<p>Sweet of you. Perhaps you should also "get a life" before posting who does and does not deserve to get in at certain schools. I'm just saying that there are people who would justly take offense to your seemingly omnipotent power over who "deserves"/does not "deserve". Get a grip.</p>
<p>I never said who does and does not deserve to get in. I'm saying that a rough, yet small percentage of admitted applicants may be inferior to some of those that were rejected. Surely you can't deny that. Of course, all of you are fantastic, don't get all defensive and insecure. Sheesh. I've got a grip, mate. You are the one who's having problems breathing.</p>
<p>
20% is a pretty big percentage. You're saying that one in every five students at Harvard didn't "deserve" his/her spot...</p>
<p>i'm very interested in seeing how vesalvay makes that criticism....</p>
<p>Are you serious? Of course 20% is ridiculous - my point was that there IS a percentage that did not deserve it as much as other applicants did. Debate_addict, with your logic and understanding, you really can't deny that fact. It's like saying that the Adcoms are infallible. Absurd.</p>
<p>if 20% is so ridiculous then why did you state it as fact?</p>
<p>and, what are the signs of a deserving applicant? most people who apply to Harvard are qualified and can handle the workload (as evidenced by Harvard's high graduation rate). what makes one applicant more deserving than another?</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you know [20 percent] don't deserve it? The majority of kids who apply to Harvard are qualified
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is well publicized that a large number of Harvard matriculants manage to gain admission due to (i.e. would be rejected without) non-academic selection factors such as athletics, legacy status, race, family's donations to the university, or connections to the leadership of foreign nations. 20 percent is a reasonable estimate of this number for conversational purposes; varsity athletics alone would account for about that much. </p>
<p>"Qualified" is admissions office euphemism for ability to not fail the coursework, graduate with a grade-inflated C average, or something like that. It does not refer to being among the academic best and brightest that Harvard is known for attracting.</p>
<p>Thank God someone with brains came along to appease your crap-talk.</p>
<p>FYI: <a href="http://www.gradeinflation.org%5B/url%5D">www.gradeinflation.org</a></p>
<p>I'm sure you're all already aware of that :D</p>
<p>vesalvay, you sound like a bitter reject. you didn't get into Harvard, so what? it's not the end of the world. i hope you have fun at Columbia and get over yourself.</p>
<p>LOL. I ED'd at Columbia.</p>
<p>I would have been elated with an SAT in the 2100 range. Sadly, I suck at standardized tests and more or less bombed each and every SAT, Subject test and ACT I've taken. Interestingly enough, low to mediocre scores did not hurt my chances at Harvard and seven other colleges/universities of the eleven I applied to. </p>
<p>Yes, athletics were likely my major hook, but I also think good grades, an all AP/Honors curriculum, lots of EC's and dedicated community service plus a part time job for almost 3 years, enhanced my changes overall. I'm a white female from a relatively affluent high school, 3rd generation college, non-legacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>naj4788, you sound like an presumptuous idiot. you thought you're cool because you got into Harvard, so what? i hope you have fun at Harvard and get over yourself.</p>
<p>To return to the original topic... :D</p>
<p>One of my friends is entering Harvard this fall; his SAT was around 2170, with SAT Subject Test scores in the low 700s. He wasn't a brilliant test taker, but he had a perfect GPA and he was genuinely very, very intelligent -- as I'm sure was evident in his teacher recs and essays. It's worth mentioning that he was born in Colombia, but he got into every single college he applied to (including Stanford, UPenn, Brown, and Columbia as well as Harvard), which I don't think can be accounted for just by URM status. I also know someone who just finished his freshman year at Harvard with an SAT of about 2200, if that counts in the 2100s range, and no URM status. Neither of them were athletes or legacies. </p>
<p>Our school is a competitive public in an upper-middle-class neighborhood, just to give you some context.</p>
<p>Perhaps Harvard is looking for some people who have more than an obsession with test scores, the time to retake them over and over, and the money to enroll in expensive test courses. There are a lot of teenagers who are devoted humanitarians, working to better their communities, and defining how to improve the futures of others. Also, students who pursue their sport, music, or art to a high level can contribute richly to a college campus. They are not on CC lambasting other students for reaching for Harvard, they are at internships, practices, recitals and studios. Being a test ace is no guarantee that person will contribute to society and the world, or even be pleasant to be around--and I'm sure admissions staff know that!!</p>
<p>The 25th percentiles should tell you that no school has such stringent selection for SAT that scores as "low" as 700 per section could drop the admissions chances all that much. Those scores confirm that a test-taker is competent, they disconfirm extreme intelligence or extremely strong test-taking ability, and (if they are below average for the admitted population) just shift more of the decision weight to other parts of the application.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are international students considered under-represented minority?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they're not. The URM definition applies only to non-Caucasian domestic applicants. Admission is actually much tougher for international students than for domestic applicants because many colleges (e.g. MIT) actually have a cap on the maximum number of internationals that can be admitted as percentage of the incoming freshman class.</p>