<p>"One guy I know that was shut out of HYPS:
-straight A's from a high school like Bronx Science
-most advanced curriculum, taking junior level college math classes by senior year
-did reasonably impressive research
-double legacy at Harvard
-top 150 in country in math (USAMO qualifier when only 150 made it)
-national champion ARML team + many other math/science awards
-his recs must have been awesome because he was a genius
-near perfect stats
-had some other ECs that he did for fun but no "hooks""</p>
<p>When I read something like this, I really have to wonder whether this student had some kind of "anti-hook" that doesn't show up here--perhaps something that others don't even know about. Otherwise it's nuts for Harvard, in particular, to reject the student.</p>
<p>Perhaps his essays or recommendations were poor? Sometimes really bright people with poor personal skills can be perceived as arrogant. </p>
<p>Or, was he so sure of his being accepted because he is clearly at the top of the heap academically, that he did not put adequate time and care into his actual application (sort of just "phoning it in")--sometimes I think admissions offices tale a perverse pride in rejecting applicants who come across as being too sure of themselves.</p>
<p>Or maybe he has a criminal record. Or maybe one of his parents has personal conflicts with somebody in admissions. Or maybe one of his recs was not so great after all. It may be that if you could be fly on the wall in the admissions office, some of these mystifying rejections wouldn't be so hard to understand after alll.</p>
<p>^^Criminal record LOL. The guy was very modest and down-to-earth. Coming from a family where your brother is on the U.S. math olympics team sometimes does that (counting his brother, he was actually a triple legacy.)</p>
<p>Frankly, the guys who were arrogant but had much less talent were more successful. </p>
<p>Also, I will add that there 3 other USAMO qualifiers (top 150 in country) with similar accomplishments that didn't get into Harvard that year. (Basically, our entire math team was on the ARML championship team that year.) Harvard took one USAMO qualifier from our school who was a verifiable genius, and he promptly turned them down to go to a school that offered him a free ride. They also took three other people, one who was outstanding (but he also turned them down) and a couple of other people that were just good students but who had a lot of activities and founded clubs, etc..It appeared to me like they were going to take one of each type--one supergenius and then throw in a couple more people who were well-rounded and were involved in many activities.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I'm reading on other threads that Exeter and other East coast schools are sending 25+ people to Harvard. My point is that just because in your pocket of the country all the straight "A", 2300+ SAT I, 770+ SATII people get in everywhere, don't assume that is true in other places. </p>
<p>It's funny that when someone mentioned on another thread that Harvard turned down a couple of IMO gold medalists that people were quick to assume that the IMO winners were arrogant. I've met my share of people on the U.S. physics and math olympic teams at Harvard and elsewhere, and they are much more down-to-earth than any of the other Harvard people I have met. Maybe they had "criminal records" LOL. Maybe on the way back from IMO they held up a gas station LOL.</p>
<p>Or, was he so sure of his being accepted because he is clearly at the top of the heap academically, that he did not put adequate time and care into his actual application (sort of just "phoning it in")--sometimes I think admissions offices tale a perverse pride in rejecting applicants who come across as being too sure of themselves.</p>
<hr>
<p>That reminds me of a funny story. The one USAMO qualifier who got in that year accidentally dropped his application in a puddle in the rain. It was all crinkled up and looked like it had been through a war. It was pretty hilarious actually. I wondered what they thought when they got it in the mail.</p>
<p>Another guy who was really smart and got in (from a different year) actually told the interviewer he was only applying because his father wanted him to. They admitted him and he turned them down for Stanford...</p>
<p>"Or, was he so sure of his being accepted because he is clearly at the top of the heap academically, that he did not put adequate time and care into his actual application (sort of just "phoning it in")--sometimes I think admissions offices tale a perverse pride in rejecting applicants who come across as being too sure of themselves."</p>
<p>Very possible. I remember interviewing a student who was absolutely stellar in terms of stats and apparent ECs. The student, however, answered questions as briefly as possible, sometimes only with one word. The student also got up a half hour into the interview, thanked me for my time, and left. I had not concluded the interview: Indeed, I had several more things that I planned to ask about.</p>
<p>Later, I learned through a mutual acquaintance (who as far as I know didn't know that I had interviewed the student) that the student was a very personable, hardworking student who had gotten an early admission elsewhere, and also had applied to many top colleges. My guess is that my interview may have been one of the student's last interviews. The student was probably burned out by interviewing, had a crammed schedule due to having lots of interviews, and due to their EA acceptance, may have assumed they were a shoo-in at my alma mater.</p>
<p>From what I heard through the mutual acquaintance, the waitlist from my alma mater was the only nonacceptance the student received.</p>
<p>"Another guy who was really smart and got in (from a different year) actually told the interviewer he was only applying because his father wanted him to. They admitted him and he turned them down for Stanford..."</p>
<p>More evidence that Harvard is serious when it tells interviewers not to rate students by demonstrated interest.</p>
<p>I agree that Ivy League Admissions is a little bit exaggerated. The reason why it seems next to impossible to get into HYP is because of the massive number of unqualified people applying. I mean, there are probably 30 applications to Stanford (although it's not an Ivy, same concept) from my small private. Only 1-2 people even have a small chance, stats-wise. The rest have no idea what they're doing. There are probably another 15 applying to Yale and Princeton. None, ZERO, are going to get in with stats as low as theirs. Tons are applying to Harvard "for the heck of it." Badddd idea. I commend their courage, but I would not like an extra few rejection letters. It's people like this who make the acceptance rate decrease so much. If you have a reasonable chance, the acceptance rate for you is way >10%...</p>
<p>^^You obviously haven't been through the process. People who I thought had no chance stat-wise (straight "B"s for instance and mediocre test scores) got into Stanford while others with perfect stats got rejected.</p>
<p>If top ivies and stanford were looking for academic stars, their 25%-75% SAT ranges and the percentage of admits in the top 10% of their class would be as high as CalTech.</p>
<p>^ You probably had a hook of some sort. Research, URM, athletics, legacy?
