<p>Recommended reading for potential applicants:</p>
<p>This is an absolutely wonderful article in The Crimson. Go Meggie and Melanie! They are two absolutely WONDERFUL people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the article makes me feel even more nervous about college admissions :(</p>
<p>I didn't think the article added very much new insight for an applicant (was interesting re: being an admissions officer).</p>
<p>But that probably just means that I've been hanging around on CC too long.</p>
<p>I think it added more insight into how the admissions officers are chosen rather than the students, but still a good article.</p>
<p>IMO, I think the last sentence tells you everything you need to know, which is, "Will this student make a positive difference in the world 25, 50 years later?" You're gonna have to stand out someway, somehow, because it sure isn't strictly about grades, and SAT scores any longer.</p>
<p>Can this be cross posted somehow on the "Chances" board and on the Parents Forum? There are still so many people who insist that there's a "formula" or completely objective criteria for admissions. This article gives even more evidence of the subjective nature of undergraduate admissions at the top-tier universities and LAC's.</p>
<p>I find it very hard to fathom that the whole committe reviews each of 20,000 plus applications.</p>
<p>I also found the writing detailing the sequence of reviews to be confusing---but maybe that's why I didn't go to Harvard!</p>
<p>Luck luck luck luck luck.</p>
<p>That's what it seems to come down to.</p>
<p>I think the emphasis on checks and balances is something we haven't heard too much about in articles about Harvard admissions. It really gives you the impression that every applicant is given real consideration, which should be at least somewhat comforting.</p>
<p>Well, saxfreq1128, it is definitely a wonderful check-and-balance system. It is definitely luck, but also they're looking for - according to a story Byerly posted a while back in Boston Magazine - that mix of ambition and talent that really sets a student apart. And, as you and I can both testify, there seems to be a common characteristic that unites all Harvard undergraduates (though different in ethnicity, personalities, etc.) which I just can't explain on paper, but it is there.</p>
<p>xjayz, I love how we're communicating through this even though we a) work together, b) live in the same suite.</p>
<p>Donemom - I agree; reviewing 20,000 apps would be about 200 a day for nearly six months of workdays. But as the father of a D heading there in the fall, I can tell you that one of the most impressive things about Harvard is the depth of their staffing. They have a huge number of people involved, and their responsiveness is remarkable. They have a worldwide network of alumni interviewers who are well-trained and serious about what they do. And they follow up with e-mails for additional information or responses to applicant questions. When they ask for housing information, they do so with the intent of creating in each housing unit a microcosm of the entire class. And I believe Byerly once indicated that when they go to their waiting list, they don't just take the first person off a prioritized list - they look for someone who provides similar characteristics to the person who was a late withdrawal from the class. I'd have no doubt that every applicant gets real consideration.</p>
<p>In my opinion they would be no perceptible difference in student body, had the admission decisions made by a computer. Lets take drafting of an NFL quarterback as an example. The athlete is studied from every angle, and yet we have a situation that the most successful QB in today's game was chosen in the sixth round. Harvard's football captain was suspended from the team for domestic violence. Decisions made by committee are bound to be suspect, as arguments will be waged just for argument's sake and intellectual exercise.</p>
<p>There are too many variables and circumstances that determine that a person would be a success in future, that an exercise in such endeavors is a trip in futility. I am not surprised at all at a study which found that Ivy league education provided no benefit in success rate to Ivy league compared to similarly qualified students that went to state university.</p>
<p>"and the lowest admissions rate in the country"</p>
<p>Factually incorrect. It's Yale, if I'm not mistaken.</p>
<p>Hi. I am having trouble finding the previous articles in the series, and was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to post the links. Thank you.</p>
<p>saxfreq: I totally agree.</p>
