<p>"May the answer to the riddle is that he took the SATs a ridiculous number of times. Not twice, or even three times, but 6 or 7. (Is that even possible?)"</p>
<p>Yes. As I have said, parents who are intent on getting their kids into Harvard will pull out all of the stops.</p>
<p>In addition to not seeing this student's name on the 2008 presidential scholar candidacy list, I don't see indications that he has achieved any kind of major leadership. There are some things that parents can't orchestrate.</p>
<p>Teachers and counselors can also use all sorts of code words in their rec letters to distinguish between a student who's shown a real love of learning vs one who has been primarily concerned with grades.</p>
<p>"His achievements and his father's behavior reflect the hallmarks of a smart kid who was packaged for years to go to Harvard, not a student who was running with his natural talents and pushing his parents along. The latter is what places like Harvard are looking for."</p>
<p>Uh, well first of all Caltech took the guy so I'd have to disagree that this kid is not brilliant or self-driven. Caltech cares about intellectual curiosity more than Harvard. It is more likely that the kid was born intellectually curious and driven and later Harvard came to embody intellectual achievement for the kid. So he ended up pushing toward that goal. Also, if the kid took a test prep class, does that cancel out the achievement or mean that he wasn't self-motivated or truly brilliant? If a college football player attends a summer camp to work on their 40 yard time for the NFL scouting combine and ends up running a 4.3, would you conclude that he was not a top-end athlete because he "paid" for it? </p>
<p>Another point is that a lot of kids have one parent that doesn't work so that they can take care of family things (cook dinner, take care of the house, drive kids places, etc.) I don't think it is that huge of a deal for one parent to not be working. </p>
<p>As for why he was not a Presidential Scholar, why do you think he even applied to this? I was pretty savvy about college in high school and never even heard about this. Neither did my friends who had plenty of other well-known awards (Intel, MOSP, etc.).</p>
<p>It is true that "leadership" is one of those things that some schools really want to see, and others don't care about as much. (Leaving aside the fact that demonstrations of "leadership" can be manufactured by calculating resume-crafters or bestowed by the school.) I would venture to guess that Cal Tech really wants smart kids. Period. Which is why he got in there, and not at H.</p>
<p>Cross-posting with #43, I tend to agree. Re the PS thing, you don't apply, you are nominated automatically. Top 20 SATs in one sitting per gender per state, with some kind of translation for ACTs. Also arts nominees, for whom the process is different. Once you are on the candidate list (he wasn't, and with a 2400 in one sitting he likely would have been), you have to fill out an application to be considered for semifinalist/finalist. Some kids don't bother--I don't have any idea how many.</p>
<p>But that doesn't explain the University of Texas rejection. Seriously.. how often does a kid with perfect ACT/SAT scores (even if the SAT was superscored a bunch of times.. the ACT isn't superscored) get rejected from UTexas? The number of kids in the nation with this accomplishment is under 200 a year. There has to be a catch. Sure, the kid sounds like a drone, not the leader type, bright but possibly not very self motivated.. but that shouldn't be a concern for UTexas. So I suspect there was a big problem with his application that we don't know about.</p>
<p>""May the answer to the riddle is that he took the SATs a ridiculous number of times. Not twice, or even three times, but 6 or 7. (Is that even possible?)""</p>
<p>I went to a highly competitive school, and I never heard of anyone taking the SAT more than twice in high school. And it was very rare for someone to take the SAT twice. Even if they say otherwise, the common wisdom was that colleges would hold it against you for taking the SAT multiple times. And besides--the got a perfect ACT too. Do you really think he took 15 standardized tests?</p>
<p>"But that doesn't explain the University of Texas rejection. Seriously.. how often does a kid with perfect ACT/SAT scores (even if the SAT was superscored a bunch of times.. the ACT isn't superscored) get rejected from UTexas? "</p>
<p>He didn't get rejected from UTexas. He got rejected from some type of honors program.</p>
<p>Yes, but with his perfect scores, and being 4th in his class, why wouldn't he be accepted into his flagship's honors program? Usually entry into such programs is based strictly on stats.</p>
