Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I am working at a college as an admissions officer after this but I have not been forthright about which geographic reason. I just don’t want anyone finding out after all! Why be too specific?
I have not dissuaded kids from applying early action non-binding, but I have dissuaded many kids from applying early decision binding many a time. A lot of kids apply early decision to a school because they think they can get in, and try to game the system. Look at all the top schools! Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. ALL of them are Early action non-binding. They are asking–begging–kids to apply early and then choose. I have seen so many kids who want to apply early decision to say dartmouth or brown to manage their chances. Chase your dreams folks.
I have been rejected many a time in my life. Be it in your career, social life etc, it is important to give it your best shot and give it your all. Do not manage your expectations, but if you do fail, have the audacity to pick yourself up and keep trying.
When you outright lie in your posts or misrepresent yourself as working in different geographic locations (for whatever reason) it makes you a less credible poster. That’s something you should have already learned at Harvard, and in your adult life. Which makes me all the more suspicious that this is just a t-r-o-l-l thread.
Nothing like coming on as a purported admissions consultant and starting the hype early.
Not to mention the idea a kid can spend 3 hours on his essay(s.) And the lottery comment.
“(Harvard) does not care as much about GPA/SAT scores as you think. DO NOT think just because you have low grades that you cannot get in. We are looking for leaders and interesting people first and foremost. During my time there, I have met so many people with middling grades and class ranks-- but do you know what they all had in common? They were driven, interesting, passionate individuals with much to offer.”
You either misunderstand how admissions filters or you understate. Perhaps your slight view, as a post-grad “grunt,” left you thinking this is easier than it is. Too many of even the best of hs performers don’t “get” what H is looking for. So, your flat encouragement is mega deceptive.
Plus, it’s strikingly hs-centric to view this as about the admit only. Kids have to be able to manage what comes during the 4 years. Anyone involved with admissions knows that.
No one should apply without vetting, no one should assume, and no one should take one poster’s encouragement as solid advice. (That’s not Harvard level thinking.) 35,000+kids will get rejected. The number of middling performers who get in is ridiculously small.
I would agree that the original post is too bullish and it’s possible that the OP may be what @gibby suspects. At the same time, however, I do have some sympathy for the notion that people may be too quick to tell someone they have NO chance at Harvard based solely on GPA and test scores.
Realistically, almost no one who applies to Harvard has a GOOD chance. And the lower one’s GPA and test scores, the worse that chance is. At some point, it probably is correct to say that an applicant has no chance just based on GPA and test scores. But I don’t think anyone here could say where that line is. Certainly I couldn’t.
There are people who get in without stellar GPAs and test scores, people who are told they had no chance. Are they outliers? Yes. Do they have some other compelling positive qualities going for them? Undoubtedly. But I don’t think it’s for me - or for you - to tell someone who has a reason to believe they might be in a position to defy the odds that they’re wasting their time and shouldn’t apply. Just tell them to make sure they also have some match and safety schools on their list.
The issue I have is that when you encourage kids to apply early to a school where they have an minute chance of getting accepted, they are foregoing the opportunity to apply early to schools where they are more suitably matched. Bad advice is bad advice whether you really went to Harvard ir not.
I think you will be doing a disservice to the HS students who end up consulting with you.
D’s independent HS has two extraordinary GC’s who encourage students to visit multiple campuses and concentrate on finding the best fit, rather than entering “the lottery” and “pursuing the dream.” D is out with her friends today, who are all home from college for their first Thanksgiving break. They attend Denison, American, Barnard, Wooster, Middlebury, Rice, Dartmouth, Columbia, Wittenberg, Emory, Bryn Mawr, Michigan, Vanderbilt, and Sewanee. With the exception of one who plans to transfer back closer to home next year, all are very happy with their choices because they were encouraged to do their due diligence.
A couple of them did apply to Harvard, but they did not get in.
Most of the time, many of us don’t just look at stats. Many of us look for whats behind even top stats, whether a kid is “thinking” or just hoping lightning will strike, whether there is any substance to the ECs (and the decision-making, awareness and maturity behind those choices.) Same with essay discussions. Rarely do we see a kid on CC whose picture is so strong that a handful of B’swill let him rise with the cream. Not to be harsh, but the chances a kid who didn’t master high school is a real gem Harvard is going to covet, think again.
The contention that I would make and that many others here have either made or alluded to is that even for the best students with the strongest academic and extracurricular credentials Harvard is extremely difficult to be admitted to.
I would never discourage anyone from “going for it” or suggest they abandon their dream.
My concern is that applicants are pursuing a path/strategy in the admissions process that is most advantageous to them. Ultimately the decision is theirs and their families. I would say that anyone who is advising them (especially so in a professional capacity) has a duty to be realistic with them and to play a part in managing expectations.
