with the extensive literature on intelligence and leadership. I repeat, intelligence is the best predictor (among those we have) of leadership. this is not to be read as saying that the smart are invariably good leaders, I am also not saying that there are not leaders who are stupid, etc. But if I am selecting for leadership, among many weak variables that load for it, I will pick intelligence. I have devoted 30 years to personality psychology, measurement of personality thru life histories, Rorschach and MMPI testing, all far more extensive than college admissions and for ad coms to say they chose someone for character based on ECs and community service and essays show how clueless they are. I met with the readers of my son's admit schools (Brown, Columbia, UPenn, Duke). These first readers were under thirty in age, read the file for an average of 30 minutes and they are experts on character and leadership? From Kaavya Viswanathan to Ted Kazycinski to the leaders of Enron, from McNamara to President Bush, the results of leadership selection at the Ivies is clear. Americans are engaged in social engineering and it is failing everywhere. Kids are obese, grades are up, test scores down, Iraq is a mess, wealth differential is increasing, school are crumbling, those without health insurance rising, ates of mental illness climbing and all of you cheer the idiot social engineers at Harvard. Bill Fritzsimmons will issue a mea culpa on his deathbed, like McNamara did on Viet Nam, that is if he is smart enough to recognize the mess he is creating for the next generation of leaders. From Europe to Asia, the world is laughing at America and precisely for the arrogance that Marilee Jones and Fitzsimmons claim. It is not without significance that the greatest do-gooder in the world, Warren Buffett was rejected by harvard. Harvard won't recognize Gandhi. They just want future fund raisers. </p>
<p>Now, all of you brought up on those great American values of social engineering can bash me.</p>