The likability thing at Harvard came as something of a surprise to me because, as an undergrad there, it wasn’t my perception that Harvard was selecting along that axis. Nor, for what it’s worth, did they seem to be selecting the most academic or smartest or best credentialed kids (three separate but overlapping categories in my mind). What they were selecting, fairly consistently, were kids with a can-do attitude – who had plans/goals, who didn’t let obstacles get in their way, who believed in themselves, and who developed or pursued their own interests in a fairly sustained manner (e.g. until they accomplished what they set out to do or with continually increasing competence). The only references I heard back then to likability involved the deliberate recruitment of a “happy bottom quarter” – kids whose center of gravity wasn’t academic and who would pursue other interests that would make the college a more fun place to be. I still see the can-do attitude among the undergrads. So maybe likability is an add-on.
At any rate, both likability and a sense of efficacy (aka that can-do spirit) are attributes that are hard to retrofit or manufacture on short-notice. Whatever you call it, I agree that there’s a who-you-are (or who-you-seem-to-be to admissions officers) component that plays a big role in these decisions. And that the obsession with grades, scores, rigor, ECs, and leadership positions may get in the way of kids (in certain demographics at least) actually developing those attributes.
I think the “likability” factor applies more to the application than to the applicant. Harvard’s admissions committee will see thousands of applications from “qualified” candidates. They will prefer the applications that make them laugh and/or cry, not the ones that all blur together. It’s assumed that all candidates are talented, ambitious, and accomplished. They don’t want the ones who, at seventeen, describe their intentions to earn gazillions on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley. Serious contenders for admission to Harvard (or Yale, or Stanford . . .) have already demonstrated an aptitude for answering questions. Perhaps the admissions committees want to see students with an aptitude for asking questions. They don’t know whether they will “like” an individual candidate, but they can fall in love with an application. That involves the “X-factor” that no college adviser, much less another teenager on CC, can measure or define. It’s the distinctive voice and personality that come through once the fundamental stats have opened a door. It can surface through some unusual activities, or combinations of activities (Ballet & Robotics? Lacrosse & Oboe? X-games and Shakespeare?), or through the essays and letters of recommendations. The readers can’t know whether the student really is “likable,” but they can decide that they’d like to have a chance to find out.
My oldest was top 1% of the class, scores easily in the top 25% of any Ivy, and excellent EC’s. All the schools that would be matches were reaches because of the admissions rates. He ended up with six match/reach schools and two safeties. Both safeties gave him merit money and one told him he was accepted before Thanksgiving even though he didn’t apply ED. He was lucky because the smaller tech schools often have quite high admissions rates while still having kids with quite high stats. Honors colleges at good State U’s are often a good alternative. I think it’s hardest for students who want an LAC to find something that feels like an intellectual match.
I think the idea of looking for match schools is overrated. The important thing is to find safeties you like and can afford.
Re: Likablity. I haven’t heard much about the happy bottom quarter at Harvard in recent years. Back in my day they were the legacies who would be going to work for Daddy. But I agree 100% that the primary thing they are selecting for is that can do attitude. I’m pretty sure that it helped my son who pretty much sold himself as “I am a computer nerd take it or leave it.” that he started his essay with the results of the program that took samples of student college essays from the web and made them into a more or less coherent paragraph. Then he wrote an essay about how he’d much rather write a program than an essay, but that clearly his programming skills needed work. It ended up showing his sense of humor, and also showed a lot about what he’d learned to do on his own.
My Friend goes to the Early college at Guilford, the exact thing happened there, only a Sudanese immigrant who ran the Ivy gauntlet got into Harvard. @TrazCapDEV
Remember, they aren’t just looking at your high school, there are others in your area. So they may have taken X number of kids for several years, and get surprised by a kid from another school. It’s one problem with the my high school-centric view.
And the application really “is” the kid. Unlike, say, a writing contest, they aren’t just judging the tale but the kid who crafted it.