<p>I shouldn’t have done that for the 75th percentile, true. Mea culpa. For the 25th percentile, I was trying to be a little more generous, nudging a 2100 composite into the middle 50 percent. </p>
<p>I’d never looked at the Harvard CDS before. It’s hilarious. In the section about what factors are considered for admission–the rigor of the applicant’s record, the academic GPA, etc etc–nothing is rated higher than “Considered”. None of this is “important” or “very important”.</p>
<p>jersey13,</p>
<p>your “observed correlation” is more commonly called anecdotal data, which is also one of the most common fallacious reasoning traps. </p>
<p>But I won’t bore you with the details. If someone is comfortable with extrapolating from PTA talk at the local HS (or whatever information source one relies upon) then go for it. I’ve always assumed that college admissions was a bit like job hunting, where the applicant exaggerates his/her qualifications and the employer exaggerates the good parts, if any even exist, of the job.</p>
<p>ST, maybe the CD is a rare example of truth from Harvard admissions? After all, if it were widely known what really does count, and why (Read “The Chosen” by Karabel…) I think most folks would not be too happy.</p>
<p>@newmassdad, I could not agree more.</p>
<p>@Slithey, I have no idea whether my 2100-SAT son would be admitted to Harvard. My only points here have been: (a) I think the fact that he is a legacy would give him a little extra “bump.” Not much, perhaps, but something. (I have said this before, and it was taken to imply that he’s a sure thing, which I have NEVER claimed.) (b) He is also a National Merit Semifinalist (scores: 72, 73, 78). Harvard admits a lot of National Merit Finalists, but not everyone at Harvard is a National Merit Finalist. Obviously, then, many admitted Harvard students have not reached this particular milestone. You may draw your own conclusions therefrom. </p>
<p>“Yes, they exist. They’re the exception.”</p>
<p>I bet they’re less of an exception than you think. 
When I was at the Div School, I had a work-study job at Baker Library, the Business School library. One of my work-study colleagues there was an undergraduate girl, very nice and very open about her background. She had earned 600s on her SATs, and she certainly did not meet any of the criteria you list (rich and famous, superstar talent, etc.). She was just an ordinary smart but not amazing kid from Winchester, Mass. I find it hard to believe that she was an isolated case, either then or now.</p>
<p>Mr. Meursault: Have you any remote clue how patronizing the following response is? “And if you had phrased your previous request like this, it definitely would have been a true sign of maturity.”</p>
<p>Given that you have repeatedly insulted me, I have to confess that this response frankly stuns me. You do not know me from Eve, You have absolutely no idea how mature I am vis-a-vis you. Frankly, I find your posts snarky, insulting, and judgmental. And frankly, also, I don’t think I need your permission – or your approval of my maturity level – in order to drop a distasteful discussion. I can simply…drop it. Which I will now proceed to do.</p>
<p>But, since you ask, here is where the subject-verb non-agreement came in:</p>
<p>“The not so subtle ad hominem attacks directed at the participants of an entire thread and the obnoxious emoticons and sarcasm ubiquitous in your posts really <em>makes</em> it hard for me to believe you’re an adult.”</p>
<p>(emphasis added)</p>
<p>Mr. Meursault, if you had made the slightest attempt to be conciliatory, or at least marginally courteous, to <em>me,</em> I would gladly continue the dialogue. But your responses to me drip with insult – not to mention extreme condescension – and therefore I am really not interested. It’s OK. One can’t have fruitful dialogue with <em>everyone</em>…can one?</p>
<p>Bottom line: dignified1 is correct: No one’s admission is a “sure thing.” And, as boom and others have observed, Ivy admissions are extremely complex. All kids of factors enter into the equation – and no, it’s not “EITHER you have 2400 SATs OR you’re rich/famous/superstar-ish.” I have known kids who were admitted to Harvard with less-than-stellar stats while more stellar kids were rejected. What made the difference? In one notable case I can think of, the admitted kid came from sleepy little Ville Platte, Louisiana, so he satisfied Harvard’s “geographic diversity” criterion. That has NOTHING to do with superior ability OR with fame, fortune, etc.</p>
<p>Finally, the only people who know what criteria the Harvard admissions folks employ are the Harvard admissions folks. No one on this board (including myself) has a clue. So, why are we even arguing about it? More to the point, why do some people here take it upon themselves to discourage would-be applicants? Given that the naysayers are not Harvard admissions people and therefore do not have Clue One, why should they be speculating about some poor kid’s chances?</p>
<p>Ivy admissions is a crap shoot; it can seem highly arbitrary. You never know when the kid from Ville Platte will be admitted while the superstar from Westchester won’t be. So, let’s chill, already. ;-)</p>
