<p>Okay, here’s an admission: this post was an impulsive experiment. I’d hoped maybe a few more people would respond before I revealed my ruse, but I’m going to leave work soon and I want to conclude this thing before I do so. </p>
<p>Before I continue, let me thank the three of you who replied both for your answers and what appears to be a sincere desire to help other posters.</p>
<p>Now, on the chase…</p>
<p>The truth is, I applied to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA, and Cal in 2002. My applications were filled with, among other things, the details I listed above. Save Princeton, every school accepted me.</p>
<p>I’m now a graduate of one of the HYPS group, a status that not only gives me some insight into what qualifications my fellow students possessed before they were admitted but also allowed me to work in my alma maters office of undergraduate admission for a time.</p>
<p>I decided to post the fake query above because this site frustrates me. So many people (and I hope the people who replied here don’t take offense, since, as I mentioned, they seem sincerely altruistic) log on and spout profoundly incorrect advice, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes, it seems, to compensate for uncertainties about their own worthiness. Black and white generalization rule the day in virtually every thread, with people whove scored in the SATs 99th percentile (my 1600-scale score was 97th percentile; if my SAT II Writing were included, it would convert to a 99th percentile 2400-scale score) being told they just cant compete. Abstract requirements for hooks or Intel Prize recognition pepper almost every what are my chances post. Meanwhile, meaningful application material the essays, for example is disregarded altogether. </p>
<p>To be fair, I understand this reasoning: while we can never trust someones appraisal of their own essays, especially since writing is judged so subjectively and is impossible to quantify, we can make assumptions based on hard statistics, like test scores. Thats fine. But a number of posters extrapolate to ridiculous extremes, declaring, as though endowed with a Dean of Admissions authority, that someones test scores alone do or do not qualify them for admission. Responses frequently overlook objective analysis, eschewing the qualifications and provisos such evaluations demand for dramatic reject! proclamations punctuated with incredibly flawed reasoning (You gotta have at least a 2200 for Harvard to even read your applicationunless youre an athlete/ minority/ whatever, etc.).</p>
<p>Herere some real facts: </p>
<p>A) Anything over a 2100 gets you a look. Yes, having a 2400 gives you a better shot, but sub-700 scores in individual subjects are hardly uncommon. Granted, they dont grace Ivy League campuses quite as often as, say, hubris does, but they arent exactly academic sasquatches either. Whats more, those scores in the 640s, 660s, and so forth occur across all demographics, not just among the athletes or underrepresented minorities. White kids even ones who lack a hook, like I did are not doomed by a single weak subject.</p>
<p>B) As the only application component that lets evaluators judge a student in wholly unquantifiable terms, the essay is far and away the most important aspect a school will evaluate. Granted, even a Shakespeare-level composition wont compensate for a test score well beneath matriculated students middle 50% range, but a number of students in the 2050-2250 are chosen for big envelopes over their 2300+ peers because they write thoughtful, articulate essays. </p>
<p>C) Passion means more than perfect grades. Colleges like to admit well-rounded classesand doing so means accepting a number of students with rough edges who cumulatively form a diverse community. If an applicant demonstrates a clear, intense, and extraordinary passion for, say, chemistry, Yale probably will forgive a students 680 Critical Reading score. Likewise, if a student has been a published journalist in a major publication since he was 15 (like I wassorry, forgot to mention that in the first post), Harvard might overlook a relatively modest math score. An incredible number of students write applications based on what they imagine schools want to hear and admissions officials develop something akin to a sixth sense when it comes to cutting through the B.S. They can differentiate genuine passion from manufactured, calculated efforts. Likewise, they can tell which ostensibly excellent students will just fade into the background of a college campus and which students with somewhat lower marks will contribute vibrantly to the universitys culture. Believe it or not, most schools would prefer someone with a 2150 whos going to be an energetic force than the 2400-scoring valedictorian who lacks intellectual curiosity and motivation.</p>
<p>In short, my point is this: too many people on this site purport to know things they clearly do not know (feel free to assume Im part of that group if youre feeling snarky, but it doesnt necessarily negate my point) and too many people speak in absolutist tones when proper analysis requires shades of gray. Admission is a funny game. You can deduce trends to your hearts content, but the truth is, to a very large extent, no one knows anything and the sort of half-assed prognostication that typifies this site shouldnt be taken seriously.</p>