<p>Its certainly "disclosed" in Dov Fox's excellent book.</p>
<p>Incidentally, there has always been a wealth of similar information on the Yale Alumni Schools Committee website. Unfortunately, Yale recently decided that it was <em>too much</em> information, and password-protected the site!</p>
<p>Expectedly so. I was referring to the fact that the OP seems to have garnered this information from direct communication with an admissions officer, who may not have disclosed that information either because it wasn't relevant to the stages of determining admissions decisions or because Harvard doesn't exactly want to make a big deal about it.</p>
<p>Byerly-- internet archive have a copy, perchance?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, the final, or third, "portal" is much different than many other colleges. Each case is debated by all 35 admissions officers. (NB: This is why I personally believe that there is no luck in being accepted at Harvard.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure that I understand this "NB" comment - or how it follows from what came before.</p>
<p>If you have (as Harvard does) many more applicants who are equally strong by any objective criteria than you have openings, it seems to me that "luck" - defined in The New Oxford American Dictionary as "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions" - necessarily plays a significant role in the outcome, irrespective of how many individuals may participate in the decision-making process. </p>
<p>With the exception of an extremely small percentage of applicants (whose admission would be virtually certain anywhere), anyone who's accepted at Harvard (or a similarly "selective" school) who doesn't believe that "luck" played a meaningful role in their acceptance seriously overestimates, in my view, (1) their own abilities and accomplishments (relative to the rest of the applicant pool), and/or (2) the ability of admissions committees (no matter what their number) to distinguish between applicants of essentially equal strength in ways that are meaningful, consistent, and reliable.</p>
<p>Kids who are accepted at Harvard no doubt deserve to be. But they're no more deserving than any number of other kids who aren't.</p>
<p>Tagging this thread.</p>
<p>"The file is at FDO, but should be at your House Office this fall."</p>
<p>Interesting. I'll definitely be checking that out.</p>
<p>The Stanford admissions officer actually sent me a personal letter telling me how much he liked my essay, and gave me comments on it. Too bad I had to say "no thanks." </p>
<p>I wonder how helpful looking at the "sanitized" application will be. Interesting, nonetheless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Byerly-- internet archive have a copy, perchance?
[/quote]
Don't forget Google's excellent cache.</p>
<p>"An excellent and detailed book about Harvard and the admissions process was written two years ago by Dov Fox, '04.</p>
<p>It is called "The Truth About Harvard: A Behind the Scenes Look at Admissions and Life on Campus" (2004, The Princeton Review, 235 pp., list price $13.95)"</p>
<p>"The highest academic rating of one is reserved for students who rank first or second their high school class, score over 700 on at least five SAT tests, score 4 or 5 on at least three AP tests or 6 or 7 on three IB tests, and show academic initiative outside the classroom.... Roughly 10 percent of applicants to Harvard are given academic ratings of one.... Academic ones are virtual locks for admission."
--Dov Fox, "The Truth About Harvard"</p>
<p>xjayz, Byerly:
Obviously the above quote is somewhat outdated (i doubt all 10% that were accepted were 1s), but does it still hold some merit? I'm a "one" by this definition, and, although I doubt that I'm a "virtual lock for admission," are ones still somewhat rare in the applicant pool? I don't know if any of you guys would have an answer, but I'm just curious to see what you think.</p>
<p>I don't believe that comment. Plenty of students fit that academic profile in terms of test scores. The first week of my first-year, I was sort of scared because I was one of the students who weren't #1 or #2 or had 700+ on everything and had APs up the wazoo (in fact, our school didn't offer many APs and limited us to 1 per year starting junior year).</p>
<p>The main catch in Dov Fox's description is that the 1s have to "show academic initiative outside the classroom." It's not going to be joining the Academic Decathlon or the Science Bowl. It's more like winning a major science award like Intel or ISEF, qualifying and competiting in the USAMO, etc., publishing a book, etc.</p>
<p>There is a difference between saying all "1's" tend to have X qualifications and saying that all those with X qualifications are "1's". Beyond that, I agree that this paragraph - on which people have commented before - is a bit garbled.</p>
<p>"The main catch in Dov Fox's description is that the 1s have to "show academic initiative outside the classroom." It's not going to be joining the Academic Decathlon or the Science Bowl. It's more like winning a major science award like Intel or ISEF, qualifying and competiting in the USAMO, etc., publishing a book, etc."</p>
<p>Very true. This is why a lot of high scoring students whom you'll see posting on CC will not get in while some lower scoring students do.</p>
<p>So if roughly 10% of applicants are admitted, and an academic 1 is given to roughly 10% of applicants and is a 'virtual lock' (does anyone have his source for this?), then ECs/personality play more of a tiebreaker role than any substantial part in admissions? Or are the people who are driven enough to get an academic 1 also generally driven enough to do about a million ECs at regional/nationwide level?</p>
<p>No. I absolutely no idea what he meant by that. Academic 1s are rarely given out in the Harvard applicant pool. To quote Alexandra Robbins in her book, "The Overachievers" where she had an interview with Fitz (as the Dean of Admissions is called by everyone):</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Harvard's Dean of Admissions and Financial aid, Bill Fitzsimmons told me that applicants have to do some unusual things to distinguish themselves is a "misconception". "In broad terms, there are three ways to get into Harvard," he said. Each year out of 23,000 applicants and 2,100 admits, about 200 to 300 students get in because "they are among the most exciting potential scholars of the coming generation." The second category consists of "people who do something extraordinarily well," 200 to 300 excelling in, say, dance, drama, or athletics, whose achievements "are almost surrogates for energy, drive and commitment." The third way to get into Harvard is the most common: students who have "plain old accomplishments on a day-to day basis. It is not about gimmicks, but about substance."
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Interpret as you will.</p>
<p>Hi, jw but when do they look at supplement materials?</p>
<p>Music, Art portfolios, Etc.</p>
<p>They will pass it along to a professor within the respective department.</p>
<p>i wish i was an "exciting potential scholar" =_(. lol</p>
<p>"does anyone have his source for this?"</p>
<p>Fox cites his source in the back of the book:</p>
<p>No writer attributed. "Class of '06 Chosen From Record Pool of 19,605."
The Harvard Gazette. August 2002. 62, 79.</p>
<p>I looked it up in <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com</a> but I could not find the article with the exact title that you mentioned.</p>
<p>Here's what you were looking for, I think:</p>