<p>At the end of the day, Harvard is a PRIVATE institution, so it can do whatever it wants. Harvard admits different people with different talents in order to create an evironment that is interesting. You cannot learn from people that think the same way as you. Someone who has a 2300+ SAT score and is in the top 1% will surely be admitted to at least one Ivy League school. No Ivy League school claimed to be meritocratic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we should keep in mind that the vast majority of colleges in this country aren’t that selective in absolute terms. Many of your average State U’s average ACT score among incoming Freshmen hover around 22-24 ACT. So, it’s not like admitting an athlete with 19 ACT for athletic merit isn’t forcing the admissions committee to be that much more generous to those sports athletes anyway.</p>
<p>At a school such as Harvard, we’re witnessing people with 36 ACT with perfect transcript getting DENIED while many of those dumb kids with 26 ACT and middling grades are GETTING IN, for sports recruitment or URM status or whatever. The point stands that this huge discrepancy among accepted students regarding their academic credentials suggest the unfairness and illegitimacy of this admissions system at Harvard.</p>
<p>Lastly, like I mentioned, MOST of those recruited athletes at Harvard or other top Ivies aren’t amazing athletes to begin with, anyway. So, on what basis or merit do these athletes get admitted to Harvard?</p>
<p>I was under the impression that “ivy athletes are stupid” ( i.e.“terrible SAT scores”) was a myth. Or maybe you mean 700 is terrible. </p>
<p><a href=“Before Athletic Recruiting in the Ivy League, Some Math - The New York Times”>Before Athletic Recruiting in the Ivy League, Some Math - The New York Times;
<p>Actually, I don’t think I’ve heard that, so maybe it’s not even a myth.</p>
<p>Don’t recruited athletes work just as hard as the “typical Asian” that you guys are talking about? That recruited athlete most likely spent numerous hours everyday since a young age waking up early and practicing dam hard. If he put that time into studying for the SAT and such, there’s no reason that he would not be on par with the “typical Asian.” Same effort, different achievement.</p>
<p>They accept on would make the campus unique. Mostly those people are different from others and are special in their own way</p>
<p>rymugsy: I understand I took a very generalized view towards Asians. Obviously, every race and ethnicity is going to have a range of people within it, all with varying and differentiating components. My argument was against cookie-cutter asians, who should be accepted, according to floridadad55’s logic, solely because of their high test scores and academic performance. </p>
<p>Think of your typical asian (I know a lot of them through the math competition community). They are hard-working, driven, and get good grades. What they often lack, however, is a true sense of identity. Harvard has enough insanely smart people, it needs personality as well. Not to say that the various Asian cultures are less rich than say Hispanic and African-American cultures, but it seems that when it comes to college applications the trend amongst Asians is to focus heavily on the numbers game at the expense of personality and identity.</p>
<p>You touched upon the differences between race and ethnicity. My father is arab as well (from Lebanon). I, too, am labeled as fully “white,” but ethnically I am a farcry from your regular Joe. I don’t believe that every Hispanic (or any other URM) has a specific diversity they bring to the table. In fact, I feel that is one of the reasons I believe I was deferred from Harvard. Looking back on my application I realized that I never developed who I was as a person (should have written that supplemental essay…). All Harvard saw regarding my identity is that my mother is from Spain, my father is from Lebanon. They didn’t assume I’d have a unique perspective because of my heritage because, quite simply, I didn’t show them one. I’ve said it 100 times, but it bears repeating. Harvard is looking for a dynamic and diverse body of people, not numbers. Those URMs admitted with lower SAT and ACT scores stand out because of who they are, not what they are.</p>
<p>OP, you have been on cc for 2 years so I’m assuming you knew what H’s admissions policies were before your brother applied. Had he been admitted, he would have been cheering on those same football players you are now objecting to, and you would be wearing the Harvard sweatshirt he sent you. Why would you send an application fee to a school that you feel admits unworthy students?</p>
<p>@GreyWolf and rymugsy, is it really true that Harvard sees, for instance, an Irish applicant and an Arabic applicant as the same? It doesn’t make sense to me. I’m fully Yemeni and I certainly don’t see myself as white. And also, given how well I know my people, I seriously doubt that there are more than 5 Yemenis at Harvard right now. Wouldn’t I being contributing to this cherished “diversity” then?</p>
<p>While being middle-eastern is an ethnicity, racially you are still considered white. On the Common App, for instance, you would first list White and then expand by selecting Middle Eastern (and European in my case). </p>
<p>It’s not a quota. There isn’t a set number of acceptances from various countries or regions. Harvard, and most other elite institutions, just want a diverse student body. This diversity also extends past racial or ethnic definitions. They want people with varied interests and goals. The entire campus can’t be economics majors for instance. I think that for any applicant, your best bet is just to show the school who you are. What is it that makes you unique? Why do you stand out? How would Harvard benefit from having you on their campus? </p>