<p>For the record, my son is not applying to Harvard. NOT because he thinks he has no chance of getting in, but rather because he’s simply not interested. The world does not begin and end in Cambridge, Mass.</p>
<p>Oops. typo alert. That should be: </p>
<p>All kinds of factors…</p>
<p>NOT</p>
<p>All kids of factors…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was exactly my point earlier, LadyDi!</p>
<p>“A 2100 legacy (who is not a developmental admit) without impressive achievements is unlikely to be admitted to H.”</p>
<p>And you know this how?</p>
<p>LOL, I find such certitude rather amazing.</p>
<p>(BTW–there is not that much difference between a 700 and an 800. Between 500 and 600, yes. Between 600 and 700, yes. But the difference between 700 and 800 is a matter of just a few incorrect answers. If you don’t believe me, check the detailed report the College Board sends along with score reports. Moreover, I am quite sure the top achools are aware of this fact, as they also receive these detailed score breakdowns.)</p>
<p>Um, a typo is not quite the same thing as subject-verb non-agreement. ;-)</p>
<p>But I am not trying to impugn anyone’s grammar. I took Mr. Meursault to task for <em>his</em> only because he was giving me such a hard time. :)</p>
<p>“Well, the admissions criteria are the “secret sauce” of any highly selective university.”</p>
<p>Kind of like the Google algorithm, LOL.</p>
<p>Newmassdad, I like the way you think.</p>
<p>Fwiw i have been friends for many years with a topivy adcomm, many of theres years were before i had hs age kids. Now maybe she has amazing self control but she has never said anythng about admissions process that contradicts their official speeches, info on websites, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is most assuredly a huge difference between a 700 and an 800, especially times 3 (2100 vs 2400) – this difference is more than a minor oversight, the test-taker clearly didn’t know all the answers or was too slow to finish. These tests are hardly rocket science.</p>
<p>My son took the ACT Explore (9th grade) - perfect score; ACT Plan (10th grade) - maximum composite; 3 real ACT practice tests with composites of 36.0, 35.75 and 36.0; and finally the ACT with a 36.0. He also took the PSAT recently and fully expects to get the 240.</p>
<p>This sort of consistency belies the wishful thinking of those who believe that maxing out the score is just a matter of having a lucky day.</p>
<p>I agree with the above post that there is a difference between 700 and 800, but maxing out score also relates to having Lady Luck on your side (of course, u have to have the skills to back it up, performing near perfect in practice…). Oftentimes, missing one or two silly mistakes can set back a perfect score, especiallly if the mistakes lie on math section.</p>
<p>Sure, there’s a touch of Lady Luck involved, but I suspect that perfect 2400 scorers could get at least a 2350 eight times out of ten and that perfect 36ers could get at least a 35 composite eight times out of ten. This isn’t a lottery ticket, it’s a test of basic high school skills and once you’ve mastered them, you should be able to repeat the results within a close range.</p>
<p>A person with a 2100 SAT has not come close to mastering the material, yet.</p>
<p>newmassdad, maybe that CDS data is the truth. Or maybe someone in admissions has the same sort of sense of humor that I have. :)</p>
<p>LadyDianeski, of course students with SATs in the 500’s and 600’s are the exception at Harvard. 25% of the students had SAT scores of 700/690/690 or lower. It is a very safe bet that the number of students in that cohort with scores in the high 600’s is larger than the number of students with low 600 scores, which would be larger than those with 500 scores. But let’s be generous and assume that half of those students scored in the 600-700 range, and half in the 500-600 range. So, at most, half of the 25th percentile–12.5% of the Harvard student body–had SAT scores around 600. Cut that number in half again to account for all the hooked students, and that means that just over 7% of the Harvard student population would have SAT scores in that range and be typical unfamous unwealthy kids. They might have something special about them that doesn’t immediately pop up; maybe one is a gifted poet, another founded a food bank with tutoring for single parent families, and yet another was responsible for caring for several younger siblings while both parents were critically ill. People can be surprisingly humble about their accomplishments. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so much discourage as educate. It’s one thing if a student wants to throw a Hail Mary pass by applying to a school where the student’s stats are significantly below the norm. It’s something else entirely when that student thinks they’ve got a real shot because look, even the Harvard materials show that some students got in with 600-ish SATs. You don’t need to be a Harvard adcom to have a bunch of clues about someone’s relative chances when the admissions rates and percentiles are so easily available. If a kid wants to go to Harvard, but has 600 SATs, far better to educate him/her (or his/her parents). Help them to find out about other schools that they’d love where their admissions chances are better. Let them go into the process with eyes wide open. If they win the lottery, more power to them. If they don’t, they’ll still be admitted to schools that aren’t just an afterthought.</p>
