1980 SAT got into Harvard. How awesome is this?

Applying to College
61

<p>first of all, to epiphany, I am not blaming H's admission policy to be a source of all evil in society, that was a rhetorical flourish. Any Human resource professional will tell you interviews are poor predictors of behavior or job performance or character. I don't know why interviews get emphasized here. Also, essays are terrible predictors. First of all, one cannot even know who wrote them and even if they are written in a controlled format like the Writing section of SAT 2 they are useless in measuring character. Any no. of SS officers would have turned in fine interviews and written extraordinary essays apart from turning in lovely violin performances and grand disquisitions on Nietzsche. The SATS are trashed by those doing poorly but when Derrick talks of character as shown by demonstrated choices and actions he is carried away by his own words. Demonstrated by save darfur campaign abd vounteer work in a soup kitchen during 9th and 10 th grades. This is laughable. if the colleges suddenly dropped all these EC requirements and said they favored kids who played golf everyone will be playing golf. 17 yr old kids in India are not doing community service but spending huge amt of time cramming for tests because the IITs want test scores. If tomorrow the IITs wanted community service, the same kids will do them. SATs (5 of them) + GPA plus AP scores + rigor of curriculum+ teacher recs remain the only authentic indices of scholastic performance. Colleges should pick students based primarily (of course take into account a fine cello player or Olympic athlete) on these factors and having assembled a high performing class require them to attend ethics classes, serve in Africa and do other character building things that are not easily quantifiable for 4 years and then find out in 20 years which among these really predicts some kind of character.</p>

<p>I am also incensed about this Asian thing. S got 2350 SAT, 2330 SAT2s, highest GPA in school in toughest curriculum taken by anyone in history of school, 10 APs, 5s on five of them, expecting 5s on all rest, no 3 singles in tennis in county and school varsity, school did not even give him a college book award, steered him as a techie to MIT to which he did not want to go, rejected by MIT but got into 5 Ivies, the most college acceptances of any kid in exclusive prep school, only kid who got into more than 1 Ivy, two others did but legacies and school brushed aside everything he did for years, counselor letter (she read out parts to me) said despite being a nerd (the kid has 2 languages beyond AP, Latin and French, no math beyond AP Cal AB) which he is not, wrote he reads English lit. How wonderful we have an Asian who actually can read and write. That's what this rant is about.</p>

<p>At the IITs in India, they believe one cannot select for character, let's select for imprecise but more quantifiable factors, then when they are in, introduce them to Gandhi and village life in India and slowly try to encourage community service. Even there, the kids flee to Silicon valley. Human beings are not altruistic, we can never know who is going to be a Gandhi, so let's at least be honest and stop pretending we are recruiting future leaders and people of character. What bugs me is the pretension that some ad coms in hurried 20 mins can mine my son's character.</p>

62

<p>Sorry, but let me summarize lest I be misunderstood: colleges must give weight to ECs, essays, interviews but only among candidates who are equal on other quantifiable scholastic measures and even then only a small weight. College is for academic learning not for playing Olympic sports. It is also not for building character or even leadership; these are better done by requiring all 18 yr olds or college grads to serve in the army or Peace Corps.</p>

63

<p>i kinda agree...luckily in this country we are blessed with a pool of really smart, really high-achieving, really well-rounded students. i think there is a bias against students with 4.0s and 2400s...colleges think they have to admit students with lower stats to build the class's "character" or "interestingness" quotient but...smart people are humans too...everyone has some interesting personality trait to bring to the table. if you can judge off the bat that a kid with a 2400 is boring compared to a kid with a 1980, then you are the one with the character problem. it's really sad that in this day and age people are STILL biased against smart people.</p>

64

<p>^^totally agree</p>

65

<p>Posts 61 through 63 are way overgeneralizing about the admissions process, to conclude that <em>because</em> character and leadership (2 diff. things, ultimately) are <em>aspects</em> to some degree of the process, that therefore college admissions to elites is mainly about character & leadership. It is not. Nor is it mainly about test scores -- a fact which these colleges have pronounced over & over. Anyone applying to top U's expecting that in itself a test score (or several) will provide an edge over other students, is counting on outcomes that have not been the pattern for the last 5-10 years, minimum.</p>

