How did 1600s do?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
41

<p>"Most exotic thing done wins admission over the guy who sat for 4 hrs everyday to study for his SAT!! Stuff like that really irks me."</p>

<p>"People can just go and sign up for some international program or some model agency and stick with it for a while and easily stand out."</p>

<p>So, let me get this straight - you're saying people who spend four hours a day studying specifically for a exam that will be used to assess their ability at college is somehow better than the guy who spends four hours a day doing ECs that will be used to assess their ability at college?</p>

<p>What's the difference? Both people are still spending a large period of their time attempting to get further ahead in the admissions process - or did you really study those four hours "for fun"?</p>

<p>I didn't study for the SATs, and my curriculum really didn't prepare me for them (1390, 710V - 680M). I did however, spend many hours of my time volunteering at a charity bookshop, touring with theatre companies as a technician, playing and composing music, etc. I didn't do these ECs with the intention of aiding my admissions process - in fact, I could have cared less at the time about the admissions process. I wrote my admissions essays during a performance of a show I was working on, and I barely got my forms in on time. The only EC that required "a test" would be my music work, playing in national level ensembles.</p>

<p>I'm rambling, but I guess what I'm trying to say is you're being just a bit hypocritical to slam people who do ECs solely for admissions gain when you yourself studied four hours a day solely for a high SAT score, resulting in an admissions gain.</p>

42

<p>I didn't study four hours to take any SAT. I'm not involved in any way for these admissions for what..like another year? </p>

<p>I don't think ECs are hard. I really do think school is very hard. At least this year it is for me. And SATs are not fun. ECs are generally fun for the individual because you're pursuing a hobby you enjoy. Unless you're doing it just to "pad your application"..</p>

<p>I probably am being a bit extreme but I think that academics are much harder than ECs and should have more weight in the admissions process. Anyone can make a really good score on any test if they can study. Seriously. You don't need to have a knack for any subject to make a good score. It all comes down to how much effort you put in studying. It may be harder for some (i.e. 4 hours) or it may be easier (i.e. 4 minutes). ECs can be unique too just like academics. Someone could have a knack for throwing a football or for learning material quickly but not everyone has these abilities. Some people don't have any hobbies whatsoever. So they won't ever be good at their ECs. Why do you think college admissions people require an SAT score and 3 additional SAT IIs or an ACT score and not an EC?</p>

<p>Colleges do want some variety and that's why they accept people with those amazing ECs and not so amazing scores. But I don't think they should throw away applicants who have decent ECs and amazing scores. Not everyone makes a 1600.</p>

43

<p>You don't need to have a knack for any subject to make a good score.</p>

<p>lol whats the difference between school and EC's???? you dont have to have a knack for snowboarding either but if you go every year then you are definitely going to improve.
I believe EC's are much more important than school, maybe not in admissions but they do tell a lot about that person. A 4.0 doesnt really say as much as a black belt in tae kwon doe or something else like playing the banjo.</p>

44

<p>"I believe EC's are much more important than school, maybe not in admissions but they do tell a lot about that person. A 4.0 doesnt really say as much as a black belt in tae kwon doe or something else like playing the banjo."</p>

<p>School tells just as much about a person. ECs reflect people's devotion to something they like. School reflects their devotion that they don't necessarily like. After all, the only point to going through college is to have something to do after it, i.e., a job. It certainly is a good thing to show that you can earn a 4.0 studying stuff you don't really like, since you're going to have to do well even in aspects of a job that you don't enjoy.</p>

<p>As for "throwing away" 1600s, they don't really want the kids who spend the 4 hours/day to get the 1600. Of course, they don't have a foolproof way of telling which of us just got the 1600 after 1 hour of cramming the night before (hey, it worked, didn't it? lol) and which of us got it only after our parents dragged us through prep courses. As a result, I'm inclined to believe I got lumped in with the latter. (Of course, very few people would believe that I got a 1600 without prep classes...that's just today's mentality)</p>

<p>You know what "exotic ECs" are? They are, more often than not, ECs that require substantial investments in time, money, and connections. I agree, almost anyone can go to those international programs, provided they pay the $3-6000 to do so. Same with MathCamp. So, when I say I do USACO (in which you can participate for free), they say, "Oh, well, anyone could do that." Um...OK, I guess, that's true <em>financially</em>...</p>

<p>OK, maybe I'm being hypocritical, considering that my parents did pay for my piano lessons. But it's not like that helped me at all in admissions. That just made me fit into the stereotype even more. Don't get me wrong; I love playing the piano, and I really appreciate what my parents have done for me. All I'm saying is that if I were to play the ukelele or something about half as well, I could've secured myself an "exotic EC"...</p>

