<p>Just a question for those who remember: there was a thread here from a H alumnus about how getting into big H really isnt "random"...it was a very long post, as well as a very long thread. Does anyone have that link?</p>
<p>Good post piccolo. I, like many other CC members, have worked hard and with loving joy to get into Harvard. To label the admissions process as a crapshoot is to delude yourself into not doing everything you can and attributing your fate to to a supernatural force.</p>
<p>Once you "have worked hard and with loving joy" and have done "everything you can," it's still a crapshoot. At least in the sense that factors over which you have no control greatly affect your decision.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At least in the sense that factors over which you have no control greatly affect your decision.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly right...</p>
<p>Even after consideration of the "selling" one's self, it's still obviously a crapshoot, ie nondeterministic, because of the normative nature of the application. If time spent applying to Harvard is worthless, then there would be little risk applying, but it's a crapshoot because it consumes massive amounts of time to what amounts to something unproductive even if you get in. UChicago's application is not a waste of time, haha.</p>
<p>I don't know too many Harvard applicants who could toss a list of awards and write a pejorative statement and get in, and I don't know any who can write a universally-praised essay.</p>
<p>Anyways, you should know a lot more about deterministic/probabilistic systems, no?</p>
<p>Applicant A has better stats and awards and extracurriculars than applicant B. If a single person in the admissions office happens to love applicant B's essay (subjectively, of course; thinks it's "amazing"), and applicant B gets in, crap has just been added to the process. This scenario doesn't seem unlikely.</p>
<p>Well see it's not just about creating stats and a checklist of extracurriculars. One reason applicant B would get in over applicant A strictly off of the strength of his essay is if he
a) convinced Harvard that he was a PERFECT fit for them and they couldn't cay that about applicant B
or b) he demonstrated a real passion for what he was doing with his extracurriculars or course-work through his essay and applicant A did not</p>
<p>It's not about creating the perfect admissions profile, it's about doing what you yourself love and hoping your interests match up with Harvard's.</p>
<p>Aha! so it was the famous h-bomber who wrote it...and when I re-read it this time (from a H pre-frosh perspective), I really got the feel of "damn, he nailed it right there." I didn't win any olympiad medals, get even intel semifinalist, or run a sub-50 on the 400. A few months ago I made a thread here about my optional essay being too "daring." Apparently, it was daring enough to show who I was to big H. So don't devalue the essays; even in my case, a short, 350 worder can make all the difference.</p>
<p>I think you guys are missing where the luck is. You guys say that it is not luck because it is about showing to Harvard what your interests are and proving why you would fit at Harvard.</p>
<p>See, but that's where the luck is! The Harvard's admission committee, like many others, have many meetings and discussions in the beginning of the year what they are looking for in their students, and how they want to build their class.</p>
<p>The luck is not in the sense that they randomly pick people out of a pile, no. It is a specific process that selects individuals for certian reasons.</p>
<p>But since WHAT the admission committee is looking changes from year to year, the luck comes down to whether or not you HAPPEN to be what they are looking for at the moment. That is where the luck is.</p>
<p>I totally agree with Nato! The luck is absolutely in if you are what they are looking for that particular year. </p>
<p>Of course, there are other factors as well. Two students may have identical GPA's, identical stats, similar EC's and all that...but, student A will get in over student B just because he or she is a legacy. So in that sense, there is that type of luck as well.</p>
<p>People are compared to others in their region though, so the "what they're looking for" plays a slightly smaller role because an applicant from NYC is not viewed in the same light as one from Wyoming.</p>
<p>In what way piccolo?</p>
<p>Nato, that's a very good distinction you draw and if most people thought of it that way I don't think threads like this would be necessary. That type of arbitrary 'luck' (if you can call it that) does indeed play a part, but this idea that Harvard ad-officers are just randomly deciding to take person X over person Y based off of the way the ad-officer is feeling that day is utter baloney.</p>
<p>Well, if they're looking for a certain type of person they are more likely to find one in a densely populated area. However, they still need to represent the rest of the nation, so strong applicants (who might not be 100% what they're "looking for") could get in without necessarily having that special factor, just great scores, grades, character, and individualism.</p>
<p>Not saying there isn't such a "luck" factor, just that it isn't staggered as much as some (keyword: some) may think.</p>
<p>I know people who got waitlisted at Dartmouth, rejected at Yale and Georgetown, and accepted at Harvard.</p>
<p>I know someone who got waitlisted at Harvard, accepted at Yale, P-ton, Dartmouth, Columbia, etc. and got a great merit scholarship (full ride) at several top 20 schools. </p>
<p>There is clearly some room for error in the decision process.</p>
<p>yah I got waitlisted from columbia, which was somewhat surprising until I saw that my application for CC showed very little conviction...Princeton, I made that "Harvard College" mistake and tried a completely different supplemental essay that did not reveal my personality/character...MIT, my app was rushed, and thus so were my essays (especially the creation one). For each school I didn't get a yes from I at least knew why I got rejected.</p>
<p>"I know people who got waitlisted at Dartmouth, rejected at Yale and Georgetown, and accepted at Harvard.</p>
<p>I know someone who got waitlisted at Harvard, accepted at Yale, P-ton, Dartmouth, Columbia, etc. and got a great merit scholarship (full ride) at several top 20 schools. </p>
<p>There is clearly some room for error in the decision process."</p>
<p>This does not show that there is room for error in the decision process... Somone who got accepted into say, Stanford, isn't "supposed" to get into Georgetown or Norhtwestern because they have slightly higher admission rates. </p>
<p>Each of the schools you mentioned are very different and each have their own priorities when selecting applicants. Some applicants fit better at Harvard than at Columbia, and vice versa.</p>
<p>"For each school I didn't get a yes from I at least knew why I got rejected."
What incentive exists to not give a sympathetic rejection letter, and how can one affirm the efficacy of the essay?</p>
<p>What on earth does error mean in the decision process?</p>
<p>I already told you my hypothesis, but beyond that I can't be bothered to get into a full-scale argument about why I did/didn't get accepted into X university.</p>