<p>Think of it as an unorthodox puzzle. Every applicant starts off as a single square piece. Yet with every bit of information you add, you piece transforms, gaining more and more intricacies and protrusions. It may be that no matter what you add to your application, your puzzle piece will never fit into the grand puzzle that Harvard is constructing. But with every additional bit of yourself you show to Harvard, the better your chance that your piece (hopefully now as complex and multi-dimensional as you are) will find someplace that it can fit.</p>
<p>It’s really late and I’m exhausted, so that extended metaphor may not have made any sense when written. However, it makes sense in my mind, and if necessary I’ll come back and tweak it after some sleep.</p>
<p>I think GreyWolf you’re forgetting the fact that you go to college to learn, not to get an experience of different cultures. If you want that, move to New York and work at McDonalds. I think you’re being disgenuous; when was the last time you saw an Asian and a black kid hanging out together at your school. Although it would be nice for all races and cultures to mix freely that’s not exactly how the world works or probably ever will. I’m trying to be pragmatic here. If we’re all created equal and we have the 15th ammendment after all it just seems racist to me. Why should a kid who works twice as hard and has much better stats and etc. get rejected over the URM just because of the color of his or her skin. If we’re all supposed to see people as equal why should race play into it? I see many Asians here complaining that they have less of a chance to get in just because of their skin and some argue that it is a conflict of interest but I’m not Asian so that doesn’t apply. I understand that people get tired of your stereotypical Asian that has high grades, plays an instrument, has a high sat math score, average cr score, and is the valedictorian, but do you honestly believe that the URMs are admitted for “who they are” and not the color of their skin? That seems a bit quixotic because I am sure an ORM could write just as good of an essay as a URM which is the main place one gets to display his or her “identity” or “diversity.”</p>
<p>Please don’t take this too personally as this is kind of a rambling rant but I think with a few good points none the less.</p>
<p>@grizzman25
"At the end of the day, Harvard is a PRIVATE institution, so it can do whatever it wants. "</p>
<p>That is a completely fallacious arguement; just because someone does something does not make it right. This is not a discussion of whether or not it (Harvard) can do it but rather whether or not it should.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>are you kidding me?! i’m asian and i hang out with my black friends all the time! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>frankly, i find this awful! if you don’t believe that just working toward an environment of mutual understanding and respect is worthwhile, even on as small a scale as Harvard, in my eyes, the rest of your argument has no foundation to stand on</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Millions of students don’t score perfect on SAT. In fact, only a handful at best do so. (less than three thousand students per year in the entire nation) You are talking like SAT is a joke of a test and anyone can master it. That is a ridiculous view point.</p>
<p>2) Like it or not, an applicant’s SAT scores along with other academic credentials, such as class rank, GPA, or course selection, reveal more light into the individual’s motivation, intellectual potential, and academic promise compared to any other factors in the equation.</p>
<p>In addition, academic credentials serve as the most objective and reliable source of application. Let’s face it - there may be many applicants who get help on their application essays to game the system, or present false extra curricular activities. In fact, I knew several kids from my high school back when I was applying to colleges who had lied to colleges that they were captains in varsity basketball, soccer, or lacrosse teams in our high school. However, all of that was incorrect; in fact one guy wasn’t on the basketball team in our school. At the end of the day, an applicant can disguise his/her personality and mold it into certain shape in order to appease admissions committee. Even if this guy can be the most boring, unaccomplished, or unremarkable type of person, all that matters is that he can get away with it by writing a persuasive essay. </p>
<p>So, admissions officers are talking ‘holistic admissions’. Then, how can they really objectively, and correctly, judge how certain applicant is really the person that s/he is portraying him/herself in the application? Just based on the essay? Based on two letters of recommendation? Come on. I could see admissions officers taking ‘soft’ factors into the equation with a limited weight, yet, at a school such as Harvard (or any other Ivy for that matter) they should evaluate an applicant’s academic profiles with much more weight and vigil than any other components of application. (yes, that includes the athletic ability or the color of skin of applicants)</p>
<p>3) Like it or not, the world in which we live in circles much more around the numbers, hard facts, and clear results, not some arbitrary ‘soft’ factors. Getting into top law school or medical school is 95% all based on your college GPA and standardized test scores. Being successful as a Wall Street trader at Bulge Bracket requires you accomplishing certain results and hitting certain numbers. Getting that top job at a top law firm, top investment bank, or top management consulting firm (McK, Bain, or BCG) takes that you have very certain credentials and numbers. (top GPA + top school pedigree + strong interviewing skills) Indeed, it seems that Harvard admissions at undergrad level seems to deviate from how most others function. It seems to lack objectivity, fairness, and equation, but rather promotes undue advantages to certain groups, promotes unpredictability, and injects absurdity.</p>
