<p>And we all know that to a great degree, the SAT tests how well you take the test, rather than the material itself (prove me wrong).</p>
<p>Sunglasses, for me the issue with Harvard is the divergence between its #1 reputation and the educational experience it delivers to the vast majority of its undergrads. Harvard College is like a bank that only lends money to people who don't need it. For the top 20% its students, it's terrific. For almost everyone else it's "just consider yourself lucky to be here and shut up." I'm pretty high on Pton, and to a lesser extent Yale (lesser because I think it has some of the Harvard syndrome). I also think Harvard plays the admissions game more insidiously than any school except Brown.</p>
<p>Can you explain the Brown/"admissions game" comment please?</p>
<p>mensa, you seriously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've known a Siemens and Intel finalist who only got in the 1200 range of her SAT, probably because she didn't care enough to prepare for it. The SAT is so ****ing easy to prepare for, which is why 1500 scores are in such abundance these days. </p>
<p>Oh, and an A does not stand for good attendance. Where do you get this crap anyways? Try talking to just one Harvard- math, science, econ, whatever- student and ask them how hard they've worked for a pure A.</p>
<p>yes she is a URM but that doesn't mean she got in solely because she is a URM.</p>
<p>rjsmith: re Brown admissions: a few years ago Bill Mayher, who wrote the excellent "The College Admissions Mystique" told me that some 25 or so years ago Brown decided to do something about its perpetual status as an ivy safety school, which it shared with Penn. The decision was to take more chances on bright, independent-seeming applicants who lacked the academic record to get in to HYP. Their recently enacted approach, which did away with distribution requirements and grades to some degree provided a rationale. A major strategy was to reject top applicants they were likely to lose anyway. As the word got around the top high schools that this or that academic superstar had been denied by Brown, their academic reputation began to rise, and their wide open approach to curricular matters seemed up to date in that freedom seeking era, to students and bright young faculty. Their current, much higher status seems well-deserved. I'm sure that's far from the whole story, but as I say I have this on good authority. Incidentally, the stunning rise in Penn's status, also well-deserved, owes a lot to a decision by the then, and I believe current Admissions director to place heavy emphasis on an ED program, the first to really go big time, which did wonders for their admissions stats.</p>
<p>shrek... actually, the SAT does measure something: the ability to take the SAT. nothing more.</p>
<p>whups... netshark said that already. oh well.</p>
<p>mensa-Intentional or not, you're a troll. CC needs an ignore list for people like you.</p>
<p>Although the SAT is far from a reliable measure of intelligence, I can't say that I've met an unintelligent student with over a 1500. In that respect, I believe that a high SAT score definitely is able to show that one CAN do the work at a highly selective college. (Although that's not really a distinction these days ... since many colleges say that 80%+ of their applicant pool can do the work.)</p>
<p>Joey</p>
<p>off the topic: I was wondering if there was a dip in a particular class first semester of senior year, would Harvard consider a highly improved 3rd quarter grade?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
Unfortunately, with SATs that low they just wouldn't cut it at HYPS either... </p>
<p>you say that with such smugness. eww
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, what kind of responses did you expect from someone whose name is "mensa160"? (Mensa is a society for people with high IQs)</p>
<p>thanks, suburbian, i knew that already.</p>
<p>you and mensa are such humble people.</p>
<p><a href="Mensa%20is%20a%20society%20for%20people%20with%20high%20IQs">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i especially enjoy being informed what mensa is, as if i were completely uncultured and a blithering idiot to boot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The undefeated 10-0 football team - which out-ranked Stanford and many athletic-scholarship schools nationally"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmmm...an undefeated season in Ivy-league doesn't necessarily make you out-rank even the bottom dwellers in major football conferences. :)</p>
<p>Ooops...sorry, don't mean to start a ESPN thread here. ;)</p>
<p>"Not necessarily", perhaps, but in this case it happens to be true!</p>
<p>I know. The Sagarin is a computer poll that tries to be "objective". The thing is the fomula/model contains subjective and seemingly arbitary factors. LOL! That's why the BCS is such a joke. Maybe they can hire someone from Harvard to build a model that makes more sense. I think most football fans would tell you Minnesota, NC State, UTEP, and Stanford could run the table if they were in the Ivy League. After all, Stanford was the one of the few that actually gave the Trogan a scare. In case you don't know, Ivy League is in Division I-AA not Division I-A and there's really quite a gap between the two.</p>
<p>"...an undefeated season in Ivy-league doesn't necessarily make you out-rank even the bottom dwellers in major football conferences," quoth Sam. </p>
<p>Well, whether you agree or not, Harvard did out rank Stanford in this and other rankings combining Div 1A and Division 1AA.</p>
<p>Just because a school is in Div 1A does not make it a good football school, it only means, essentially, an average attendance at home games above a set figure (and schools often resort to questionable devices to reach this attendance level.)</p>
<p>The bigger difference is between schools that pay their athletes, and those who don't. All Div 1A schools, and even some Div 1AA, schools, use salaried performers. The Ivy League, of course, does not.</p>
<p>IMHO, this is one reason why Stanford has not been accorded an academic rank to which it is otherwise more than entitled - this unfortunate mixture of professionalism and the amateur ideal in sport. Admitting athletes meeting only the rediculously low NCAA standards also pushes the Stanford SAT median below Princeton's and Yale's.</p>