<p>i still cannot get over 3120 deferrals...thats 75% of the total number of applicants!
also I dont get the impression that they are going to consider us poor deferrees too seriously at all...the email was just too offhand.
there definitely should be some kind of standardization...also i would prefer being rejected outright. being deffered kind of makes me feel like they put off my application as some kind of unpleasant work they'd rather do later or not do at all, particularly when it comes with 3120 other deferrals...the system has to be made more transparent!
but hey...its not the end of the world.</p>
<p>I personally have not done much research on this subject. But it seems other countries have taken control of the college admissions problem with national single administration aptitude tests. It seems to me that if college board stands to reap millions in profit and our government is willing to shell out millions in education spending we should be able to devise a comprehensive test that would encompass all aspects and more to be expected from a typical college applicant, including extracurricular talents. At least this way you don't have 3000 students working themselves to death trying to do everything possible to make it into these schools only to be deferred.</p>
<p>how would u test extracurricular talents? would you see how far an athlete can throw a football? See who can play a certain sonata with the best technique? And then how would u give points? How much would it be worth? What factor would EC play in the total package? Would somebody with more commitments to ECs get a greater weighting than a typical nerd?</p>
<p>There really is not way to fix the current system. It might have it's flaws, but it's the best way there is, giving the breath and depth of the applicants.</p>
<p>athletic recruitment is a whole different animal that is being handled by sports departments with their reputation for rigorous recruitment practices. Personally, I think music should be handled in a similar fashion. My point is that college is about academic scholarship above all but these days I guess that alone is not enough, and it seems like the typical nerd isn't given his fair share because he can't throw that football or play that sonata.</p>
<p>Maybe a "typical nerd" deserve that "share" you're talking about if he can't throw a football, play a sonata, or do (or have done) anything else extraordinary?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>i dont know much but i'm ****ed that staticsloloqouy got deferred, i thought he was into harvard for sure, and no offense, i think he is better qualified that ppl who did get in. it makes me wonder, b/c justice with his perfect scores and ec's i could still see a small, small chance of deferral. but static....<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This post should make clear the utter uselessness of all the Chances posts and replies. The only people who can legitimately assess your chances are the adcoms. Perhaps the least qualified to answer are your fellow high school students. What makes kids think that other kids know any more about it than they themselves do?</p>
<p>The fact that everyone badly missed the mark in guessing who would get in shows what a waste of electrons the whole Chances business is.</p>
<p>Right on, coureur. This whole admission process is so obscure. I'm applying RD, but I feel for all of you EA'ers.</p>
<p>The point of this controversy is transparency. Just like all colleges, Harvard is keeping their selection criteria from the public. People have no idea how they got admitted, deferred, or rejected. The only reason Harvard ever gives is that they select students whom they think will contribute to their campus--an intentionally vague reason, which is open to a multitude of interpretations--it is better not to give any reason at all! Of course, for each year, Harvard does make up a list of its goal, say, they want 5 nerds, 5 athletes, 5 musicians, 5 artists, 5 well-rounded students, etc. Without this list, they wouldn't have been able to decide which student to accept, reject, or defer. This list should be open to the public.</p>
<p>Harvard demands that we be truthful in our applications. We pour our achievements, dreams, and souls into those few pieces of paper. In return, Harvard should also open up. It is unfair for them to demand transparency from us, but not return the same.</p>
<p>It is true that they could give us a fake list, but, hey, we could also give them fake ECs. These are qualitative data. But, at least, with the list, we have something to grab on, to comprehend the why and the how. Without anything, as it is presently, they are blinding us and putting us in a dungeon, while they are enjoying the sunlight.</p>
<p>Why would they want to publish that kind of data? So they can have tons of kids who do things just for the sake of getting into Harvard? I realize that it will be different each year, but it won't be much different. You'll have kids being groomed from day 1 in high school to get into Harvard. Students with real passions (not just a passion for Harvard and prestige) will be put at an advantage even more, because they will do what they love, not what Harvard wants.</p>