<p>Essays have <em>never</em> been the major measure of admission to a top college. Even the common data sets do not put essays in the "very important" column. There will be the occasional fluke, such as the ex-admissions-officer from Duke who wrote the tell-all book. In that book she admitted making her (probably last) round of decisions emotionally -- based on negative reactions (boredom) to the same, White-Bread indistinguishable group of Bright Well rounded (Caucasian) Kids. She deliberately worked against that group by selecting emotional hardship cases. In one perverse case she described being persuaded to admit an underperforming, overprivileged student from Manahattan who had drifted into anorexia due to pressure from her Princeton legacy family to attend Princeton The officer admitted the student specifically because the essay moved her. (!). </p>

<p>This is an extreme example, not the norm. The woman was virtually admitting to sabotaging the system. However, the other aspects to admissions that she describes can undoubtedly be found to some degree or another on most admissions committees: the political requirement to admit high-donation legacies, relatives of influential people, a virtual quota of local admits (recognizing town-gown), recruited athletes, students of extreme talent in particular areas of the arts (who may additionally be semi-celebrities or full celebrities), etc. Understand though, that some of these admits will overlap to high-performers academically -- even in some cases recruited athletes & in some cases long legacies.</p>

<p>I strongly disagree that the elites have ever maintained that the main criteria for admission are character & leadership. But I equally disagree that <em>future</em> SS officers would necessarily have turned iin fine interviews & essays, let alone unambiguous recommendations from <em>teachers</em> (not other SS officers), unless those teachers were already corrupted politically or frightened politically. Character & leadership - when distinguishable - (and that's a big "when") can be factored into some admissions decisions, but they will never replace academic potential as a selection factor. I hear what you're saying about the community service thing; I also happen to think it's gone overboard recently. However, rest assured that admissions officers have publicly discussed this, in articles posted on and off CC. Not all of them are fooled by expensive trips to the Third World by privileged students trying to impress an Elite U. They look for the motivations for such efforts, whether, & how long, these have occurred, what learning, if any, has happened, how (& whether even) the student has applied that learning academically. Lots & lots of students have been rejected recently, regardless of hundreds of hrs. doing comm. svc. as one more element of a (quantitative) "list." OTOH, a student who manifests a personal transformation from comm. svc -- an awareness of a global responsibility from a position of relative privilege, and a demonstrated interest in maintaining & practicing that responsibility -- may gain a Second Look by an admissions committee, but it is doubtful that he or she will be admitted based solely or mainly on comm. svc.</p>

<p>Are you saying that you're angry that your son got into 5 Ivies but not into MIT? I feel like congratulating you. Why do you think he will be shortchanged not going to MIT? Obviously he's a winner. Think of it as MIT's loss. </p>

<p>I don't know about the in's and out's of MIT admissions, but even for Ivies -- let alone the publics, btw -- I am not defending the admissions process at any of them as perfect. I am defending it as better than it used to be. It is still imperfect, because human beings make these decisions & are subject to error, as well as problems with predictability, as you mentioned. And more importantly, as the Elites have mentioned over & over, their process will result in huge numbers of highly qualified students being rejected year after year, as long as the supply of those extremely exceeds the number of spaces.</p>

66

<p>yeah, i agree, it's gotten much better. in the past i don't think they even tried to hide the racial quotas and other nonsense. evaluating character is a good step but in my opinion it's now being taken farther than is logistically possible in the current application system.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
my friend is a TA for a freshman course at harvard, she's currently a sophomore

[/quote]
Not hardly. No sophomore is a TA at Harvard. PHd candidates and above in general.
<a href="http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/%7Egsc/guide/academics/teaching.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~gsc/guide/academics/teaching.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

68

<p>well she does help teach the class and help grade--she specifically sees their writing. she's helping the professor research for a book he's writing so maybe she's not technically a TA but still is like an assistant. anyway, that's not really relevant to the discussion anymore.</p>

69

<p>"Sorry, but let me summarize lest I be misunderstood: colleges must give weight to ECs, essays, interviews but only among candidates who are equal on other quantifiable scholastic measures and even then only a small weight. "</p>

