How about amending that to say "...in every aspect of life."</p>
<p>I have a feeling that Admissions people are able to spot arrogance and poor social skills from a mile away. RSI is a wonderful program, but it is certainly not the only wonderful way for students to demonstrate passion and commitment to science and math. Given the data regarding admissions, schools like Harvard don't need to admit any one particular student -- if someone is outstanding in one area, but is an ill-behaved oaf, I don't see them fitting in at Harvard. Without suggesting that the deferred students fall into that category, I think the comments made by Pton! were rather aggressive and arrogant. I know I don't need to defend quiltguru, but I've always found her posts to be thoughtful and intended to share knowledge with other posters.</p>
<p>I think that pton! just reacted to quiltguru's post that made sounded like her daughter was invited to attend RSI (as in accepted) but turned it down by throwing away the letter.</p>
<p>And I really see no pattern as to RSI admissions. Probably one of the top 5 most qualified Rickoids from '05 was deferred. That's totally ridiculous.</p>
<p>"Probably one of the top 5 most qualified Rickoids from '05 was deferred."<br>
Do you mean an applicant this year, or an '05 h.s. grad who applied last year?
Also, given the relatively small size of the RSI sample, I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the differences in the EA acceptance rates between last year and this year (76% vs. 61%), especially when things are likely to even out after the RD round.
And from personal experience with my D., who was deferred from Brown and then later accepted, don't lose hope (I admit, I did, but she didn't!)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think that pton! just reacted to quiltguru's post that made sounded like her daughter was invited to attend RSI (as in accepted) but turned it down by throwing away the letter.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Right. I'm sure that is exactly what he was reacting to. But the fact that he reacted in such an obnoxious way speaks to what sort of a person he might very well be. That sort of stuff often comes through on applications and in interviews, even when the students think they are concealing it.</p>
<p>I do not see if massacre is a proper term for Harvard 2010. After all, they still accepted 800 students. With their normal yield, that accounts for at least 40% of the entering class. </p>
<p>We do not know anything about this particular class. It is entirely possible that the SCEA pool was "relatively" weaker than in previous years. With the explosion of restricted admission policies, a higher degree of self-selection takes place. </p>
<p>Regarding RSI, should we not assume that the admission criteria for RSI and Harvard might not be EXACTLY the same? While it is undeniable that RSI is a very selective program, it does not target the exact same students as Harvard does. Could it be that the higher percentage of accepted students from RSI (in the prior years) was an aberration or reflected a more qualified or fitting pool for Harvard?</p>
<p>Donemom, I meant RSI '05, he was just deferred. I think something like that is unacceptable. For example, Adam Solomon was also deferred (3rd place at Siemens). What are they thinking? If they even need 3 scientists in their whole class, what is the argument against choosing him?</p>
<p>And regarding pton's posts, he goes to my school, and he is definitely really timid and modest. He was accepted to Pton ED and would be a shoo-in at Harvard.</p>
<p>Um, Zogoto, I'm sure he is a very strong candidate if he got into Princeton but NOBODY, as you can see, is a "shoo-in" at Harvard. Anybody who thinks that way, is not realistic about the state of elite college admissions today. Top end candidates can most likely say they have a very strong chance at a very top school and that's about it. They'll likely get into one, but not necessarily into any one particular one. </p>
<p>I don't see this as a massacre either. It was all to be expected. Yes, it is always a sense of shock to see such highly qualified kids rejected or deferred but deferral is NOT OUT YET. Even if rejected eventually, it is to be expected. NOBODY should pin their hopes on ONE particular school but should like and would fit, more than one selective school. </p>
<p>Harvard wants many different types of kids at their school. I can't blame them for not taking everyone from one particular, granted high end, science/math program.</p>
<p>Just to change course, since RSI seems like THE topic here....but back to Harvard....I JUST learned a few minutes ago that TWO students in a tiny ski academy in my town just got into Harvard, one to Stanford, one to Brown. The senior class probably has less than 20 kids in it. Some are boarders, some local. I'm not sure if the Harvard kids were boarders but my guess is they are.
Susan</p>
<p>UM....reading my post back....with "boarders", I meant boarding students, not snowboarders :D</p>
<p>Susan -
"Yes, it is always a sense of shock to see such highly qualified kids rejected or deferred but deferral is NOT OUT YET."</p>
<p>Respectfully disagree. Most of the deferred are effectively out: at last Yale had the honesty to tell the ones that had no chance just that so that they can move on emotionally and strategically. If Harvard's admissions committee is so large that they can't reach a consensus on who to reject, then they are ill-using hundreds of kids. If you know you're out, you grieve, you move on. If you are in that nebulous state of deferral, its hard. If are in that nebulous state for no good reason (and I consider a polite rejection for the benefit of GC and elite HS's a pretty weasily reason), it is, IMO, pretty unforgivable.</p>
<p>Ohio Mom, forgive me in that I was talking about deferrals in general and not so much at Harvard though we are talking about Harvard, I realize. With deferral, people should move on in their minds anyway (though put some effort into the deferral, then let it go) but you are right that Harvard tends to do a LOT of deferrals, not that many rejections in EA compared to some other schools. Even so, at any school SOME deferred kids get in but cannot count on it at all. </p>
<p>Susan and Ohio Mom, I disagree with you both. I think Harvard puts deferreds on "conditional rejection," meaning you are NOT out, but you are unless you do something pretty amazing between December and March.</p>
<p>It's not that hard to see what happens to the deferred pool. Last year, H deferred about 2800 candidates and about 140 of those got the nod in the RD round. This means that their chances are about equal -or slightly lower- than the students who applied directly in the RD round. That their chances are not that great is absolutely normal since they were not accepted when competing in a smaller group that is statiscally less qualified than the RD pool. </p>
<p>Getting deferred does not mean the student almost made it as much as that the school did not have the heart to reject him outright - as common sense would dictate the school to do in greater number.</p>
<p>Quote: "For example, Adam Solomon was also deferred (3rd place at Siemens). What are they thinking? If they even need 3 scientists in their whole class, what is the argument against choosing him?"</p>
<p>I have to admit that I had thought, too, that he seemed like a super strong candidate (I had read some of his posts and even "talked" with him a couple of times before he'd heard--he also seems like a really nice, humble kid). I know he had a second interview only 3 days before EA decisions were sent...maybe the results of that didn't get there in time. I'm hoping he's one of those that they will seriously consider in RD (and you as well--best of luck!)</p>
<p>Adam has a great chance for STS, and if he is a finalist, he will not be rejected. I never heard of one STS Finalist rejection from Harvard until last year, and I think there was only one.</p>
<p>ellemenope,
Or, maybe the first interviewer wasn't so hot. </p>
<p>xiggi,
thanks for the stats. I am aware that many prefer the polite refusal, but it is my personal belief that providing useless information (e.g., deferring someone if there is no chance) is not at all good. It conveys the wrong impression to those with a decent shot (in Harvard terms, anyway) as well as those with no shot.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A second interview? This sounds ominous. . .Sounds like the first one must have been a disaster.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>A second interview is apparantly requested if a student is under serious consideration (eg. borderline), and they want further interview input. That could be because the first interview was questionable, or that somehow it didn't provide a full enough picture. This particular student actually felt the second interview went great--long, expansive conversation about his interests and related topics. But, who knows?</p>