<p>So after reading some Harvard "actual results" threads, I was very shocked to see what kind of people were rejected(perfect-score valedictorians who were intel finalistsx3 and have thoroughly followed their passion, etc..). On the other hand, I've seen some accepted applicants who claim to be nothing extraordinary(no hooks either). Do they say this out of their humbleness, or is it true that there are "normal" people who do get accepted to Harvard(I mean no hook, URM, low income, recruited athlete,legacy, etc)? </p>
<p>I've taken advantage of the resources that my school offers, but I don't think there's anything outstanding about me by CC standards. I always knew I wanted to major in the sciences, but it was not until recently that I fell in love with neuroscience. I've taken advantage of many science-related EC's, but they're not directed at neurology(or rather neurobiology, since this is the concentration offered at Harvard)...and now it's too late :( (I have two metals from Sci olym, 3rd in state trophy for sci bowl, 2nd at nationals for HOSA(health-career related), am doing a research project right now(hoping to get it in the publishing process/enter Siemens by the time college apps go out), and have founded my school's chapter of sci NHS(we go over to the middle school to get them pumped up about science through cool demonstrations, offer free sci tutoring, scholarships, a chance to attend a neuroscience summer program at Emory, and a corporate sponsorship w/ Institute of Neuroscience, so now kids from my school can participate in international "brain" bee) I've done everything I could, but it's no where near enough compared to others on CC. Anyways, I was wondering if everyone who gets accepted to Harvard has done everything possible in their field of interest, or if everyday high-achieving students get in, too. </p>
<p>Current students/alumni, please shed some light on my confusion :) </p>
<p>“Normal” people are certainly accepted as are the truly extraordinary. The adcoms pass judgement on the potentials of applicants and make human decisions which may or may not be either rational or correct.</p>
<p>collegeinfo 1994 – almost every freshman I have met felt that they were the “lucky mistake the admissions office made by admitting them”…send in your application, cross your fingers and hope you are lucky but have a back up plan just in case.</p>
<p>I second that… you see occasional people who must have been shoo-ins, but the vast majority are just very good students who have shown that they can contribute in one way or another</p>
<p>No, there is no misrepresentation, as you said, they say they had “nothing going for them” and that is the truth; for the vast majority of applicants there is certainly not any discernible characteristic or award that gained them entry to Harvard. Picking a class is an art, not a science.</p>
<p>^I would take the CC reported results with caution. Not only is it a small sample size of self selected people, some people embellish what they have, while others under-report for a variety of possible reasons (privacy/anonymity issue being one of them). Something you might have noticed is how people described the teachers’ recs that they’ve never read: “OMG the best!” verses “probably good?” ;)</p>
<p>Then here’re some more points: I think you secretly believe you do have a great chance at the top schools, which is why you have the confidence to keep asking people in a variety of ways for your “chances”. Outwardly you try to insist that there’s nothing going for you, whereas in reality you believe the opposite and you’re mostly seeking the reassurance from someone that you’ll get in.</p>
<p>xrCalico, if I knew I had a great chance, I wouldn’t be on CC. I thought I had a shot until I saw the posts on this board.</p>
<p>Biomd1, I wiiiish Would’ve been awesome. It’s medicine-related, though. There are no neuroscience labs here that take anyone who’s not a grad student/ has a degree.</p>
<p>Oh and btw, xrCalico, the only reason I ask is because there are parents, current Harvard students, and alumni who know a lot more about admissions than I do. I didn’t even know what SCEA was until like 2 months ago. Some people have been CC members for years now and I could really use their advice.</p>
<p>Then this board is giving you a distorted view of college admissions. I honestly don’t know why someone with state and national awards along with good grades wouldn’t think of her/himself as having a good shot—What more can you do?</p>
<p>I’m lacking in sports and artistic ability. Also, I’m interested in the sciences, which means I have to compete against applicants(w/ perfect scores and grades) who not only have placed in Chem, Bio, physics, or math olympiad(s), but have also been finalsts for Intel and Siemens several times. </p>
So would you guys say the “actual results” threads misrepresent the total applicant population?</p>
Would’ve been awesome. It’s medicine-related, though. There are no neuroscience labs here that take anyone who’s not a grad student/ has a degree.</p>