For all the talk of “holistic” admissions, and looking “beyond the numbers,” most kids who actually get into Harvard have a 4.0 unweighted GPA, the average GPA is 3.94, the median three-score (old) SAT is around 2250, and the admissions of students with a GPA of under 3.8 statistically drops off dramatically.
My sons didn’t bang out there Harvard apps in three hours on a Saturday. They spent multiple hours on many days over several months before they completed their apps, especially the essays, on which they expended not a little in blood, sweat, and tears. Of course, neither of them cured cancer, brought peace to thr Middle East, or eliminated global warming, so they needed to rely on the more pedestrian and stereotypical high grades and great test scores.
Honestly, if the applicant has something else going on that is interesting, admissions really are “holistic.” It is not about the grades or GPA or the individual but how they will contribute to the mix of the class. I think of it like a cupcake, with the stellar grades and scores as the cake part, various “hooks” (and legacies maybe) as frosting, and then some interesting outliers sprinkled on top.
I think the idea here is that there’s no harm in applying. Your chances of getting in with a 3.0 GPA are maybe 0.5%, but if you don’t apply there’s a 0% chance. Unless finances are holding you back, there’s nothing to lose. The guys not awful for encouraging students to take every chance they can.
No harm to the individual short of the cost, fine. But it burdens a system so many ordinary folks already insist is trying to encourage more and more apps to game US News. Think. If you are truly Harvard quality, you know why, what they really look for, you’ve done the research and the vetting, have the right depth and breadth and can express that. Otherwise, you’re just throwing your hat, any old hat, at a target you can’t reach. That’s not elite thinking. It may even be lemming mentality.
In the real world, most students in their senior year don’t have infinite amounts of time for college applications. As well, a successful application to Harvard usually takes more than 3 hours on a random Saturday.
Thus, it is important for students to assess how realistic it is to apply to a given school, and possibly to refrain from applying to those schools where it is highly unrealistic to get in. The $75 shouldn’t be an issue. Where it is a burden, Harvard will readily waive it. The question is investment of time. If chances are abysmally worse than most, the student must ask whether the time could be better spent studying, or preparing for test taking, or working on essays for more realistic schools, or applications for more realistic schools.
Yes, there is an opportunity cost for the applicant who doesn’t have s realistic chance. Unhooked, no great EC, and mediocre grades and test scores compared to the accepted pool? Save your money and time.
I think that veritasstudent could have better articulated the points he was making, and the suggestion that 3.0 will earn a ticket to Harvard isn’t accurate. However while it’s not a lottery, it’s not a science either. How many people with 99th percentile SATs and 4.0 GPAs does Harvard get applying every year? Thousands at least, possibly even tens of thousands. That isn’t enough to get in. A VERY large amount of the process depends on subjective qualities, and you can’t reasonably expect the subjective qualities to be analyzed the same way across multiple weeks and tens of thousands of applicants. If Harvard looked at every single application again you’d have a decent number of students shared, the ones that truly accomplish “cure cancer” types of research or have super strong hooks, but a large number of the students will be different the second selection.
You have to work to be put into a pool of “good enough.” But once you’re in that pool, there is hardly anything you can do that will make it a sure thing. Like how MIT touts that it rejected an applicant who built a nuclear reactor in his garage. It isn’t pure luck, but luck is certainly a factor.
WhenEVER I see a young person with high grades and good test scores who is not already thinking of top tier scchools, I try to encourage them to at least look at them. Even if grades or test scores miss by a little bit, I point out where they’re weak and could use a little improvement. Beyond a certain point it DOES seem like a lottery. But beyond a certain threshold, a kid at least has a reasonable chance to win. Beneath a lower threshold without a hook or compelling story to tell, the cost/benefit ratio is too low to justify the expenditure of time.
Again, not just stats. You’d want to look at ECs and also assess how the kid thinks. (It’s not just titles or "passions, either.) Of course they have lots of 4.0/high stats kids applying. After that, they look for the rest of the story. You can look at what H says and see it. Unfortunately, most don’t.
“Beyond a certain threshold,” a kid does have a better shot (still not “reasonable.”) But that threshold isn’t about flying blind. …because it’s not just about those stats. Harvard can cherry pick the best holistically compelling candidates from the stats kids. This isn’t about making it through first cut and then they throw darts.
@ALibertarian To be fair, this is the advice of this lone person – who is NOT a Harvard Admissions official nor Harvard’s official stance. In fact, this advice is counter to what actual Harvard employees give in their public presentations.
I’ve stated my opposing opinion on this poster’s stance earlier, up-thread.