<p>You would want to do ED at Cornell because it’s a binding agreement to attend the school if admitted. They take it as a serious declaration of interest in attending the school, and thus admit students with weaker stats (such as yourself).</p>
<p>I never suggested you do ED at cornell, it was an analogy. ED gives you a signifigant boost because it shows the college your dedication.</p>
<p>Harvard is NOT an LAC, and LAC would not have a med school and a law school. Yes i am recommending them for you from your question of what your harvard back-ups should be.</p>
<p>I think you have a small but reasonable shot at UNC since your OOS, Carnegie Mellon would be good if your pre-med, Tulane you would be a match at, UChicago is a crapshoot and duke is a reach and getting more competitive every year and im not familar with dickinson.</p>
<p>OOS is out of state, it gives you a disadvantage when applying to competitive state schools.</p>
<p>Harvard does not accurately fit the definition of a LAC. An example of this is how it has a Business, Medical and Law school, liberal arts colleges do not have graduate schools. A liberal arts school has a small amount of students and is typically rurally located.</p>
<p>Also, as for your stats, I Do not consider them low, however you currently do not have a standardized test score, and your GPA is low for the incredibly elite colleges, many of which could fill their class with only people who have 4.0 and still have some left over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you do. Let’s say you put serious focus on your schoolwork and you end up with ALL As. By the time senior year fall rolls around, you’ll most likely end up looking at a 3.8x. As a white, unhooked applicant, you are facing some stiff competition. Most unhooked applicants are only serious contenders with a 3.9+ GPA and a 2250+ SAT, assuming their ECs are impeccable. Christiansoldier - I apologize in advance if you’re reading this, Christiansoldier, but you’re a good example - had a 2400, 4.0 UW, took over seven SAT IIs and scored 800s on all of them (except for one, if I recall correctly), had great ECs, and was rejected from Harvard. </p>
<p>However, as harsh as it sounds - it’s unlikely you’ll be able to manage straight As if you weren’t able to do so your freshman and sophomore year when school is the easiest. During your junior year, you’ll be prepping for standardized exams, fleshing out your extracurricular activities, and maybe even starting the college essay-writing process if you want a head start. Chances are, you’ll have difficulties handling all of these AND ending up with a 4.0 UW your junior year.</p>
<p>I do not want to continue to be confrontational, but a Liberal Arts school is not the same as an LAC. A liberal arts school offers a core curriculum and would be most anything that isnt a large public or a technical school such as MIT.</p>
<p>Im not sure how you figured out my gender either time :|</p>
<p>Affirmative action doesnt make your chances worse, it makes minorities better. (I debated this for national forensics league competitions btw)
It gives colleges a good way to add diversity, which many colleges market.</p>
<p>As for legacy, alumni typically donate to the school. If an alumnis child is rejected, most will stop donating, its a bad system, but it works.</p>
<p>You are only a legacy if your parents attended (and in some cases, grandparents)</p>
<p>No you can not end up with a 4.0 by getting all a’s the rest of your career, anyone with a B+++++++++++++ does not have a 4.0 any longer.
