<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you! Thank you for saying this so well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. We’re talking about a student who scored in the 95% vs a student who scored in the 99%. The idea that the student with a 2100 is somehow measurably less qualified than the kid with the 2400 is just absurd.</p>
<p>
Apparently so, since there are kids admitted with 2100 while others with 2400 were turned away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure about flipping a coin, but the adcoms might find on their applications that the 2100 student was pursuing a passion, whereas the 2400 student was busy pursuing the 2400.</p>
<p>Excellent post, Pizzagirl. One of the things I found infuriating last year was just how opaque the admissions process is. Humans are in charge of it, with all their of moods, biases, values, sensitivites, and quirks. Selecting the freshman class does involve some objective evaluation on the part of adcoms, but it also involves some subjectivity. The fact is, most applicants will never know precisely why they were rejected, or for that matter, accepted.</p>
<p>Of course I still flip the coin, sorghum. Duh. If H or any other school wanted to just line kids up in order of descending SAT scores and grab the highest 2,000 (or whatever it takes to fill their class) they’d have DONE SO ALREADY (and save themselves considerable time and energy in the process).</p>
<p>Do rejected valedictorians complain their spots were stolen by salutatorians? Do rejected 2400s claim that their spots were stolen by 2350s? No, because they didn’t own those spots in the first place. Neither does any white kid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve got to agree. Wasn’t there an article by an ad comm who talked about how he got sick from eating bad buffalo wings and rejected every applicant from Buffalo, NY at work the next day?</p>
<p>
I’m thinking she might have meant 60/40 women to men, not the other way around. And not to achieve this exact value, but to be less than 60/40, and more towards 50/50. It seems that some places are not achieving this, even now.</p>
<p>This thread reminds me of something from my own college days. (late 70’s)</p>
<p>Several guys I knew (all white) were applying to med school. One of them did not get in and I heard a number of comments in my small hometown area to the effect that he was rejected on the basis of being a white male. Most of these people knew that this guy was a good student but did not know him personally. Well, I did and while at heart he was a decent guy his personality did not reflect that. If you didn’t know him well, he came across as sarcastic, condescending and well, snotty. Those of us who actually knew him were convinced that it was his interview that did him in.</p>
<p>Interestingly the people who were convinced that aa action came into play had no comments on the other white guys who were accepted.</p>
<p>“I’m thinking she might have meant 60/40 women to men, not the other way around. And not to achieve this exact value, but to be less than 60/40, and more towards 50/50. It seems that some places are not achieving this, even now.”</p>
<p>Yes, I meant 60% female, and most LACs struggle mightily to achieve that. They strive to attain that ratio because the colleges have found that when even fewer men attend, women stop applying.</p>
<p>“Originally Posted by sorghum
OK, how about 2100 vs 2400, you still flip a coin?”</p>
<p>Students aren’t competing against just one other student. They are competing against an application pool.</p>
<p>The relatively few colleges that factor things beside stats and (for publics) state of residence are looking at the composition of the class they are creating. </p>
<p>They aren’t comparing 2100 SAT students to 2300 SAT students. They are checking to see if they need more students from the Pacific Northwest, or more poor students or more students who will major in Asian studies or classics. And yes, they also are checking to make sure that they have a racially diverse student body.</p>
<p>Consequently, when they look at the students you’re mentioning, what may pop out is “prospective classics major from Oregon” versus "biochem major from D.C.) or maybe marvelously interesting essay versus yet another essay about a deceased grandmom.</p>
<p>SAT and GPA are significant factors in Harvard admission. Higher scores are better than lower scores. Higher scores make a person more qualified. Generally, a person with 2400 is more intelligent than a person with 2100. Many other factors are considered, of course, and being able to run a mile in 4 minutes will make up for a lot.</p>
<p>The “marvelously interesting essay” will be judged alongside other factors, including SAT and GPA. Such as, this is a marvelously interesting essay but 2100 is kinda low.</p>
<p>“The “marvelously interesting essay” will be judged alongside other factors, including SAT and GPA. Such as, this is a marvelously interesting essay but 2100 is kinda low.”</p>
<p>Yes. Still, the applicant also will be assessed in terms of how s/he helps create the kind of class that Harvard wants.</p>
<p>“Yes. Still the applicant also will be assessed in terms of how s/he helps create the kind of class that Harvard wants.”</p>
<p>What drives people crazy is when the factors that Harvard “wants” are things that are totally out of their control and can’t be changed. When it’s not a question of a great essay, an interesting life experience, or passionate EC’s, but race, sex, geography, money, or legacy. No applicant has control of those factors and of course it’s frustrating and feels unfair to be chosen or not chosen because of one of those factors. Add opaqueness to the procedure and everyone perpetually wonders if one of those uncontrollable factors was at play.</p>
<p>I’ve heard people say that of the thousands of qualified applicants applying to the ivies, it’s basically a crap shoot who will get in. I can understand why universities want to create an interesting and balanced class, and how, above a certain threshold, stats become unimportant, but I wish it didn’t feel like some people were being given loaded dice.</p>
<p>Still, NSM, the woman who made that comment to you was way out of line.</p>
<p>“I’ve heard people say that of the thousands of qualified applicants applying to the ivies, it’s basically a crap shoot who will get in. I can understand why universities want to create an interesting and balanced class, and how, above a certain threshold, stats become unimportant, but I wish it didn’t feel like some people were being given loaded dice.”</p>
<p>Everyone is given loaded dice. That’s life.</p>
<p>There are plenty of people who have the brains to be able to flourish at a place like Harvard, but through no fault of their own, they won’t even go to college.</p>
<p>I’m referring to people who are in developing countries, who have undiagnosed LDs, who have parents who are abusive and nonsupportive, who are foster kids, who are kids who are very poor and attended a variety of horrendous schools.</p>
<p>Anyone who is fortunate enough to be able to apply to Harvard already has had a lot of unearned blessings in their life, and would be better off being appreciative of the options they have instead of envying others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@@ Are you a parent or student?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An odd question.</p>
<p>Do you doubt that IQ (or any reasonable measure of intelligence) and SAT score are significantly correlated?</p>
<p>I missed the clarification if the other student who got in was an Asian Indian or Native American. Asian Indians are ORM and Native Americans are URM. In fact there are enough threads around CC that state the Asian Indians and those of Chinese Origin face reverse discrimination especially in the top colleges. So that throws that argument out of water.</p>
<p>It appears that the other ladies mind was set, she is not going to listen to reason and perceptions will not change for a long time. What OP said was appropriate and OP should let go. No point will be served by confronting the other lady.</p>
<p>In response to the OPs interlocutor, I would have said nothing. But I assure you that some admits are weaker students than some who were rejected. I have had many students who would not have been admitted but for their hooks. (Of course, many students with hooks were very strong and would have been admitted without the hook.) As an institution we benefit from having athletes, legacies, faculty children and URMs in the student body, but that should not blind us to the fact that some admits are weaker students than some who were rejected.</p>
<p>They may very well be. As well as parental income / education. Which correlates with legacy status, too. But that’s not the point. The 2100 isn’t going to hang at the back of the Harvard classroom crying, “I don’t understand what they’re talking about! Won’t someone please dumb it down for me!” while the 2400 goes to the blackboard and brilliantly solves the equation. Both are more than fine to handle any academic experience that H may throw at them. </p>
<p>The reason that I ask whether you are a student or a parent is that this 2400 >>>>> 2100 is a very student-like thing to say.</p>
<p>There are many kinds of “intelligence” sorghum. Your definition is too narrow.</p>