<p>“In addition, academic credentials serve as the most objective and reliable source of application. Let’s face it - there may be many applicants who get help on their application essays to game the system, or present false extra curricular activities. In fact, I knew several kids from my high school back when I was applying to colleges who had lied to colleges that they were captains in varsity basketball, soccer, or lacrosse teams in our high school. However, all of that was incorrect; in fact one guy wasn’t on the basketball team in our school. At the end of the day, an applicant can disguise his/her personality and mold it into certain shape in order to appease admissions committee. Even if this guy can be the most boring, unaccomplished, or unremarkable type of person, all that matters is that he can get away with it by writing a persuasive essay.”</p>
<p>Those are very true words and they especially apply in international nations where admission officers cannot easily identify the veracity of somethings. Sure you can’t fake a siemens or an intel or an olympiad. But I know several people that fake leadership positions in clubs and sports teams. While not as big as an olympiad, this could be the little “nudge” that an admission officer needs if they’re confused. An objection would be that this veracity could be shown in essays which really aren’t passionate. I beg to differ, these people are extremely smart and one would be forced to believe that they are in those positions.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if you’re arguing against the idea of recruitment or the idea of holistic admissions. These are two different concepts with two different tracks in admissions.</p>
<p>Recruitment means that kids with significantly lower numbers (although the standards are still high relative to the average, no one is ‘dumb as a rock’ as you quite offensively put it) get accepted over kids with higher numbers because they’ve been independently scouted and were concluded to have athletic talents that Harvard needs. Harvard is an institution, and part of maintaining that institution means ensuring that “school spirit” (for lack of a better term) exists for students and alumni. One of the obvious ways to do this in our society is through varsity sports, particularly football. “School spirit” is important not only for alumni donations but also for more subtle things like the innumerable Harvard alum professionals that come to Harvard each year to speak and mentor for student groups and events, and the networking that often privileges Harvard students for internships and jobs.</p>
<p>Harvard needs a quarterback. They don’t need your brother. That’s the reality. If you want to argue that Harvard shouldn’t need a quarterback, you also need to argue that they should get rid of a lot of things that aren’t purely academic. Then you need to define “purely academic.” At the end of the road, you get to a standard that simply isn’t realistic for this nearly 400 year old institution.</p>
<p>As for holistic admissions, this means that kids with slightly lower numbers get accepted over kids with 2400s, or, better put, it means that numbers aren’t everything. The problem is that you’re equating “merit” to “numbers” which is quite a bad equation. Generally speaking, higher numbers signify greater aptitude, and this is why a 2400 has a measurably better shot at Harvard than a 2200 and this is why valedictorians have a 40% admissions rate compared to the overall rate of 7% or whatever it is. But numbers alone don’t determine a student’s likelihood of “success,” a term that encompasses many things.</p>
<p>You use Harvard law as an example of a more “meritocratic” system where an LSAT / GPA combination can be used to reliably predict your chances of admission to a school. To be honest, I’m not familiar with the justification for this rationale vs that of the college, but I would guess it has something to do with the coursework at Harvard Law being more or less the same for everyone and requiring the same set of skills. This allows law schools to identify a standard representation of these skills, ie the LSAT, along with some measure of ambition and scholastic “functionality” ie the GPA. The College, alternatively, offers a wide variety of paths, requires diverse skills, and offers multiple avenues to “success.”</p>
<p>I’m also not convinced by your argument that the credibility of “soft” factors is undermined by fraud, or “gaming the system” as you put it. I’m skeptical that this happens on a large enough scale that we can talk about altering a policy that affects 30,000 applicants, and your claim suggests that Harvard admissions officers’ decisions are totally impressionable toward these fraudulent claims. The truth is that merely listing accomplishments is not very helpful in admissions. If they are significant enough to be helpful by their own merit, they are significant enough to be crosschecked. </p>
<p>To conclude, you argue that</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a false dichotomy. Yes, the world in which we live highly values the numbers, and so does Harvard admissions. You are arguing for a system that discounts soft factors, which is quite silly. Your choice to bring up consulting is quite interesting, because those jobs are a poor example of your point. What sets apart applicants for consulting jobs is prior experience, problem solving skills, and interview skills. GPA for them, like for Harvard, is a threshold. My GPA at Harvard is quite high, and if you think I can just apply to McKinsey and beat out people with 3.6s with more experience than me, you’re totally wrong. </p>
<p>My friend at Harvard just got a job at Goldman. Her SAT was in the 2100 range. Anecdotal examples and all that, but…</p>
