Getting mixed signals about admissions?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
1

<p>From one view, I've heard that one needs to be nearly perfect to get into Harvard--that is, 2400, 800 on subject tests, 4.0 GPA, incredible ECs, amazing recs, etc. Obviously, that's not true and many people know that.</p>

<p>But on the other hand, I also hear this very "relaxed" perspective--anything above 2200 on SAT, 700+ on SATs, 3.8+ GPA, focused and pretty much still incredible ECs/recs, etc.</p>

<p>Despite this constant reassurance that one does not need to be perfect to get into Harvard, the admission rate is still low and many incredible people are still getting rejected. So what is one supposed to believe?? Are admissions really just that random?</p>

2

<p>Our friend is a former Admissions Rep from Harvard. According to his perspective one has to (in general) meet certain benchmarks with grades, testing, etc., but beyond that it is pretty random in the sense that what may swing things your way is your life story, your geography or a unique talent. He also told me that one common misconception is that schools like HC are looking for well-rounded students. In his view, the school is trying to build a well-rounded class, which means (again, in general) they are looking for students who excel at one or two things and not necessarily those who do everything. So I think my advice would be to follow your passion and see where it leads. For top schools, there is no one path or formula that will gain you admission. So much depends on what a particular school is looking for that year. Good luck!</p>

3

<p>Might I add that high test scores does not put you above someone with lower test scores. Say for example you score a 2300 and your friend scores 2050. An admissions officer will consider all factors behind your test score. i.e., socioeconomic background, ethnicity, high school, where your test score stands among other students in the geographic area, etc…which is precisely why test scores are not such an important aspect to focus when considering your chance at getting into a top college. The above post, I believe, is accurate in addressing that issue.</p>

4

<p>Here’s the best description that I’ve heard, courtesy of CC poster Jonri. Think of “anything above 2200 on SAT, 700+ on SATs, 3.8+ GPA, focused and pretty much still incredible ECs/recs” as the cutoff to be invited to “audition”:</p>

<p>Selective college admissions has nothing to do with your “worth” as a human being. Top colleges don’t even PURPORT to admit the best qualified or most deserving applicants. It’s all about buidling a class. </p>

<p>What does that mean? Well, think of the high school musical director who is choosing a cast for a show. I like to use “Guys and Dolls” as the example. The director isn’t going to choose the 35 most talented singers, dancers and actors and make them the cast. She needs to cast so many males, so many females, so many sopranos, altos, etc. She needs to cast particular roles. She may take work her prior experience with those auditioning into account. </p>

<p>Unless it’s a rather unusual high school, lots more girls than boys will try out. One part is “Nicely Nicely,” who sings “Sit Down, You’re Rocking the Boat.” It is supposed to be sung in a deep voice. It’s traditionally played by a plump guy. Now, the supply of plump young men with good, deep voices at any high school is usually quite limited, so it would be surprising if there are more than 2 or 3 young men vying for that role. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, there are probably a lot of young girls with good soprano voices trying out for the role of Sarah Brown. In choosing the young girl to play Sarah, the teacher may take into account the fact that one candidate is a full six inches taller than the young man she plans to cast as Sky Masterson (Sarah’s love interest). So, in choosing her Sarah, the casting director may make the decision based solely on the fact that one of the best sopranos is shorter than the boy playing Sky is. </p>

<p>When the cast list comes out, the best soprano in the class may be stunned when she learns that she is not Sarah Brown. Nobody is going to tell her the only reason is that she’s six inches taller than the young man playing Sky. She looks down the list. Adelaide (sp?) is the next best part. She’s stunned. She didn’t get that either. Why? It’s a comic role and this young girl simply isn’t a comedienne. </p>

<p>If our young soprano decides based on this experience that she has no talent, she’s a darn fool. It’s reality that should she try to become a professional, she probably has more of a chance of succeeding than the young man who is going to play Nicely Nicely and probably a better chance than the girl who beat her out for the role of Sarah. (Teen boys grown into taller men.) </p>

<p>Admission to a top college works much the same way. In a very real sense, you aren’t competing against everyone in the applicant pool for admission; you’re competing against those who can play the same “role” or “roles.” So, at most top colleges, about 15% of the places will be reserved for athletes. You’re not an athlete, so those spots are irrelevant to you. About 10% will go to internationals; that’s a tougher pool in most cases, but again it’s irrelevant to you. Some places will go to URMs. Again, you’re not one, so that’s not a role you can play. Keep whittling down the number of places in the class you are competing for. </p>

<p>At this point it is, of course, unknown whether you will be one of the lucky ones. I’m not purporting to estimate your chances of admission. I am only telling you that you are the equivalent of a soprano trying for the high school play. The competition is intense because lots of kids can play the same role you can play in a college class.</p>

<p>If you don’t get in, you’d be as foolish as the soprano in my anecdote if you conclude anything at all about your merit. (And conversely, if you do get in, you’d be foolish to conclude that you are better qualified or more deserving than those who did not.)</p>

5

<p>*edit to my previous post (wrote it quickly and forgot to elaborate haha)</p>

<p>the 2050 may be just as impressive as the 2300 if there were limiting social factors or vice versa - if the student who got the 2300 attended a prep school, had parents who went to college, English is their first language, etc. etc…point being: SCORES AREN’T EVERYTHING.</p>

6

<p>nice post gadad</p>

7

<p>Incredible. Thank you guys for responding to my inquiry! :slight_smile:
And the metaphor was great too–very insightful but a little sobering. I wish more students would know about the admissions process for schools like Harvard and realize that there’s so much more to life than a college. </p>

<p>Anyway, thanks again to everyone.</p>

8

<p>^Even if we do take the audition analogy, even in Hollywood they sometimes make mistakes. The following was an early evaluation of an actor who made a solid living in the Golden Era of Hollywood:</p>

<p>“Can’t sing. Can’t act. Balding. Can dance a little.”</p>

9

<p>I would echo what everyone else has said. My S had a combined SAT of 2230 and a 3.9 GPA. He was admitted to Harvard, but there were two students in his class with higher test scores and grades who were rejected. My sense is that Harvard and the Ivies in general set the bar very high, but that once you reach a certain threshold the admissions decision is almost entirely subjective – not in the bad sense of being random, but in the good sense of being holistic and of looking at everything you’ve accomplished. I do think, based on my son’s experience, that the essay is an extremely important part of the equation.</p>

10

<p>Great Post Gadad, you always come through!</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>That wasn’t the evaluation of just any “actor who made a solid living”. That was the (legendary, not necessarily factual) evaluation of the first screen test of Fred Astaire, one of the biggest stars ever, an international icon of dance. It’s also relevant to this thread, I guess, that the poor screen test evaluation was ignored, because Astaire was “hooked.” The head of the studio had signed Astaire personally and was confident that his charm would come through on film. But think of all the aspiring actors who were scandalized that Astaire was offered roles in preference to them, when their “stats” were much better than his!</p>