Also, straight a’s is much easier said then done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does it really matter as to what’s fair and what isn’t? It is how it is, and if you want to apply to Harvard, you need to accept that. The Harvard applicant pool is arguably the most competitive applicant pool in the United States (Yale SCEA is a contender, though). I’m sure you can imagine how cutthroat the competition is amongst unhooked, White applicants. Christiansoldier had literally perfect stats and was rejected. What makes you think you’ve got it in the bag? As a non-legacy, non-athlete, non-URM with no remarkable talents or national competitions, you’re going to need a near-perfect record, stellar EC’s, and incredibly moving essays. And while it’s possible, it’s neither probable nor realistic.</p>
<p>Apply to Harvard if you want. But your chances of admission are very low. So please don’t get your hopes up.</p>
<p>And really, I think this chance thread has gone on long enough. If you don’t have a good idea of your chances by now, you’ve got a problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s your point? Do you feel like you deserve Harvard because you’re going to work hard for 18 months? Well, I’ve got news for you kal: almost all applicants to Harvard worked themselves to the bone for four years of high school. They all want in, they’re all qualified, and almost all of them will be rejected and heartbroken as well. Being a “complete overachiever” is not an asset for Harvard: it’s a requirement.</p>
<p>No to all three questions. Trust me, I feel your pain - AA policies don’t benefit me, either; I’m an Asian American.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just trying to get you to face the reality of the situation.</p>
<p>But no worries, I’m gone, never to reply again. :D</p>
<p>If your chances are so great, why are you even bothering to make a chance thread in the first place?</p>
<p>kal8254 - I read through most of this thread, and you will no doubt apply to Harvard (and Yale and Princeton?) no matter what anyone says. So the thread seems moot in any case, but a few things stand out:</p>
<p>1) Until you actually have an ACT or SAT score, the chancing portion is rather pointless. If you get a 34+, you have a shot, although slim (See#2). if you get a 32-, virtually no chance. I won’t go into SAT since you are taking the ACT.</p>
<p>2) Harvard had an acceptance rate of 6%. That is the lowest in the country, probably the world. Harvard could eliminate the 2000 people that enrolled for the freshman class, take the next 2000, and there would be no difference in quality. I am not saying this, the Director of Admissions did. He probably could have even dipped into the next 2000, that is how competitive it is. There is no sense in going into this process without your eyes wide open.</p>
<p>3) The fact that you don’t know what most of the acronyms stand for, and then after they are told to you that you don’t know what some of them really mean tells me you are rather uninformed and naive about the whole process. That isn’t an insult, just a fact and it explains some of your rather misplaced optimism. FYI, an LAC (Liberal Art College) is taken to mean that there are virtually no graduate programs at these institutions. Some give Master’s degress in English or something similar, but they are very limited and 98-100% of the school’s focus is on the undergraduate education. Schools like Harvard have Liberal Arts curriculums, but obviously have extremely active and prestigious graduate research programs in a wide variety of areas, as the large number of Nobel Prizes would attest. In fact, a knock on Harvard and similar schools is that the undergraduate is devalued sometimes, and that many profs detest teaching undergrad courses because it distracts from their research and consulting. Plus many basic classes are taught by grad students, not tenure track faculty. Anyway, that is the difference and you should show a bit more humility before you insist you are right about something.</p>
<p>4) More worrisome is the fact that you don’t seem to realize that you can’t create a 4.0 UW GPA by getting all A’s your junior and senior years. I am sorry, but wow. That is such basic math. Think about it, what is a 4.0? It is all A’s for your entire high school career, no blemishes. How can you have a record with all A’s once you have gotten something other than an A? That was just a cringe-worthy post.