<p>^^^ Ok. I'm not familiar with this Plan II. But if it is a regular honors program at a state school that isn't exactly Michigan, requirements are still heavily stats based. His application should have been more than enough... Which again is why I'm guessing there was something seriously wrong with his application. Like someone else said, Caltech is a special kind of school which may be willing to overlook certain things.. like lack of leadership.. or even a deeper issue.. if the applicant shows himself to be brainy and has high test scores.</p>
<p>The UTexas Honors rejection is puzzling - my guess is they thought it was his safety, which I am sure it was. Still strange, since state schools usually do not operate this way...</p>
<p>"I went to a highly competitive school, and I never heard of anyone taking the SAT more than twice in high school. And it was very rare for someone to take the SAT twice. Even if they say otherwise, the common wisdom was that colleges would hold it against you for taking the SAT multiple times. And besides--the got a perfect ACT too. Do you really think he took 15 standardized tests?"</p>
<p>Common wisdom isn't common for people who come here from other countries in which test scores mean everything.</p>
<p>Yes, I can imagine someone taking 15 standardized tests. That literally is what some students do whose parents come from cultures that value scores above everything.</p>
<p>The U.S. system of holistically evaluating applicants differs from how higher education applicants are evaluated in most of the rest of the world where test scores are king.</p>
<p>"Yes, but with his perfect scores, and being 4th in his class, why wouldn't he be accepted into his flagship's honors program? Usually entry into such programs is based strictly on stats."</p>
<p>Well, I don't know the answer to that. I'm not familiar with "Plan II" either. Obviously its not stats based.</p>
<p>The Caltech admission tells me though that the application didn't have some fatal flaw, though. You have to be a pretty bulletproof candidate to get in.</p>
<p>^I agree. And if this student posted his story on this forum, I am sure he would have gotten a lot of support, and would be told that he is lucky to have wonderful choices.</p>
<p>"The Caltech admission tells me though that the application didn't have some fatal flaw, though. You have to be a pretty bulletproof candidate to get in."</p>
<p>Caltech loves test scores more than do HPYS and similar schools.</p>
<p>One year, all of Caltech's freshmen class had 800s on one of the SAT math subject tests.</p>
<p>I think he had a fatal flaw for places like Harvard: being a packaged candidate.</p>
<p>Most other colleges don't reject smart students for being packaged since the students obviously are highly motivated to get good grades, etc., and also are very smart.</p>
<p>It's only places like Harvard that have such an overabundance of high stat applicants that the colleges can afford to make selections based on stats, accomplishments, true intellectual passion, and having something needed to create a class that's diverse in all meanings of the word.</p>
<p>"Caltech loves test scores more than do HPYS and similar schools.</p>
<p>One year, all of Caltech's freshmen class had 800s on one of the SAT math subject tests."</p>
<p>I don't think this is really true. I don't think they see a big difference between the 750 score and the 800 score, especially in the face of stronger evidence of intellectual prowess. They are trying to admit the most talented scientists and engineers. And each class is only like 200 people. It's more like they find the smartest people they can, and those people typically have sky-high SAT scores--not that they are looking for the SAT scores in particular.</p>
<p>However, I do think if they see someone with SAT math and SATII's below 750, they would question whether that student would crash and burn in the unforgiving Caltech curriculum.</p>
<p>^^oh, I missed that she said math subject test. Yeah, you can miss 6 wrong and still get an 800. It's incredibly easy to score an 800 on that exam.</p>
<p>"However, I do think if they see someone with SAT math and SATII's below 750, they would question whether that student would crash and burn in the unforgiving Caltech curriculum."</p>
<p>Yes. Due to their broader curriculum, HPY and similar schools don't weigh scores as heavily as does CalTech. Consequently, the student in question's scores would be a bigger boost at CalTech, and may be virtually a yawn at HPY, which are more concerned about creating a diverse student body --in all meanings of the word "diverse" including majors and ECs. HPY don't want a student body filled with biochem majors planning on med school.</p>
<p>"^^oh, I missed that she said math subject test. Yeah, you can miss 6 wrong and still get an 800. It's incredibly easy to score an 800 on that exam."</p>
<p>Incredibly easy for many CC members who include many students gifted in math. Not incredibly easy for the general public, the majority of which aren't taking the math courses to prep them for that "easy" SAT II.</p>