<p>Vick: The majority of admissions officers at Harvard have been here for at least 10 years. The admissions officers in the subcommittee in charge of my area (NYC) are all senior-level admissions officers that have been at Harvard since the 1980s. They know what to look for when it comes to the types of students they want at Harvard. In addition, the admissions office keeps tabs on the students they admit and end up coming here in order to make better informed decisions in their everyday work. Again, no one is saying admissions decisions are a science, but the adcoms at Harvard sure do try to make the best decisions they can. Once you reach a certain age and education, you look at the small actions that a person takes, not the big overt things that are obvious. Harvard admissions officers are trained to read between the lines, and they are usually very successful at it - that's why you see all these perfect scorers being rejected and stuff.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Decisions made by committee are bound to be suspect, as arguments will be waged just for argument's sake and intellectual exercise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With so many people to discuss, I doubt argument would ever be waged "for argument's sake." There isn't enough time for that. Give the people some credit.</p>
<p>They may try to do their best but picking a candidate thousands of other high achieving based upon looking 'between the lines' is just pretty much a 'hit or miss' proposition. This kid that got accepted into Harvard from our area was certainly not the most qualified, but he had a legacy. Another, that got accepted into a lessor Ivy from our school had successfully hired a private counselor (Those services do work, otherwise they would not be in business). The most famous admit from last year (Kaavya Vishwanathan) apparently had a counselor. </p>
<p>Look at it the other way, if Harvard is truly getting the best then the Ivy League education is failing them miserably as the kids cannot distinguish themselves from similarly high achieving students going to state flagship universities. So which is it? A bit of both perhaps? How many legacies get admitted that would not have otherwise? How many get admitted because of a famous last name. Wasn't it Ted Kennedy who paid someone else to take his Spanish Final Exam?</p>
<p>I go back to my original analogy. If nfl teams fails so miserably at drafting successful qb's, when they have only a few candidates to choose them, and so much more information available, how can you expect admission counselors to predict future 'success' when there are so many more variables and a lot less information. I am talking about the 'art' of predicting future 'success' however it is defined. It can never be defined as a science, and if you call it an 'art', it is random to begin with and very subjective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This kid that got accepted into Harvard from our area was certainly not the most qualified, but he had a legacy. Another, that got accepted into a lessor Ivy from our school had successfully hired a private counselor (Those services do work, otherwise they would not be in business). The most famous admit from last year (Kaavya Vishwanathan) apparently had a counselor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This mostly proves that much of the admissions process depends on how well students are representing themselves on paper. People can talk about star candidates all they want--but being a star candidate and making sure you come across as a star candidate on paper are two distinct things. The legacy student that you cite may not have seemed qualified to you--but then again, I doubt you were reading his application. It's possible you don't even know the extent of his activities or interests--my high school friends sure didn't.</p>
<p>In other words, step one to getting admitted is in the hands of the applicant, not the admissions office. Private counselors and the people who hire them know this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How many legacies get admitted that would not have otherwise? How many get admitted because of a famous last name. Wasn't it Ted Kennedy who paid someone else to take his Spanish Final Exam?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Legacy status is becoming less of a "hook"--nowadays, there are many qualified and over-qualified legacy applicants. People forget that many legacies live in households where education is--obviously--taken seriously. Not every legacy admit was accepted on the basis of where their parents went to school. It /is/ possible that many belong to be there. Citing Ted Kennedy isn't fair because he went here--how long ago? It was much easier to get in back then. It's a different animal now. </p>
<p>We now live in a day and age when qualified black legacies are getting turned down by elite schools. That should tell us something. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am talking about the 'art' of predicting future 'success' however it is defined. It can never be defined as a science, and if you call it an 'art', it is random to begin with and very subjective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Admissions offices admit this idea--perhaps even promote it. Of course it's subjective. If it weren't, Harvard and many other schools would be very different, less vibrant places.</p>
<p>Rest of the series:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512471%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512471</a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510012%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510012</a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=509886%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=509886</a></p>
<p>On another note, Sax + xjayz, do you know if Frankie Munoz is really coming in the fall?</p>