<p>And also consider the fact that if they publish what they want each year, people WILL start making up ECs and such to fit the mold. They'll get caught, sure, but it will be just much more work for the adcoms and more hassle for those who are truthful. </p>
<p>My (unqualified) guess is that static will get in the RD round. Harvard probably doesn't want to take too many low-SAT scoring kids in the early round.</p>
<p>This doesn't have that much to do with the admissions process per se, but since people are voicing their criticisms in this thread and since someone kind of indirectly brought up the affirmative action issue, I just had something I wanted to rant about.</p>
<p>Heres a nice little message some CCer sent me through AIM!</p>
<p>shepsports5: congratluations you got in cuz you are black and a minority</p>
<p>I don't know who this is...but he/she really upset me. Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but this is part of the reason why I have such a problem with affirmative action as it currently stands. Even if a minority is fully qualified and deserves to be accepted, there are bitter people who claim that they only got in because of their race.</p>
<p>Well, since I never posted my stats and this person knows absolutely nothing about me except my race, he/she had no basis upon which to make this ridiculous claim. Here's a little bit of info that contradicts this person's uneducated argument.</p>
<p>I attended the Research Science Institute (RSI) at MIT this past summer (same program your beloved static went to!). This is one of the most selective and most prestigious programs in the nation (check out <a href="http://www.cee.org%5B/url%5D">www.cee.org</a>), with a much lower acceptance rate than Harvard. Only about 75 students total are selected each year from the US and foreign nations. And guess what? It is RACE-BLIND. That means I got in because I worked my tail off for 17 years, which is the same reason why I got into Harvard.</p>
<p>I'm really sorry to all of you who are not bitter racists like shepsports5. I'm not trying to be rude or to brag in this post. I'm more-so trying to defend myself against cruel comments. I just felt the need to explain how upsetting it is for someone to work so hard for 17 years, take classes 3 years advanced, go to numerous educational/summer programs, get selected to do independent math research at RSI, help start college-level independent study math courses when there were no math classes left to take in high school, become an officer in several clubs and a member of even more...for which I stay after school for at least 2-3 hours every day, be a yearbook editor, participate in dance classes and performances for 13 years, student teach dance, sing and perform in five different vocal groups, win lots of awards, including national merit semifinalist, etc, etc, have pretty high PSAT(235 or 1550)/SAT(1530)/SATIIs(800, 770, 740), and never have a free moment to breathe...yet still manage to maintain a 99.4 unweighted GPA and be #1 in the class with one of the most advanced courseloads in the school......but because I'm black, none of that matters. People automatically assume I am less qualified, or even not qualified at all.</p>
<p>So I guess I just gave you my stats, lol, which I didn't want to do. But oh, well...I guess my criticism of the admissions process is that AA has caused many non-URMs to resent minorities for "taking their spots" and has fueled the stereotype that all minorities are less intelligent or less qualified. I know that a ton of qualified applicants, like many of you CCers, got deferred, and that truly upsets me...the overwhelming majority of you deserve to go to Harvard, or some other equally great school. You are all incredible students! But I don't think it's fair to attack minorities who were accepted. Because maybe they deserve to go to Harvard, too.</p>
<p>Ok, I'll shut up, now. :p I hope this post didn't annoy anyone too much. Peace, people.</p>
<p>omg whoever the hell says that to my best friend dawn better step up...that's SO WRONG.</p>
<p>dawn deserves harvard REGARDLESS of her race. She is the best graph theorist I've known. She works hard for everything. She's well rounded and talented. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN HER DANCE?! SO TALENTED. She takes dance classes. God...do not demean her hard work and effort. Do not say she got in because she's black. You're just so bitter.</p>
<p>ugh some CCers are just ______ fill in the blank to your own discretion.</p>
<p>Aww, thanks Nghi! I <3 you!</p>
<p>You deserve Harvard, too...actually the question is: does Harvard even deserve you??</p>
<p>sigh...i'm going to go enroll in a local junior college and work my way up again</p>
<p>CC isn't a great place to be for support dawn. I hate it when people belittle my intentions to superficial purposes like getting into college. I learned that they're strangers and their opinions, how ill-willed, they might be, don't matter. But there are some very genuinely kind and considerate people on here!!</p>
<p>have a great time at the reunion!</p>
<p>ps when you're at mrs. d, can you advocate for me to mrs. D? that's what kelly and shubha will be doing...the more people, the better :) and hopefully, i'll be joining you guys in cambridge in the fall.</p>
