<p>Ok, so I've been wondering whether anyone knows how it happens. Do they initially sift through the 20k+ apps firstly eliminating those who don't achieve the minimum stats? Do they read them in tables of 5,10, 20 people? Do adcoms fight over certain applicants? Is there a way one can tell whether they're fighting for you? (e.g. getting an e-mail from them telling you they need something last-minute)
Any input will be helpful! I've always wanted to know... calms down my anxiety :P (How SAD am I?!)</p>
<p>There is a small book available at B & N or Borders, published by Princeton Review, called "The Truth About Harvard" (2004, by Dov Fox, Class of '04) that describes the Harvard admissions process at length and in detail. Worth picking up - or reading at the store. ($13.95 retail, or $10.74 from Amazon.com.)</p>
<p>thanks Byerly!
VERY kind of you to even go ahead and add the hyperlinks! I wish I could buy it :)</p>
<p>The Dean himself in an 8-part video series on how admissions works:</p>
<p>Go to <a href="http://www.nshss.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.nshss.org/</a> and scroll to the bottom, you'll see it (it'll open a pop-up).</p>
<p>According to him, seems like it would help if you're wikid smat :rolleyes:</p>
<p>thanks donmesw... very interesting!</p>
<p>The book says that around 10 percent of applications have academic ratings of "1" and, thus, are "virtual locks for admission." However, as "stats" on this board often show, this often is not the case. The copyright , 2004, is recent, so I would guess you should take the info with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>edit: Do realize if you're persistant, it's not that hard to read a book on Amazon.</p>
<p>10% of applications cannot be locks for admission. That would be 2000 people right there and no one else would get in.</p>
<p>i agree with haukim. i'm not saying you're all wrong, but maybe the statistic is off?
I think it's more of a holistic thing (not to reiterate what they always say, but it seems like that is true, based off the reject/accept threads..)
btw, if someone gets a 2400, 4.0, valedictorian, 80000 hours community service, started a blood drive, drafted by the NFL just out of highschool.. then maybe they would be a lock.
oh and they would have to live in the middle of the desert and have $2 in their bank. lol.</p>
<p>The book says an academic one is one: with a rank 1 or 2 in high school, 700 on at least five SAT tests, 4/5 on at least three APs or 6/7 on at least three IBs, and who shows academic initiative outside the classroom.</p>
<p>page</a> 19</p>
<p>I refute the claim that acadmic 1s have an amazing chance, seeing as it would appear there are so many 1s.</p>
<p>I thought the NSHSS was a scam...oy.</p>
<p>dude, that guy is a <a href="mailto:dumb@ass...he">dumb@ass...he</a> obviously does not know how fierce competition is these days...even back in 2004</p>
<p>Maybe you are talking about 10% of total ADMITS get 1 ratings?</p>
<p>no there are definitey way more than 10% of admits getting 1 ratings...the requirements for a 1 are not too strict.</p>
<p>
[quote]
no there are definitey way more than 10% of admits getting 1 ratings
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't say "way more." Around 14%</a>of the 2009 applicant pool were valedictorians(~3200 valedictorians and 22,796 applicants). Obviously, among these students, there are those with a score or two below 700, who apply because he/she thinks that his/her rank means the world (e.g., the guy ranked 3rd in my class applied to Yale with a 27 ACT).</p>
<p>Add salutatorians to the mix and we have a horrible upper bound estimate of approximately 15-20%.</p>
<p>This methodology is shady at best, so suppose that the number of academic 1s is 15%. This is irrelevant, for the argument should not be about the relative number of academic 1s. The argument should be about how important an academic 1. This is the heart of the matter.</p>
<p>I would think at least 20% of the accepted students achieve that #1 rating, if not more. Those are really loose definitions.</p>
<p>And don't forget that an "Academic #1" is not necessarily a #1 overall, since there are 3 sub-catagories AND an overall ranking.</p>
<p>Even then, there are plenty of cases where a #2 (or lower) might be a more desirable admit, particularly if gender, ethnic, racial, EC, geographic, musical, athletic, and economic diversity are goals to be pursued - along with people interested in studying a range of subjects.</p>
<p>good point byerly</p>
<p>30% of those accepted to Brown are Val/Sal. I would assume a majority of those earned 700+ on their tests, so I'd say that 20% of Brown's accepted pool is an academic "1." You might go as far as to double this for Harvard, so perhaps 40% of the accepted pool is an academic "1."</p>
<p>Byerly, that is what I alluded to--an academic 1 is not a "virtual lock."</p>
<p>Looking at the text[/url</a>] you will see that Fox does [url=<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375764356/ref=sib_vae_pg_11/102-1129413-8377701?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=39&p=S065&twc=9&checkSum=sMZVwrr6eothuwVFZ9aFqAKr4cHynzmv%2BLJmPf7GHlE%3D#reader-page%5Dreference">http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375764356/ref=sib_vae_pg_11/102-1129413-8377701?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=39&p=S065&twc=9&checkSum=sMZVwrr6eothuwVFZ9aFqAKr4cHynzmv%2BLJmPf7GHlE%3D#reader-page]reference</a> his claim. However, "38" is in the April</a> issue of the Gazette, not the August issue; I can't find any information on the academic rating in the article.</p>
<p>That footnote is to the wrong article; i think it should have been to a similar Gazette article from an earlier year.</p>