<p>Its not a matter of "offending" me or anyone else, but, rather, misinforming applicants and potential applicants about material facts.</p>
<p>byerly, could you please tell us how you think the whole legacy thing works?</p>
<p>" admissions officers aren't interested in rewarding past performance...and see themselves not as MVP voters but as talent scouts whose duty is predicting what a prospect will pull off as an undergrad and beyond ..."</p>
<p>Based on Presidential nominees and contenders since 1988, Yale must have better scouts.</p>
<p>Judging from how many people of note went to Harvard, I'd say their scouts are amazing.</p>
<p>Certainly the Harvard football coaches seem to be better scouts than the Yale coaches in recent times. Five straight victories in "The Game" are testimony to this fact. </p>
<p>Of course winning the "cross-admit" battle helps here, as elsewhere!</p>
<p>From a Crimson article, quoting Eric Westerfield - recruiting coordinator:</p>
<p>"The only reason Harvard stays competitive, according to Westerfield, is that its Harvard. Three out of four students who get into Harvard and either Yale or Princeton choose Harvard, and its no different with high-scoring athletes. Typically, if I want a kid, I get him, Westerfield says. I didnt lose any kids last year."</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Required to say no to about 20,000 students, Harvard's admissions officers are more than happy to find any reason to cut an applicant. Even the slightest blemisha stray grade or less-than-demanding course choicecan become a scarlet letter."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are they serious? I mean, my courseload is packed (I'm full-IB), but my transcript is sprinkled with B+s. I thought that Harvard knew better than to throw a student out because of a stray grade. Afterall, schools vary in their grade policies and level of competition.</p>
<p>A little lusty hyperbole by the author of the article, IMHO.</p>
<p>My GPA is the primary reason why I don't think I have much of a chance at Harvard...</p>
<p>I certainly hope that they're extremely careful in evaluating candidates. Byerly, would you say that the adcoms are more careful in evaluating the apps of EA applicants, since the pool is smaller?</p>
<p>They are extremely careful. Bear in mind,, however, that while the early pool is smaller, the schools also have a smaller time window in which to consider the applications.</p>
<p>Hm, that's true...</p>
<p>How will my chances be affected if my county contains an insane amount of applicants? I was recently at a Harvard admissions seminar, and the officer said that they had to switch around the geographical distribution of the officers because of my county (Fairfax).</p>
<p>Are you at TJ?</p>
<p>No, I am not. I never had a chance to apply because I moved here during my sophomore year.</p>
<p>But yeah, I'm concerned about the competition at TJ.</p>
<p>savoirfaire: No. Geography does not have a huge bearing. If you deserve to get in, you will get in no matter what.</p>
<p>" admissions officers aren't interested in rewarding past performance...and see themselves not as MVP voters but as talent scouts whose duty is predicting what a prospect will pull off as an undergrad and beyond ..."</p>
<p>Based on Presidential contenders and nominees since 1988, Yale must have better scouts.</p>
<p>Certainly the Harvard football coaches seem to be better scouts than the Yale coaches in recent times. Five straight victories in "The Game" are testimony to this fact.</p>
<p>Of course winning the "cross-admit" battle helps here, as elsewhere!</p>
<p>From a Crimson article, quoting Eric Westerfield - recruiting coordinator:</p>
<p>"The only reason Harvard stays competitive, according to Westerfield, is that its Harvard. Three out of four students who get into Harvard and either Yale or Princeton choose Harvard, and its no different with high-scoring athletes. Typically, if I want a kid, I get him, Westerfield says. I didnt lose any kids last year."</p>
<p>Geography does not have a huge bearing. If you deserve to get in, you will get in no matter what.</p>
<hr>
<p>Are you kidding? Geography has a HUGE bearing on this. How many kids in Montana apply to Harvard in comparison to New York? 2300+, 4.0uw kids are a dime a dozen here but if you have those stats from Montana? You have FAR better a chance to get in.</p>
<p>But at the same time, the kid from Montana would have had to work far more in order to take Advanced Placement classes and really achieve at a level that we see in our peers out on the Island or in NYC.</p>
<p>Students I know from rural areas did just that. I had a college right at my doorstep that I could take classes whereas my friend who comes from Montana had to self-study APs, help raise horses and chickens on his farm, motivate his own teachers to write great recommendations, and have his school's support since virtually no one goes out of state for college (or even go to college). Kaplan, Princeton Review? Forget about it. </p>
<p>Needless to say, I felt a bit ashamed although I worked my butt off, I didn't "work my butt off" to the extent my friends from rural areas did.</p>
<p>I'm in an academically well-off area.. a lot competition, I think.</p>
<p>Im sorry but self studying for APs is not that much more difficult than getting taught them and with a lot less amount of work from teachers.</p>
<p>What about Kaplan and Princeton Review? They dont have bookstores in Montana?</p>