No one from my school has ever gotten into a top school without those hooks. I don't know what school you go to, but Ivies and other top schools are pretty consistent with my school. They only take the people with high GPA, scores, and good EC's or those with great hooks. Oh, and the people applying this year have stats <2000 SAT and <3.7 UW GPA... I think that Ivies are looking for better students than that, in general, unless you have a hook.</p>
<p>I agree with you, aquamarinee. I know that there are plenty of people in my school applying to Ivies who do not stand out at all (I'm talking about <2000 SATs and maybe one or two significant EC's but nothing really that makes them stand out.) I do think this sort of "what the heck, it's worth a shot" pool definitely causes the acceptance rate to drop... but again like everyone else has said over and over again, you never know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If top ivies and stanford were looking for academic stars, their 25%-75% SAT ranges and the percentage of admits in the top 10% of their class would be as high as CalTech.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allow me to repeat myself. This couldn't be, because there aren't enough of those students applying to those schools to go around to fill up their freshman classes to that degree. </p>
<p>nope, no hooks (although I wasn't talking about myself BTW). I gave an extreme case, but I think most often the people who were surprising had like low 1400 test scores (which was about avg. at my school) and maybe 3.5 GPAs. I went to a well-known magnet school, and I think they assumed that if you were average there then you met the academic standards for Stanford.</p>
<p>^^^ Yeah, you never know. Once in awhile, Stanford does take a student who is not really BRILLIANT. That happened last year, but she was a URM and had standard strong EC's. Her SAT score was a 2000-something and her GPA was around a 4.4 weighted (out of 5.0). Not amazing, but "good enough." My counselor told me that Stanford is especially odd sometimes. No idea why that is. It seems as if they're kind of inconsistent with my school at times. Ivies aren't, but Stanford is. Weird...</p>
<p>^ I think the fact that it was a magnet school made a difference. It was probably a prestigious one too, yes? I mean, this person probably did a lot of research and had good EC's, since magnet schools tend to provide good opportunities for that kind of stuff.</p>
<p>are for each college added to each college above. The chart is to provide a preliminary look at how many top-scoring students it would take to fill up all the freshman classes at all the colleges named. Those colleges have a lot of spaces, in the aggregate, so some of them have to dig down pretty deeply into the list of top-scoring students.</p>
<p>I actually think the SAT number is lower, and the importance of ECs, special talents and personal qualties are under valued by the OP in his/her mix. </p>
<p>I also think there is an undue focus on too limited a number of top schools (HYPMS), in part because of the extreme focus on "brand" among certain segments of the "highly anxious" population. </p>
<p>See also a perspective on the quality of undergraduate education among the Ivies. This could be extended to include many other schools.</p>
<p>truazn is completely correct. When my S got over 770 in 3 SAT 2 s and 2350 one sitting, I told him he would get into 5 of Ivies,Stanford, MIT. Had perfect GPA in a very strong curriculum (10 5s on APs, one 4 on French Lit), varsity tennis, one strong EC, that's all. Read Avery's book on Early Admissions Game. Only 1574 above 2350 last year, and perhaps only 1200 at one sitting, since SAT score is important for USNews etc, you are guaranteed admission at at least one or more Ivy.</p>
<p>The various newspaper articles about thousands of perfect scorers are nonsense. There may be thousands of 800s if you count 800 in Mandarin and 800 in Math 2c and 800 in US Hist etc etc etc but the true test is close to 3 800s as in 2350+. Factor in a 2350 + 2350 or near in 3 SAT subject tests and you can sit back and relax.</p>
<p>The journalists who write about thousands of perfect scorers on the SAT 1 think 2100 is perfect!</p>