</p>
<p>5) Finally, please listen to those that are telling you that you don’t need Harvard to be successful getting into law school. Go look at the list of schools sometime for the students that are in Harvard Law, and some other schools. They do post these things sometimes. [Undergraduate</a> Colleges](<a href=“http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/jd/apply/undergrads.html]Undergraduate”>http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/jd/apply/undergrads.html) As you can see, quite a variety of schools of varying prestige that got into the #1 law school.</p>
<p>So take a deep breath, widen your world view, try to get yourself a little more grounded in reality without giving up on your dreams, and move ahead. You will be fine.</p>
<p>lol i<3 these low achieving students applying to harvard.</p>
<p>While the “average” applicant has a 6% chance of getting in, in the age of common app, i’d estimate 25% of these applicants are automatically tossed out the window, including the OP. So the average decent applicant with a 2300+, 3.75 UW GPA, and decent EC probably has around a 25% chance+.</p>
<p>@OP you’re stats and EC are… well terrible. Until you can confirm your SAT/ ACT score in a test setting, you got nothing. Applicants with better EC include: Recruited athletes, Music people, Siemens/Intel/ USAMO/PhO/NCO, published authors, celebrities, nationally recognized writers, and other nationally recognized kids. I think i listed about 2000 ELITE kids a year looking at harvard (there are ALOT of recruited atheletes, and considering how many of them turn down HYP for good state U’s for baseball, Bball, swimming, track, etc).</p>
<p>Come on jason - When you say things like her stats and EC’s are terrible, she just rejects any advice as coming from people that are just being mean-spirited. They are not terrible, they just are not top 15 quality at this point. Yes, as I said it means little until she has a real ACT score. But her EC’s are good, and her GPA is very good. There are hundreds of incredibly fine schools she has a good shot at if her ACT comes in even at the level she pre-tested at. Try to be helpful instead of just running people into the ground. Or does that make you feel better about yourself? Would it have killed you to put some positive suggestions on top of your scalding critique?</p>
<p>A) I’m not going to Harvard, but my sister is so I’ve been up there and met people. While they’re incredible, they’re still (mostly) humans who have strengths and weaknesses and interests and areas that bore them. </p>
<p>B) It’s probably best not to post a “what are my chances” thread. The internet is good for some things, but not for this. This time last year it had me convinced that I would be going to a community college, when I ended up getting into my top school. The only impressions that will matter in the process are the admissions officers. Others’ speculations may be waay off! I’m not saying that there aren’t real standards and whatnot. You want your SAT/ACT scores to be high, I don’t think AP scores are as important, and you want to show yourself as a real person. So don’t overbook yourself by wondering what they’ll think of you. Enjoy what you do and drop what you can’t handle. If you’re really curious and want good feedback, I’d suggest talking to an alum, someone who’s worked in an admissions office, or someone else who’s more familiar with the system.</p>
<p>C) Wherever you end up, you’ll be great. Don’t be afraid to get interested in other schools. It’s not being negative or unfaithful to look around. Every school has stuff to offer, and you may be surprised. Even if you just talk to older kids who are in or recently graduated, you could get some ideas of what more you might want. Augh, that was long. Sorry. Don’t make high school into a pressure cooker, and good luck!</p>
<p>Very good post knome. You also reminded me that since this OP wants to go to law school, there are 2 major factors involved in getting accepted, GPA and LSAT score. I know people talk about grade inflation at Harvard, but there is still the very real consideration of being in the upper tier at a somewhat less competitive school vs. being in the lower tier at a highly competitive one. Just something to think about.</p>
<p>fallenchemist,</p>
<p>The enrollment statisics at top law schools seem to suggest that coming from a top-ranked undergraduate college is a significant boost in law-school admissions. For example, there are 63 Harvard College alumni at Yale Law School. The best-represented public university is Berkeley, with a relatively small 14. This is the despite the fact that Berkeley has significantly more undergraduates than Harvard does.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Harvard is RIDICULOUSLY grade inflated. Something like 90% of all students graduate with honors.</p>
<p>“Furthermore, Harvard is RIDICULOUSLY grade inflated. Something like 90% of all students graduate with honors”</p>
<p>i’d wager to say this is because the quality of the student at harvard will continue(or at least strive) to do exactly what they did in high school, not go into harvard and become a burn-out.</p>
<p>jasonInNy, that 90% figure is incorrect:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In any case, the honors labels are irrelevant for law school admissions. Average GPA’s at the schools are a far better indicator of grade inflation. </p>
<p>In 2005, Harvard’s average GPA was 3.45, in 2008 Yale’s was 3.51, in 2008 Princeton’s was 3.28, and in 2005 Stanford’s was 3.55. Comparing these with average LSAT scores gives a pretty good idea of how much grade inflation/deflation there is: 166 at Harvard, 165 at Princeton and Yale, and 164 at Stanford. This suggests that Stanford has the most grade inflation, Yale has the second most, Harvard has the second least, and Princeton has rather significant grade deflation.</p>