<p>Where did some of you get the idea that most recruited athletes at these elite institutions are dumb or working less hard than those with a 2300+ SAT score? My S spent 24 hours a week training for his sport outside of his IB schoolwork. During this Christmas break, he gets up at 5 am and trains for 5 hours every day except for Christmas day. After such physical exhaustion, he picks himself up and studies for schoolwork and standardized tests. He may not be able to get a SAT score higher than 2300, but the character and determination that the sport gives him is worth much more than 2400 in SAT. I am glad that the H admission considers such qualities.</p>
<p>Here’s the video: [Harvard</a> Admissions Dean Fitzsimmons Interview (On Harvard Time) - YouTube](<a href=“Harvard Admissions Dean Fitzsimmons Interview (On Harvard Time) - YouTube”>Harvard Admissions Dean Fitzsimmons Interview (On Harvard Time) - YouTube) ;that Schadelbrecher mentioned earlier in this thread. Harvard Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, William Fitzsimmons, discusses what makes the ideal candidate and breaks down the range of students they accept.</p>
<p>I agree with 5amriser. The draw of an athlete isn’t just that the Harvard racquetball team needs a player, but that balancing a commitment to a varsity sports team (often 20+ hours a week). This is very difficult and proves their ability to balance the academic and extra-curricular atmosphere at Ivies. I’m not saying that other students don’t demonstrate that with their extracurriculars (violin, science olympiad etc), but it is a solid way to measure someone’s extra-curricular commitment and often demonstrates a rare set of skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone with 26 or 27 ACT is, quite honestly, seriously sub-par for Harvard standards. Heck, those scores were sub-par even for the state flagship university in my home state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard prides itself on attracting the best talents. And, its argument for admitting those athletes despite their lower intelligence and lower academic profile seems to be purely based on their athletic merit. </p>
<p>That begs the question: then why doesn’t Harvard recruit truly elite athletes? Obviously, Harvard varsity sports teams are pathetic compared to the talent level that exists at programs such as USC, U Texas, U Florida, OSU, U Michigan, UCLA, Stanford, Georgetown, Duke, UNC, etc.</p>
<p>Like I said, if Harvard is to ignore academic profile and admit sports recruits based on their athletic talent, they should try to, first and foremost, admit and recruit Kobe Bryant or Tom Brady-type of athletes, not those bunches of middling no-name amateur-league-level athletes with mediocre SAT scores. </p>
<p>Look at Stanford. Yes, Stanford is truly an elite school, both in academics and athletics. Its varsity basketball and football teams are especially very strong and they tend to crack top 10 each year. They recruit very best (athletic) talent. Clearly, I think Harvard is doing things very wrong. Hence, why I fail to see the justification for admitting these recruited athletes despite terrible scores. Harvard either needs to: 1) clearly admit athletes who are much more academically qualified, OR 2) admit athletes who are much more athletic or good at what they do, AND, 3) Right now, they’re admitting people who aren’t either ‘elite’ athletes nor ‘elite’ students, taking spots away from other much more qualified applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are a current college student and have the experience of applying to colleges, you would know that colleges do not verify the validity of your essays or extra curricular/leadership activities and check if those activities or leaderships were truly your accomplishment or not. </p>
<p>In hindsight, I could have forged my entire college application, outside of my transcript and SAT, and I would have gotten away with it very easily. I could have been the captain of three varsity sports teams at my high school. I could be the president of my high school class for all four years. Whether I actually had those leadership involvements or not is irrelevant, because the point stands that I can lie about those things and still get away with it rather too easily. (and, like I said I knew several kids from my high school who did this exact thing when applying to colleges)</p>
<p>The point in question here isn’t whether a large enough quantity of applicants to Harvard lie about their leadership or extra curricular activities when they apply. But, it is more the concern that it is a strong POSSIBILITY that any given individual in question has the potential to be dishonest about his/her non-academic credentials when applying to Harvard. </p>
<p>Then, would it make sense to incorporate these ‘soft factors’ such as an applicant’s leadership accomplishments or application essays into the equation with significant weight?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What difference does it make whether a student is studying law or humanities or sciences? In the end, SAT measures potential for academic performance at college level and LSAT for law school. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, I do believe that Harvard Law has vastly high concentration of highly intelligent and academically gifted student body, while for Harvard undergrad, it seems like it is more of a mixed bag, ranging from brilliant students to people who frankly shouldn’t be there in the first place.</p>
<p>If you don’t like the way Harvard tries to admit a diverse class, you can apply to a UC school like UCLA or Berkeley. I just don’t get why people think that the only way you can admit is by looking at numbers. I think it is naive to say that a colleges only job is to be academic. College is a time for self-discovery through experiencing different cultures and ideas, not a time to throw people with the same stats together so they can all fight for a top grade. Writing thesis long posts about the injustices of seeing someone with a low score get accepted by a prestigious school does not solve anything.</p>