<p>^ Corollary: Harvard does not reject somewhat interesting 4.0/2400 for interesting 3.5/2000, (both are unhooked)</p>
<p>exactly what i said in my other post… people worry too much. which makes me question them. if you have anything over a 3.5 you shouldnt be worrying</p>
<p>^ Tell that to HYPSM. I’ll wait for you to come back and say you got pointed and laughed at.</p>
<p>I expected criticism but that’s fine with me… For redroses, it’s great that you’ve been a guidance counselor or what for years, and I’m sure you’re very knowledgable about the process, so shouldn’t you know that it’s not all in the numbers? Shouldn’t you be offering guidance to those who don’t have top notch stats? My dad does interviews for an Ivy League school (whose name I won’t mention) and I hear directly from him about the kids he talks to every winter/fall and he knows what an acceptable candidate is made out of very well. He can interview a student with perfect stats and advise the adcom not to accept the student for a multitude of other reasons. Just as easy can he advise the adcom to accept a student whose stats aren’t too stellar… Sure, you can argue that noone cares about the interviews, but actually they do… And I’m sure I have way more insight on admissions than any other high-schooler criticizing this thread, or college student, or possibly even parent. </p>
<p>–Also, calling me a “liar” is ridiculous. If you have opposing opinions you don’t need to strike down my claims by calling me a liar. Why would I lie about something like this? Surely, I have better things to do than such… If you don’t want to believe then so be it… It’s your loss. I understand that some of the people here may have kids (or be kids) that were denied at top schools with top notch stats, and I’m sure you can be bitter about it… Well, as I said, my family is very well educated and they have all been through admissions at these top schools, and not all of their stats were perfect, yet they still managed to be themselves and make it through to their dream schools, as anyone here can do.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to sound bitter; I haven’t even applied yet. Sorry if i offended you.</p>
<p>"He can interview a student with perfect stats and advise the adcom not to accept the student for a multitude of other reasons. Just as easy can he advise the adcom to accept a student whose stats aren’t too stellar… “”</p>
<p>Alum interviews can tip a person in or out, but they can’t raise the dead. If a students stats are mediocre, unless there is a compelling reason for a top college to accept a student, they won’t. My perspective is that of a former alum interviewer for an Ivy.</p>
<p>Thank you for this advice. I have a question. Are all applicants given and interview? What did you look for in an applicant? Also, I saw a troubling account by a Harvard interviewer who stated that no matter how glittering his recommendation was those that he interviewed, with the exception of one applicant, were still rejected. Why was this? Based on his words, the students were statistically amazing.</p>
<p>"? Also, I saw a troubling account by a Harvard interviewer who stated that no matter how glittering his recommendation was those that he interviewed, with the exception of one applicant, were still rejected. "</p>
<p>Because most Harvard applicants are interviewed (as long as an alum interviewer can be found to interview a student, the student will be interviewed) only 7% of Harvard applicants are accepted, and most students who apply to Harvard are outstanding – the kind of students that most colleges – including excellent ones – would accept in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>There simply isn’t space for all of the outstanding students who apply, so most will get rejected even if their interviewers thought they were terrific.</p>
<p>I really appreciate you explaining it for me.</p>
<p>“I come from a family where nearly everyone has graduated from an Ivy League school.”</p>
<p>Call me cynical, but I imagine that the OP’s cousin is a legacy (and could possibly be a developmental one at that)…</p>
<p>Either way, his cousin’s stats are lower than the CDS would suggest so there must have been some reason why he was admitted…</p>
<p>That the OP believes alumni interviewers have the power to get someone in tells me all I need to knew-he does not have a clue. The role of an alumni interviewer is to excite the prospect about the college and to flag the college to potential problems. They are all but powerless at the vast majority of schools. As well they should be as anyone can sign up to do them.</p>
<p>I am giving advice based on my experience. It IS about the numbers. It gets more about the numbers every year at the top schools. Other things count a lot too, but first you have to have the numbers. Fortunately there are very good schools for most, but they have to apply to realistic schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Something CCers should absorb. So many Chance threads encourage kids to apply because “it’s a crapshoot for everyone!” as though their absurdly low admissions rates mean that adcoms have resorted to flipping coins to decide who gets in.</p>