<p>"Anyone can make a really good score on any test if they can study. Seriously. You don't need to have a knack for any subject to make a good score. It all comes down to how much effort you put in studying. It may be harder for some (i.e. 4 hours) or it may be easier (i.e. 4 minutes)."
Yes, go ahead and study for USACO or USAMO. 4 hours will get you NOWHERE. The only reason I stand a ghost of a chance in USACO is because I've been programming for 8 YEARS. And my last score: 604/1000.</p>

45

<p>to saroah. indeed i agree with you. the thing is harvard don't just want perfect score students, they want ECs. and not just any ECs, but IMPORTANT ECs...like representing your school, state or even country.</p>

<p>of course they usually won't accept studnets with <1400...but who would you accept:
student with 4.0 u/w 1600 sats, 800 sat2s, minimum ecs, lets say choir...
or
studnet with 3.9 u/w 1550 sats, 750 sat2s...star athlete, plays for band, won national debating competition etc etc.</p>

<p>and you seem to forget that ECs aren't only voluntary work but includes talent work....</p>

46

<p>hey guys--sorta OT, but did any of you apply/make semifinalist for the presidential scholars program? ed.gov/programs/psp</p>

47

<p>I have lots of great extracurriculars and a 1600 and got rejected from Harvard and Yale. It's all just a crapshoot.</p>

48

<p>^ I totally agree. Sometimes, this whole "chance" thing of whether you get in or not, is pretty disgusting, from the perspective of those who work their butt off for 4 years to end up with a thin letter. </p>

<p>Just remember people, don't let some college tell you if you're good or not. All that work you did for the past 4 years, it HAS to pay off somehow. And it will.</p>

49

<p>I'm saying this at the risk of upsetting a lot of people, but the thing that I've taken away from this board is that admissions are NOT a crapshoot. Are they unfair? yes. Are they a crapshoot? no.</p>

<p>In almost every case of a rejection, we can examine the stats and conclude why a person did not get in. It could be a racial disadvantage; it could be geography; it could be extracurriculars. Whatever the case may be, fair or unfair, there are reasons that some people get denied and others accepted.</p>

<p>Yes, it is unfair that I got an edge over other applicants because I play a sport. I am sure that there are people who work just as hard at their extracurriculars as I who were rejected because their hooks were not as strong. But, regardless of the unfairness, there were reasons (not a crapshoot).</p>

<p>I apologize in advance for raising a possible riot, but I just had to put my two cents in, because I am tired of hearing people talk in a fatalistic way about college admissions. I hope that this will comfort some of you, and that you will realize that your lives and situations are not the results of strange college admissions black magic. :-)</p>

50

<p>


</p>

<p>I'm trying to wrap my mind around what you said and make sure that I understand it. So I ask, what exactly were those great extracurriculars? </p>

<p>I get the impression from this and many other threads that a few focused extracurriculars pursued to a national level of excellence are probably more expedient for college admissions than "lots" of extracurriculars. But tell me more; what kind of extracurriculars appeared on your application?</p>

51

<p>u know, it's hard to really define the student that Harvard is looking for - I knew of a friend who got a 1600 on his SATs and was involved in every single club under the sun yet was rejected, and knew of another friend who had a 1500ish, not very involved but was a star tuba player -- and was accepted because a senior tuba player was graduating --- with ivies, it's a toss up, you never know what they want so never put all of ur eggs in one basket</p>

52

<p>If it is not a crapshot, how come some ppl including 1600s are admitted to Harvard, but not to Yale or Pton or Stanford, with no legacy or other tip factors. For example, check this one:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=17070#post734094%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=17070#post734094&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

53

<p>I don't think sunglasses is proposing that the college admissions system is perfect or infallible, but rather that the process admissions officers go through is backed by some rationale. In other words, conwoman, Yale or Princeton could have had a different rationale or need than Harvard for those applicants OR the applicant could have expressed him/herself better on the Harvard application than the Yale/Pton one.</p>

<p>I think another thing people here seem to be ignoring is the presentation aspect of college admissions. The admissions officers know you ONLY by what's on your application/recs/interview report/transcript/etc. Someone might be better qualified, but if they can't express their qualifications (ie poorly written essay, unexcited teacher recs), they aren't going to get in.</p>

<p>What makes this all so confusing is that there are a few semi-quantifiable aspects to "the game" (SATs, and to a lesser extent gpa + ecs), and there are also so many qualitative aspects (character, personality, etc). It's hard to judge one's own qualitative attributes, and even harder to guess how they might appear to an admissions officer, but they undoubtedly have an effect on the admissions decision.</p>