<p>This might be true of public Universities. But private colleges don't have to do anything. They can chose their own criteria. A friend of mine formerly worked on the admissions for his alma mater, one of the ivies, and I couldn't say which one as being from California they all blend together. I know it wasn't Harvard. He said first they divide all the applications into three piles. Those they very obviously want, not on scores or GPAs, but on overwhelming other honors or accomplishments. Then they have the pile of applications of students that would do well at the school. Then they have the pile of applications of students that would not do well at the school. The accept the first pile, reject the last pile, and then start plowing through the middle pile to fill in the rest of the class. . That pile is not sorted in order of scores or GPAs. Here is where they figure out how many more physics majors they need. Or how many more oboes for the orchestra. Or how many more lacrosse players, etc. In recent years that middle pile has been growing in leaps and bounds, so a smaller percentage are getting accepted. </p>

<p>What people are not seeing is student A with a 2400 SAT and 4.0 GPA and student B with a 1900 SAT and a 3.9 GPA might still be in the same middle, "they would do well pile". Student A might want to major in, say German, and has a passion for jounalism that included being an editor on their school paper while student B might want to major in Computer Science and plays 1st violin in their high school orchestra. If the school has an impacted German program, and has more than enough people working on their school paper, but has very few applicants interested in Physics and needs violin players then Student B would be accepted while Student A would probably be waitlisted. To outsiders it would look like the it was unfair. But to the school, which doesn't have the appropriate professors to add more German classes, they feel it wouldn't be fair to student A to admit him or her just to find they can't indulge in their passion for journalism as the paper is not hiring, nor can they get the German classes they need to graduate as there is no room in the classes.</p>

<p>So the big question is not how fair the second group is, but how to get into the first group. And that's the really hard part, because the people I know that ended up in the first group, those that got admitted to every Ivy, those that are recruited by top universities, did do anything with an eye on getting into college. They became so distinguished as high school students just because of who they are. They might be brilliant, and some would only see the perfect scores and GPAs, but those are really just by products. The projects and activities they threw their passion into outside of that is what sets them apart. They may be world class athletes, they may be authors, they may be entrepenuers, they may be artists, they may even be globe trotting charity workers. But they are doing those things for themselves, not for possible Ivy run. And amazingly, that comes out in their applications.</p>

70

<p>Once again, you're making a false assumption if you believe scores are the only indicator of ability. While they are important, your school performance as well as outside activities play a crucial role as well. While it is easy to say a 1980 means you're not as smart as someone with a higher score, let's not fool ourselves. It's not that simple. There are certain individuals, for example, who simply do not perform well on standardized tests (even in what would be considered their best subjects), but are able to perform in the classroom. We also have no knowledge of how that 1980 was distributed within the three sections. Perhaps in one area she scored extremely high, and the others were average. Harvard, recognizing this, may have admitted her knowing that she could excel in her specialized area. These are just a few of the explanations as to why they may have chosen her. I'm sure there are a host of other reasons which factored into the adcom's decision. It's simply foolish to claim that those with 2300s deserve a place in Harvard. The argument that Harvard owes these students anything is ludicrous. The truth is, no matter how hard you work, you don't really DESERVE anything. I tend to think this is an American way of thinking, the idea that we're entitled to something. In spite of all this, the scorers on the extreme end of the spectrum do in fact get the majority of these positions. This story is obviously an outlier, so I don't see why anyone should be up in arms regarding it.</p>

71

<p>she must looks pretty and easy going too
how can you stand 4 hour interview with ugly people and bad responses.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps in one area she scored extremely high, and the others were average. Harvard, recognizing this, may have admitted her knowing that she could excel in her specialized area.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, this makes no sense...a 2400 scores "extremely high" in every area. Yet somehow this imbalanced person gets more "respect." Actually, I take that back, it makes a lot of sense. We don't like naturally smart people in this country and will do anything to prop up weaker students.</p>

73

<p>haha no we don't like people who lack people schools and aren't likeable in this country. We also value uniqueness and diversity.</p>

