<p>@melshm</p>
<p>The Princeton number makes a lot more sense than 25 percent.</p>
<p>collegedad2013,</p>
<p>I don’t think the Princeton number is saying that 6.7% of students who get in have 2100 or less. If you go to the link, it appears to be saying that 6.7% of students who apply with a 2100 or less get accepted to Princeton. The context is that the overall admission rate was 7.9%.</p>
<p>
I say it ain’t so, notjoe*. The Princeton link indicates acceptance rates by SAT score as follows:</p>
<p>1900-2090 - 4.2%
1700-1890 - 2%
1500-1690 - 0.5%
below 1500 - 0%</p>
<p>You can’t add these percentages and project that the acceptance rate for these groups as a whole is greater than the rate for any subgroup.</p>
<ul>
<li>with apologies to Shoeless Joe Jackson</li>
</ul>
<p>sherpa,</p>
<p>You’re correct - the numbers don’t add that way. I shouldn’t have framed the data in an analogous way to that of the poster who originally provided the link.</p>
<p>However, neither is the table saying that only 6.7% of accepted students scored a 2100 or less. Rather, it is saying that 4.2% of students who applied with SAT scores between 1900 and 2090 were accepted. And 2% of applicants between 1700 and 1890 were accepted, etc.</p>
<p>
But nobody with those kinds of scores is accepted without a major hook–those figures don’t suggest that some percentage of low-scoring applicants are accepted just for the heck of it. Those kids are probably far from average, or normal.</p>
<p>Right. As Hunt himself (I believe) said once upon a time, in a similar thread, the one or two kids who were accepted with a composite score under 1700 were probably accepted at Yale and Princeton, too. Because they had something undeniably fabulous to offer.</p>
<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>I imagine that you’re almost certainly correct at the low end of the range of 1700 - 2100. I know that someone in the last few years from my sons’ school was accepted to Harvard with an 1800, but I have no idea who that may have been or what hook or possible achievement or award he may have had.</p>
<p>At the top end of the range, I’m not so sure a hook, or some truly spectacular achievement or award is quite as necessary. At my sons’ school, which usually has a kid or two per year go to Harvard, the average SAT of accepted students over the last 9 years has been around 2120.</p>
<p>So much prentiousness</p>
<p>If only you could see yourselves…</p>
<p>@Thp2017: Are people never allowed to be pretentious?</p>
<p>I’m just glad I’m not a dumb athlete at Harvard…</p>
<p>Overall, I tend to side more with notjoe in this discussion (it may just be wishful thinking on my part – I have a 2190 composite on the SAT). </p>
<p>There is no exact way to measure the median SAT composite at Harvard. With that said, I think it becomes a lot more useful to look at the 25-75th percentile ACT scores for admitted students, since the ACT is measured by its composite. The middle 50% of ACT scores at Harvard are 32-35, which correspond to a 2140-2360 on the SAT (According to [Compare</a> ACT and SAT Scores | ACT](<a href=“http://www.act.org/solutions/college-career-readiness/compare-act-sat/]Compare”>http://www.act.org/solutions/college-career-readiness/compare-act-sat/) ). About 25% of admitted students who submitted the ACT scored an SAT composite equivalent of 2140 or lower, in other words. To me, that suggests that there aren’t many of the “800/800/680” people who are bringing Harvard’s individual SAT subsection score ranges down.</p>
<p>
The “dumb athlete” at Harvard is smart enough to be a top student at most colleges, even if he or she might not have the academic achievements to get into Harvard without the athletic hook. Harvard doesn’t have athletes in fake majors who are flunking out.</p>
<p>I agree that as you get higher in scores and grades, there is more chance that a person who isn’t somehow amazing may get accepted. He or she might meet some other institutional needs–like being from Idaho, or wanting to major in an undersubscribed major, or playing a desirable musical instrument, or just being interesting in some less splashy way.</p>
<p>“I agree that as you get higher in scores and grades, there is more chance that a person who isn’t somehow amazing may get accepted. He or she might meet some other institutional needs–like being from Idaho, or wanting to major in an undersubscribed major, or playing a desirable musical instrument, or just being interesting in some less splashy way.”</p>
<p>A post like this gives me so much hope haha. Thank you Hunt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. This fills my irony ration for the day!</p>
<p>If you are referring to digestive regularity, then absolutely.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I just couldn’t help myself.</p>
<p>Yes…well…if being an anonymous, faceless person behind a screen name on an internet forum going around and acting sanctimonious isn’t pretentious…then I don’t know what is. At least I don’t pretend to be not pretentious.</p>
<p>My comment derived from that there was just too much labeling going on. All the "low"scores, the 2100’s must be from the Athletes…For some people and not just athletes 2100 is a fantastic result and thank heavens Harvard and other schools find a way to see it…</p>
<p>Ahhh… your display of stealth irony was missed, grasshopper! But good observation!</p>
<p>For the record: most of my athlete friends/roommates (yes, even the helmet sports) were some of the hardest working students around. Even if some weren’t as academically gifted as some other students, they all knew the value of a good work ethic and that often translated into solid academic performance.</p>
<p>Alot of posters fail to recognise that many atheltes,legacies,developmental admits would have gotten in anyway.Assuming they’re all in the bottom percentage of admits is baloney.</p>
<p>That’s very true, especially of legacies (the last Harvard legacy I knew also got into Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT with no hook at all), and people in relatively obscure sports. It’s less true of developmental admits (of which there are very few) and people in high-profile helmet sports, like football. Sure, some would get in anyway, but not so many. And I have known two women recruited to Harvard for high-profile sports in the past few years. They were both perfectly good students, but nowhere near the level of people who generally apply to Harvard (most of whom get rejected). Their back-up colleges without the recruitment bump were, respectively, Franklin & Marshall and Drexel.</p>