<p>Oh, and someone, I'm a PSP semi-finalist... PM me if you want to talk about it.</p>

54

<p>This thread gives examples of "fratricide" in admissions. If you are trying to get in as, for example, the star tuba player, and there is some better tuba player who applied to two of the four schools you are applying to, it is a RATIONAL decision for the admissions office at two of the schools to reject you, while you are accepted by the other two. That's not exactly a "crapshoot," or a "game with no rules," but it is a good reason to apply to more than one school, and not to place too many bets on which school you will get into. </p>

<p>And that's why the strategy of having "lots" of ECs is probably a losing strategy at the top-tier schools: there is always someone applying to that same school who is better than you at each of your ECs, and plenty of other applicants who have also pursued the jack-of-all-trades EC strategy. It is more expedient, I think (even though I acknowledge it is NOT a sure thing) to choose a small number of ECs at which you can excel because you love those ECs and pay the price in time and effort to do well at them. </p>

<p>We all know that a 1600 (now 2400) on the SAT I alone is not enough, but it's really hard to deny someone who is both nationally ranked at the very top in academics AND nationally ranked at the very top in some significant EC. It is easy to deny someone who has a peak SAT I score, good grades at an okay but not stellar high school, and a laundry list of ECs--that happened a lot this year, as it does every year. </p>

<p>Best wishes to all of you who are going off to college in the fall. You can go far with the energy and dedication you have already exerted in applying to college, once you apply those to your college studies and activities.</p>

55

<p>"If it is not a crapshot, how come some ppl including 1600s are admitted to Harvard, but not to Yale or Pton or Stanford..."</p>

<p>Because every school is different...if one kid applies to every ivy league he can have perfect scores and amazing ecs but considering that every ivy league school is different he probably won't get into all of them. They always say how they look for someone whose a good match for their school. If all the schools are so different there shouldnt be one person thats a good match for all of them. Although, some kids doo still get in to all of the ivys its rare.</p>

<p>This can explain why some 1600s don't get into some schools too. Maybe their just not a good match for that school.</p>

56

<p>The "match" theory implies that two "identical" applicants will most likely be accepted by a certain ivy and rejected by another. The reality seems to be different. As discussed in another thread, there is a well-known association between high schools and top colleges. If a school sends its top applicant to Harvard (or Ptn) each year, you can expect its valedictorian to be admitted to the same institution next year regardless of 'how good he plays tuba'. This being said, there are applicants with stellar achievements who will be embraced by any ivy.</p>

57

<p>I agree that getting accepted is not a "crapshoot". They are not rolling dice or pulling names out of a hat. Everybody gets accepted or denied for a reason (actually more likely a combination of reasons), it's just that the reason is often unclear to an outside observer. There are patterns or trends as to who gets accepted, but there are always lots of exceptions to the pattern. To someone who wasn't privy to the committee's discussions, these exceptions lend the illusion of randomness.</p>

58

<p>What about the cases when an applicant's destiny is decided by one vote? I heard it happens frequently. Isn't it "crapshoot" by definition?</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Don't be so sure. I know somebody who used to work on Brown's admission committee. He said they were actually throwing darts when the committee was in a deadlock. Seriously.</p>

59

<br>


<br>

<p>Sounds like a pretty poor way to break a deadlock. A better way might be avoid ties in the first place by having an odd number of members on the committee.</p>

60

<p>I think people are getting a little too caught up in EC's and forgetting all about academics. The fact is, the amount of time that you spend on academics is always going to be WAAAAY more than what you spend on EC's. </p>

<p>The most important point to remember about college admissions is this:</p>

<p>You're not going to college so you can go to math camp, or a modelling agency or whatever. You're going to college to study, in other words college=academics. </p>

<p>For my money, I'd say that academics count for about 70%, EC's 30%. Of course, when you're dealing with a college like Harvard, just about everybody is gonna have the academics nailed down. So Harvard uses EC's to differentiate among its applicants.</p>

<p>That's all an EC is, a tool to differentiate among applicants. Don't believe the hype, EC's are not the most important thing in a Harvard applicant. Else, how do you think Harvard manages to have it's 75th percentile SAT score at 1580? </p>

<p>So the next question is, what about all those people who are getting into Harvard with 1300's or lower? The answer: Harvard needs to have a diverse student body. What does that mean exactly?</p>

<p>It means that Harvard needs to have enough of each type of student to keep all of its academic departments in business. And of course, it also means keeping a good variety of colors in the student body.</p>