<p>You’ve already stated that your son isn’t interested in the Ivys, and is happily looking at schools where he has a good shot at significant merit aid. He’s not the kind of kid I’m talkng about. Now imagine that another young man, with stats similar to your son’s, is convinced that he’d be happiest at Harvard. Would you just want to tell him to go for it? Or would you want to realistically temper his expectations?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aniger, it is precisely the anecdotal observations like this that allow all the admissions myths to be perpetuated. I’m not surprised that an admissions pro would toe the party line. After all, she is part of the insider team. Frighteningly, I suspect the adcom teams themselves may believe the hype.</p>
<p>Consider though, the following:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Many admissions heads said for years (heck, they may still) that applicants for early admissions had no advantage, that they were admitted more frequently because they were better prepared. Then go read “the Early Admissions Game” from a few years ago.</p></li>
<li><p>These same folks have repeatedly said that legacy status is, to use Harvard’s words “a thumb on the scale” for otherwise equivalent candidates. Then go read “the Chosen” or any one of several other academic studies. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Now, if your friend was an staffer at a school out of the top 20 or so, perhaps your statement is true, because they do in fact work in a different world than the true elites.</p>
<p>While SAT/ACT scores are important to many colleges for admission it is not the only thing they consider. Depending upon the college, a number of other factors are also considered, such as your participation in extra-curricular activities is only one example. Some people might also get a perfect SAT/ACT score and then totally bomb the written essay or the in person interviews that some colleges use.</p>
<p>It all comes down to test scores and skin color.</p>
<p>going back a few pages, I wrote that a person with 2400 SAT and a perfect academic record is a sure admit as long as something objectionable does not emerge from the letters of rec.</p>
<p>Inasmuch as the group I reference is probably under 250 people throughout the country, it is not a relevant comment. So let me revise –</p>
<p>“A person with 2350+ SAT and near perfect academic record (let’s say almost the most demanding curriculum with all As, or the most demaning with 1 or 2 Bs), is about as likely to be wait listed/denied by Harvard as accepted.” </p>
<p>I write this after reviewing the H applicants with said stats from last year’s applicant pool to H from two Palos Verdes, CA highly ranked public schools <a href=“http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf[/url]”>http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf</a> , and after reviewing the 2014 class admissions data from [Harvard</a> College Admissions Results for Class of 2014](<a href=“http://www.collegedata.com/cs/admissions/admissions_tracker_result.jhtml?schoolId=444&classYear=2014]Harvard”>College Admissions Tracker - See Who Got In Where and How You Compare | CollegeData) wherein 2 of 3 2400 applicants with high grades were wait listed, wherein 1 of 2 2390 applicants with high grades was wait listed, and wherein 1 of 2 2350 applicants with high grades was wait listed. </p>
<p>Harvard (RD accepted):
<p>At the same collegedata.com website, searching on the same 2014 class for Princeton, Yale, and Stanford REGULAR DECISION reveals this for high SAT, 3.84 or above unweighted GPA:</p>
<p>Princeton (RD accepted):
<p>Yale (RD accepted):
<p>Stanford (RD accepted):
<p>I had never looked at those data before, and I must admit, it puzzles me just a little that none of this sampling of 2350+ SAT scorers with high grades got into Stanford, and most do not get into any individual HYPS except Yale, which I am sure a higher sample size would drag back to the mean.</p>
<p>To expand upon the Y, S data above, I also looked at EA for Yale and Stanford to complete the picture.</p>
<p>Here are those results, also from the collegedata.com site, for Regular applicant (not Athlete, not Legacy) for the EA round with high SAT and min. 3.84 unweighted GPA</p>
<p>Yale (EA accepted):
<p>Stanford (EA accepted):
<p>Oddly, a non-hooked highly statted applicant per this limited sampling is more likely to get into Yale in Regular Decision than in EA. Stanford’s data is consistent… not one person from this sampling of eight applicants was accepted in either round. I’m not sure what to make of that, even considering the small sample size… and how these high statted denials at Stanford support the CDS data that shows Stanford 25/75 CR+M SAT average of 1440 vs. Yale 1485 and Harvard 1490. Clearly Stanford is selecting for something less stats driven, and doesn’t seem to care that its SAT range for enrolled students is noticeably lower than H,Y,P.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would that the son chose his parents and/or grandparents very wisely.</p>
<p>Wonderful, intriguing thread.</p>