74

<p>Look, if you want to be immersed in a body assembled based on IQ, you go to MENSA. If you want a diverse. eclectic group of people assembled based on attributes including IQ just as laudable as IQ, you go to college. Enough of this elitist nonsense about IQ and perceived intelligence based on specious testing entitling spaces in college. Not even NASA recruits based on just intelligence.</p>

75

<p>^again, you're assuming that we have to go to the pool of lower-scoring applicants to get "unique, well-rounded" people. my point is, we don't. there are enough high scoring AND unique/diverse/well-rounded people out there. but admissions officers still insist on recruiting lower-scoring people because of the stereotype that persists: if you are smart, you automatically are lacking in the personality department.</p>

76

<p>^Again, you are assuming that others are making assumptions.</p>

<p>That comment was meant to bolster the point that it's simply foolish to immediately point the finger and say that a 2400 should have better assets than 1980 SOLELY based on sat scores. That's all. You have to know the picture before you can speculate.</p>

77

<p>epiphany, read my post, my son did not want to go to MIT, he wanted princeton, was pressured to apply to MIT, then got waitlisted RD at Princeton and presumably rejected (haven't heard yet finally). We have no regrets. You and I are closer than our posts may show. All I am saying is this: after multiple interviews and work sample exercises on leadership companies like GE, etc have difficulty identifying leadership. The Trappist monasteries are not good at identifying character. After extensive psych testing, extended interviews , periods of novice-ship and all that, take a look at the Catholic church and what has happened in the priesthood. of course, imperfect example.</p>

<p>UCDalum, different schools use different methods and in different years. Your comments re those whom they want, those who will succeed, etc etc epitomize the subjectivity problem I have decried. And despite training and standardization different readers at the same school will bring their biases and read differently.</p>

<p>I do understand that academics are still heavily weighted (or so all the books say) but I still think this leadership/character/ECs/essays bit has been taken too far.</p>

<p>CX3's arguments do not make sense. 1980 is not the same as 2400. Not in reading comprehension, not in analytical reasoning. When colleges say that 90% of their applicants can do the work they mean they have dumbed down so much that anyone can do what little is asked of them. One would think the world class profs at these fancy places would want swift minds, someone who will outclass them and not someone who can merely keep up. I hope they are looking for students to whom they can pass on the leadership of their field, not for those who can merely handle the material.</p>

<p>Look at the zeitgeist: first woman president of this or that college, first black president, first potential black US President or potential female US president, first Asian woman to head Pepsi, etc etc. Where is the first Fields Medallist to head a college? My S is the only National Merit Scholar in his school (not a great honor, I do concede), only student to be on the high honor roll all 4 years of school ,etc , but did not even get a measly college book award, they all went to the kids doing a capella, saving Darfur, etc. Maybe we should go back to India. This country is busy catering to all the wounded groups.</p>

78

<p>^ Because evidently a 1980 bespeaks more sluggish minds who can barely keep up with professors, if even that. You seem to think highly of the validity of SATs, ramaswami.</p>

79

<p>derrick , you are missing my point. Read b4nnd20, he is eloquent. 2400 does not equal no roundedness, get it? To get personal, my S would not want to go to a school where everyone has high IQs and nothing else, or high SAT and nothing else. He is well rounded: an engineering student, he has the math/sci plus latin up to Lit and French up to Lit (both post AP) plus orchestra plus varsity tennis plus model aircraft + debate.</p>

<p>Colleges can have ample diversity and uniqueness and leadership and character all out of a pool of high scorers. That way they can demonstrate a sense of fairness, assure high scholastic standards and still create a college community. The schools dip low for social engineering, to defend against lawsuits by making it subjective and unpredictable to a lawyer doing a deposition and to increase future applications.</p>

80

<p>Yes, I do. The data is out there but we don't want to offend blacks, hispanics, etc etc. If tomorrow there is a definitive study that shows beyond doubt that some races are inferior in intelligence will this country accept it and modify its policies? The chance of that happening is the chance of the VAtican proclaiming they now have proof the resurrection never happened.</p>

<p>IQ loads for genes, high correl with SAT, g factor correlates with all these tests and AP scores. The best predictor of IQ is vocabulary by the way. Do remember the largest brain area, the temporal cortex is devoted to language. Which is why SAT verbal/crit reading more valued.</p>