<p>I have heard about Harvard rejecting people with perfect scores and 4.0s but how rare is that? Do people with lower GPAs but high SAT scores and incredible ECs even have a chance at Ivies?</p>
<p>How low the GPA, how high the SAT, and how incredible the ECS?</p>
<p>I think the statistic was Harvard rejects half of those who score a perfect 2400 on their SATs.</p>
<p>That is what I heard too, I was wondering if Harvard accepted those with a lower GPA, like 3.5-3.4.</p>
<p>Not likely, but not impossible if there is some really outstanding hook.</p>
<p>Some are more numbers driven than others. For example, Dartmouth is more numbers driven than Brown.</p>
<p>like mythmom said, with a gpa of 3.4 / 3.5 you'd need a great hook, although its not unheard of to be accepted (especially if you play a sport haha)</p>
<p>I think the Ivies are numbers-driven only in the sense that they have the luxury of setting a very high bar on GPA and SAT. Passing that bar doesn't mean you're in; it only means you'll be considered, along with several thousand other applicants who also cross that threshold. Being under the bar (e.g., 3.5 GPA ^^) doesn't automatically mean you're out, only that you'll need to offer something really extraordinary to compensate and get yourself into the competitive pool. But no one's a shoo-in at any of the Ivies; no one. Once you're in the super-elite pool they're considering, they'll look for things that make you unique. And they're not just evaluating individual applicants, they're looking for a good mix. You might be the world's best piccolo player but if they've already decided to accept the world's second- and third-best piccolo players, you may be out of luck.</p>
<p>What exactly would the great hook have to be? Would an incredible EC do? I was wondering if anyone know of others who got in with a less impressive GPA</p>
<p>You really need to give more detail...</p>
<p>Yeah, if you are a bestselling author, I'm sure Harvard won't care too much about your GPA.</p>
<p>It's reported that Albert Einstein did poorly in secondary school and failed the entrance exam for the first technical college he applied to, though he did spectacularly well in the math and physics sections of the exam. I'm sure Harvard would like to think they'd admit an Einstein, though one wonders whether their admissions process is capable of spotting one in the crowd.</p>
<p>Thomas Edison was kicked out of elementary school and never had much formal schooling, preferring his incessant tinkering. I very much doubt he'd make the cut at HYPS, nor would he care to.</p>
<p>Pablo Picasso dropped out of school at 16 and never looked back. I doubt a Picasso would apply, but if he did, I'm sure once again Harvard would say they'd look kindly on that kind of "hook." Problem is, Picasso was unknown and impoverished at the usual college age, reportedly burning a large fraction of his own work one cold winter to keep his Paris apartment heated. Not likely he'd pass the screen.</p>
<p>Seriously, athletics will sometimes work as a "hook," or maybe something exceptional in the performing arts. But it's got to be a talent that will do something for Harvard, not just for the world as with an Einstein, Edison, or Picasso. Much as they'd like to think they're teaching and developing the best and the brightest, IMHO HYPS are in fact about the business of educating the best and brightest among the more-or-less-conventional-to-only-slightly-offbeat---NOT the truly radical and creative free thinkers who change the world.</p>
<p>bclintonk: You do realize that you just wrote "do something for Harvard, not just for the world", right?</p>
<p>Most of the Ivies use a holistic process as your application is looked at in context of the opportunities that you have been given. It is mostly based on the premise of those to whom much has been given, much is required. GPA and scores could be considered the cake and the rest of your application would be considered the frosting.</p>
<p>More generally, any college that accepts the Common Application (some Ivy League colleges, many other Ivy Plus colleges, and hundreds of colleges in total) promises, as part of the Common Application agreement, to consider subjective factors and not just what can be summed up by numbers. </p>
<p>Regarding Post #1:
Even through last year ('06-'07) I would have said top schools are
numbers driven and are focused on high GPAs, this year ('07-'08) I
have seen clear evidence of focus on the perfect SAT score
and not the GPA. The Ecs continue to remain important and contribute
to the subjective factors in Post #12 by tokenadult.</p>
<p>One passionate EC (no major awards) + low GPA (B Average) and
2400 score seems to have worked very well for the non-URM, non-legacy,
non-athlete applicant at multiple top colleges.</p>
<pre><code> ** versus **
</code></pre>
<p>One passionate EC (no major awards) + Perfect GPA and just shy
of 2300 score + athlete (regional level) at the same colleges for the
other non-URM applicant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I think they're more attuned to their interests as an institution than to what they, or you, can do for the world. Einstein, Edison, and Picasso all did a lot for the world. I'm not sure any of them would have done all that much for Harvard had they applied as undergrads, consequently I'm skeptical that any of them would have been accepted. Just wouldn't contribute much to the undergraduate mix Harvard is trying to create. But I don't mean to pick on Harvard, I think that's true of most schools. They all want "unique individuals" with "special talents," just as long as they're not so unique and special that they don't fit the conventional mold. True genius need not apply.</p>
<p>You can have awful numbers but if your immediate relations are named Bush, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Gates, Rothschild, Wales, Hunt, etc.... the Ivies will welcome you into the fold.</p>
<p>In other words: if it's in their interest, you'll get into an Ivy no matter what your numbers are. It's all about their interests. That's how these schools got to be The Ivies.</p>
<p>Numbers-driven for the most part. There is some leeway, if an applicant has an exceptional hook, but it's not as generous as I had thought.</p>
<p>I was admitted to all of my top LACs, which are just as selective--even more so, one might argue--as the Ivy League schools, yet I was flat-out rejected by all of the Ivies I applied to.</p>
<p>Well, yes and no. You need the numbers, but that's rarely good enough (what is, when you're competing with more than 10 times the number of people who can actually be accepted?).</p>
<p>what about the academic index? do they actually use it...or is it a myth?</p>
<p>I personally think that the AI is absolutely useless. Why? Just calculate using your GPA. Then calculate with your rank. Unless you are top-ranked or have an absolutely horrible GPA, your AIs will be completely different.</p>
<p>some of us are missing the big point here. what the schools are looking for is not the smartest student. what these top name schools are looking for is the next potentially successful person, based on a holistic viewpoint of one's credentials. which sort of goes back to what katliamom said about members of prominent families...because of their status, they are highly likely to be successful even if they aren't the brightest kids. sort of.</p>
<p>hence our president going to yale :)</p>