<p>i think affirmative action has the right idea, but the wrong application (in some cases). in a perfect world, people wouldn't be judged on their race for anything. unfortunately, that's not how it is, so i guess affirmative action is just trying to make up for the challenges that many minority people face.</p>
<p>still, wouldn't it make more sense to consider people from poor backgrounds together, regardless of race? a rich black girl at a private school should not get preference over a poor white girl living on welfare in a trailor park. ah well, the world's not fair. congrats to all who got in.</p>
<p>I completely agree! I think AA should be based on economic status, not race. Then the people who really need aid would get it.</p>
<p>Definitely, Nghi-- there are a ton of incredible and supportive people here. Yet every so often, one of the bad apples comes out of the woodwork. :(</p>
<p>Hmmm, well while we're on the topic I'll throw in my two cents and say that I think that affirmative action (in college admissions specifically) should take into account BOTH economic status and race. I think we all get caught up too often in the idea that it has to be either/or - but I say the more information they take into account about a person, the better. </p>
<p>And with regard to college admissions as a whole, I think the best system possible is probably in place right now. There's no good way to quantify someone's achievements or their possible contribution to a school or their "deservingness" of a spot there. It may be frustrating and oftentimes seems almost random and based a lot on luck, but any situation in which such a huge number of qualified people compete for a such a small number of spaces is going to seem inherently unfair to someone.</p>
<p>I would argue that the admissions process is almost inherently a failed system because they are faced with a basically insurmountable task: to judge a person's intellect and overall "brightness" based on a very limited set of data. In personal contact, this usually isn't hard; you know amongst your peers who is truly bright and creative without having to see their SAT scores. The interview does in some extent remedy this, but Byerly still has to look at four THOUSAND applicants. And, to be honest, I know plenty of kids with magnificent scores on their SATs who aren't bright, and also plenty of kids with incredible transcripts who aren't bright, and also kids with amazing ECs who aren't bright. Somehow a holistic view of these applicants needs to be formed and that is a tricky chore. </p>
<p>That being said, I would suggest the following changes:
- Some sort of essay administered in a controlled setting. It is absolutely disgusting that people with professional "essay coaches" get the advantage. In fact, I'm pretty disgusted by "college coaches" at all (sorry CC staffers), or even most parents who dig their heels into the process. The admission process should focus on the student and NOBODY ELSE.
- I really like Dartmouth's system of requiring a peer recommendation. Some people would cry foul, saying that college shouldn't be a popularity contest, but a truly bright person should at least have the respect of some of their peers. Even if they are radical (as I would hope they would be), opinionated, and not the model of felicitous sociability, this reccomendation would not be hard to procure.</p>
<p>And, uh, others ... which will come to me when it is not late ...</p>
<p>But I would think that an essay administered in a controlled setting would stifle creativity for a great many people - it would essentially be as intimidating as taking the SAT. And I actually think that the essay from the new SAT will be available to college admissions officers at some point - so I would advocate the continued use of personal statements on applications as they are. It's unfortunate that some people have the ability to use college/essay/SAT coaches, but it's simply a fact of life that some people will have access to more resources than others. Not fair or pleasant, I know, but that's simply the way the world works. </p>
<p>I think the peer recommendation idea would be a worthwhile addition to all applications though. :)</p>
<p>Everybody check janesmith's post at the bottom of page 1 on this thread...theres something troubling about what she said if its true? Do students' potential majors REALLY play that big of a deal? You're not bound by your prospective major...so do kids who put down like "baltic studies" or somethin of the sort because they think its an advantage...have a better chance of getting in? That's ridiculous. Why dont we all just put down stupid majors...</p>
<p>I don't think it's your potential concentration alone that has the largest role in what janesmith said. If your interests reflected elsewhere in you application - i.e., your essay topic, classes you've taken, activities/programs you've participated in - concur with what you write for your potential concentration then it would play a role b/c the the adcom would feel that you'd be likely to continue pursuing that interest. However, if everything on your application is about math and science, you wrote your essays about it, all of your ECs revolve around it, your recs come from those teachers and deal with that subject, and suddenly you write "Folklore and Mythology" as a potential concentration, that would clearly look suspicious - which is why we all don't "just put down stupid majors."</p>