<p>Are you referring to me?</p>
<p>The OP said a lot about his stats, but you left out most of and brushed aside the topic of ECs. I am guessing that he had some pretty stellar ECs, which, if he did, would kind of negate the entire point of this thread. </p>
<p>I also have some difficulty believing that he did not have a hook of some sort: he sure sounds like a legacy and, possibly, a developmental student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was this directed at me? If so, no, not specifically–I didn’t even notice you’d said something similar until I skimmed through the earlier posts thirty seconds ago. I was referring to the “What Are My Chances?” threads, where applicants with halfway decent stats and more than two ECs are automatically fed the crapshoot line. As Redroses said, admissions may be fickle (how can it not be with admissions rates in the single digits?), but only among the already qualified. And for the unhooked, the bar for “qualified” is pretty d*mn high.</p>
<p>OP, as I said before, I think retaking is a great option if you are confident you can raise your score. You want to show the adcoms what you are capable of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Penn adcom doesn’t know or care about you, (s)he is doing admissions here. Presumably, people spend time obsessing because they want a sense of achievement, and will try to figure out how to improve their chances at the school based on analysis.</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean stats, or whatever, are a guarantee, but reflection can give one ideas on things one can do, which may both be meaningful inherently adnd result in better chances.</p>
<p>Never did I say that stats are not important, so it’s obsurd to say that I have nowhere to back up my claims. Clearly, the entire process is based on opinions, as was my post… If you have a dissenting opinion that’s totally fine with me, as it should be. I’m offering my point of view which comes from the words of my family who are very wise about the entire process and I can say that in a very genuine manner. Yes, stats are important. But that’s not all that matters. No matter how much one says you need high stats etc, people will be admitted without them. Someone has to make up the bottom 25 percentile of those SAT ranges, GPAs etc etc. I was simply stating my opinion based on highly educated people who have educated ME on the process. All of us will have different views, but I can say for sure, that my post is very credible and by no means should it be stricken down as “anecdotal” and whatnot…</p>
<p>Sure someone is in the bottom quarter of a college’s admission stats. Such people are not random admittees, but have something adcoms want .</p>
<p>They may be celebrities’ kids, offspring of wealthy donors, stellar athletes or from underrepresented groups or regions.</p>
<p>They aren’t unhooked students from places that send lots of outstanding students to top schools.</p>
<p>Facts exist in the world of college admission so opinion holds little water. We KNOW many things including half of every class at HYP and other top colleges had a hook. They are recruited athletes, URMs, legacies, donor kids, the powerful/rich/famous and staff kids. So we have a very good idea, based on FACT, who makes up the bottom 25% and more. </p>
<p>We also know that the 75th percentil scores at these schools is 790 per section thus we know what it takes to be in the top quartile. Looking at CDSs show that it does not drop much below there for most of the unhooked. </p>
<p>Next, we know that over 40% of the class at mid tier ivies were val or sal of their class. And we know that less than 5% were not in the top 10% of their high school class. 2% of Penn, which takes the second highest percentge among the ivies.</p>
<p>All of these facts scream that stats are VERY key in the process. Perhaps you need to reexamine your family’s qualifications here and review the facts?</p>
<p>The my cousin’s best friend’s second uncle got into Harvard with a 1700 gets old.</p>
<p>These criticising people are crazy, I am going through the application process now and I am more stressed than I ever have been before. That was very nice to read and made me feel better about the applications. And just because someone has stats in the bottom 25% of all the applicants doesn’t mean they wont get in. Her cousin could have had really great essay or maybe recruited for sports. This one kid I go to school with is a year older than me and got into the University of Chicago on a football scholarship. He doesn’t have the grades to get into that school and probably was in the bottom 10% of the applicants. Same with a friend who took all regular classes but got a full ride to U of I @ Urbana-Champaign because of football. Another senior I know applied to University of Minnesota, I know it is not an Ivy League school or a great school or anything, but had stats WAY below the average but got in because he had a really great essay that was completely unique from the others. Stats aren’t everything, this site is opinionated, cut the criticism, and get a grip people:)</p>