<p>Um Yale is not elitist in the least sense of the word. People who don’t attend these colleges shouldn’t comment on the culture there.</p>
<p>“But you have to remember that a lot of people apply to Harvard just to apply to Harvard. A decent number of people aren’t really qualified and don’t expect to get in, they just apply for the hell of it”</p>
<p>As recently as a few years ago, Harvard’s dean of admissions said 85-90% of applicants “qualify” for admission meaning they had the stats to succeed at Harvard. Now that applications have ballooned, I doubt if the percentage of qualified applicants is that high, but it still may be higher than what most colleges attract.</p>
<p>Dbate: I was being tongue-in-cheek; also, don’t assume who attends, or who doesn’t attend what schools. You’re on the internet. Don’t assume anything.</p>
<p>Of course “qualify” is a rather vague term that does not mean a whole lot without actual statistics. I’m sure that the vast majority of applicants do have at least some form of acceptable resume, but speaking from experience, a lot of students with average stats apply with the “well, you never know” attitude, and although there is nothing wrong with that, it certainly can inflate the overall number of applicants.</p>
<p>“Qualify” according to admissions meant a minimum SAT of 1800 and an unweighted 3.0 average. Of course, odds of someone getting in with such qualifications are infinitesimal unless the person is a multimillionaire donor’s offspring or possibly an Olympic athlete.</p>
<p>I wonder how many would be “qualified” if the qualifications for it were moved up to an SAT of 2000 and an unweighted 3.6 average.</p>
<p>Still, the bottom line is that most Harvard applicants are students that the majority of colleges in the U.S. happily would accept. The bottom of Harvard’s applicant pool still would look good to most college admissions officers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does “succeed at Harvard” mean? Does it just mean “able to graduate”? Or, does it mean to graduate with competitive GPA’s? I doubt most of the 3.0/1800 are able to graduate with competitive GPA’s. I even doubt most of them can graduate without substantial assistance.</p>
<p>"Still, the bottom line is that most Harvard applicants are students that the majority of colleges in the U.S. happily would accept. The bottom of Harvard’s applicant pool still would look good to most college admissions officers. "</p>
<p>Very true</p>
<p>“What does “succeed at Harvard” mean? Does it just mean “able to graduate”? Or, does it mean to graduate with competitive GPA’s? I doubt most of the 3.0/1800 are able to graduate with competitive GPA’s. I even doubt most of them can graduate without substantial assistance.”</p>
<p>Most Harvard students graduate with 3.0 or higher gpas. I remember that when I went there, there were a couple of low income students from weak public schools who were in the class behind me. I met them because they were local, and had done an overnight with me. </p>
<p>Anyway, one ended up becoming a dentist. I heard the other became a judge. I don’t know what professional schools they went to or what gpas they achieved at Harvard, but seems that they did very well in life. </p>
<p>You could graduate at the very bottom of one’s class at Harvard and still many graduate and professional schools would be happy to enroll you, and of course, one would forever be a Harvard grad.</p>
<p>The University of California, Irvine received over 60,000 applications. So what?</p>
<p>Yeah, but UCIrvine also has an undergrad class of 22,000 and a frosh class of 5000 or so. So considering it has a much lower yield rate than Harvard and other similar schools, it’s a considerable difference. </p>
<p>In any case, UCI’s a great school. Not beating down on it. Just pointing out that it’s all about admit rate for these schools, not absolute numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s pretty shameful that Harvard fleeces thousands of no-chance applicants to the tune of a million dollars per year in application fees. Nothing to boast about in their press organ.</p>
<p>I don’t get it. Most schools take applications from ‘no-chance’ applicants too. It’s always going to be the case when you have more applicants than spots. </p>
<p>Why blame Harvard specifically?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that Harvard, Stanford, Brown, and the rest are cynically and deliberately encouraging the mismatch through false advertising. The true selectivity rate for Harvard and its peers is about 15 to 25 percent admission of candidates who (based on stats etc) are comparable to those historically admitted, with exceptions also being easily identified. The majority of applications are not self-selected zero chancers paying 60 dollars for a lottery ticket, but zero-chances who would not apply if the advertising were honest.</p>
<p>“The true selectivity rate for Harvard and its peers is about 15 to 25 percent admission of candidates who (based on stats etc) are comparable to those historically admitted, with exceptions also being easily identified”</p>
<p>I’m guessing that the true selectivity is 100% admission for most colleges (private as well as public) when it comes to the admission of candidates whose stats are comparable to those historically admitted.</p>
<p>I dont think so. For example, Yale has claimed that 90% of its applicants are qualified for the school. Im sure there are many thousands of Harvard applicants whose “stats are comparable to those historically admitted” and yet only 1800 (?) or so get in…</p>
<p>I’m being generous with the 15-25 percent statement, which underestimates the number of falsely drummed up applications. In reality it would be a surprise if more than a third of those 30000 applicants have even a lottery-ticket chance at admission. The rest will, deterministically, fail to get in no matter how many times one might randomly repeat the selection. </p>
<p>Most of those no-chance applications are preventable but are avidly solicited by Harvard and its rivals. That’s about a million dollars collected (fleeced) and tens of thousands of hours wasted by applicants and admissions staff, all to give a phony appearance of heightened selectivity. That is a rather negative fact about the school, not something to be proud of, however they may spin it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>God, everyone, lighten up. This was a joke. I imagine that northstarmom was being sarcastic. As in, the people who get in probably have a 100% chance of getting in…because they’re already in.</p>
<p>@siserune - It’s not Harvard, Stanford, or Brown’s fault that they’re famous for good academics, sports, research, facilities, prestige, and so forth. If they’re going to spend billions of dollars each year ensuring that their students get the highest quality of education possible, then they deserve the opportunity to encourage students to go there, regardless of their actual chances of admission. It’s not like Harvard is trying to find as many 1200/2400 SAT students to mail so that they profit off of them.</p>
<p>Harvard isn’ actively pursuing students who have no chance of getting in. There’s no way that they know whether or not a person deserves admission, so they mail/email prospective students so that they can encourage students to apply, submit their essays and so forth. In doing so, they are attempting to create the best class that they can because they have a greater number of applicants. This leads to more diversity and an overall better class. </p>
<p>So Harvard isn’t trying to profit off these students. They’re actually trying to make sure that the people who get accepted deserve it. Stop complaining.</p>
<p>So instead, Harvard should make it very clear that to the prospective student that they really don’t stand a snowball’s chance of being admitted, so save your 60 bucks and our time and apply elsewhere.</p>
<p>Then you’d be ranting about what a bunch of arrogant SOB’s they are.</p>