<p>I know several kids admitted to H & Y who did not have 2400 SAT's (some just over 2100), nor unweighted 4.0 GPA's, did not have extraordinary national EC's, and were not legacies, URM's or athletes. Someone mentioned that often schools admit classes rather than individuals. A french horn player here, an egyptology major there, and a kid from Montana to add a little geographical diversity... Recognition that this happens, I believe, may take a little sting out of the rejections some apparently deserving of admission students might feel, and should be a part of the planning process.</p>
<p>"unless the application has changed in the last 4 years, you write down on your application the other schools you're applying to."</p>
<p>Harvard does not ask this information. It didn't when I applied decades ago. It doesn't now.</p>
<p>Many colleges including probably Harvard ask where you applied -- after you turn them down. This helps the colleges with their marketing. It's also how some of the college guide books can say which other colleges applicants to any particular college are likely to have applied to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because someone disagrees with your predetermined explanations of the way the world works does not mean they are "CYA" (I wonder what "A" you think the CC posters are "C"), "spraying" propaganda, or attacking you. I suggest you turn off the computer and go for a bike ride.</p>
<p>I believe many application forms do ask where else you are applying (I don't remember if the Common App does); but you don't have to fill out that information.
As for colleges trying to defend themselves against accusations of elitism, it's an expensive defense! Harvard earmarked $86 millions last year for finaid, Princeton (with a smaller student body) $53 millions.</p>
<p>"erj1- Thank you for the truth. And thank you for your honest help."</p>
<p>It seems that you believe in the "truth" only when it supports your fairly unresearched viewpoint.</p>
<p>erj1 is welcome to his or her viewpoint, but it is based on being a faculty member at one high school. It's not based on seeing applications from and/or interviewing Ivy applicants from a variety of schools nor is it probably based on having personal familiarity with H students that's based on attending Harvard and seeing the variety of people who are represented.</p>
<p>I do not know erj1, so have no idea how s/he assesses students. However, I have seen in my jobs and volunteeer work (both of which have involved working closely with top high school students) that sometimes the traits that most impress teachers are things that do not impress people from top colleges or corporations.</p>
<p>For instance, sometimes the students who are most compliant and hard working and conventional are the ones whom teachers love. Meanwhile, places like Harvard may be most interested in students who think outside the box, assertively question things and have interests that many people would think are boring or weird. For example, based on what I've read of Bill Gates' personality, I doubt that he was teachers' pet, and I doubt that when he got interested in computers, most people were impressed by that hobby.</p>
<p>I thought it might be of interest to link this profile of a recent graduate, who graduated early from high school, began taking college classes at 15, started producing operas at 8 & 9, continued to do so at Harvard while doing a joint concentration in two very tough disciplines:</p>
<p>Hedoya,
I appreciate you bringing up this post and your question is one that many might feel inhibited from asking. I think the bottom line, is the student we are discussing did very well in school and did extemely well in the college admissions process as she was admitted to six out of eight of some of the most competitive schools in the country. I think you raise the larger issue, be it in college apps or for jobs, or perhaps even elections, whether it is possible that the best possible person may not be the one selected given a field of highy qualified applicants. Fortunately, in the U.S., not getting into HY does not preclude great future opportunities for her in the future. There are many outstanding universities out there. </p>
<p>Even schools that are not ranked highly can have great and inspiring profs. If a student takes full advantage of his/her opporunities wherever he/she goes, he/she will do well in life. In fact, for a particular outstanding student, it could be argued that he/she may do better to go elsewhere than to attend HY or another elite college (Also Honors programs at certain state colleges are a great academic and financial alternative). As an example, the daughter of a close friend of mine scored close to what this particular student scored, and had many similar choices, and decided to attend an elite college. Whether it be for social or academic reasons, she did not do particularly well in her coursework at college, and likely will not be able to pursue her original goal of attending medical school. While virtually everyone attending an elite school is in the top 10% of their h.s. class only 10% will remain so. Another friend's son, who was a good, but not outstanding student in h.s., went to a lower "ranked" university, but seemed to be a late bloomer and has done exceedingly well there, and is in strong position to pursue his same goal of going to medical school. These examples are a bit slanted towards medicine because that it is the area that I am in but I am sure it applies to other fields as well.</p>
<p>Hedoya, I'm sorry if you feel criticized; however, I think most people that have posted here are well-intentioned. We may express strong opinions, but they are given in the spirit of free discussion.</p>
<p>" I think you raise the larger issue, whether it be in college apps or for jobs, or perhaps even elections, it is possible that the best possible person may not be the one selected given a field of highy qualified applicants. "</p>
<p>I agree that this is an imporant issue.</p>
<p>Truth is, that often the "best' applicant as determined by, for instance, test scores or experience is not accepted by a corporation, graduate school, professional organization, etc. </p>
<p>Things such as who you know, how you'll fit into the team, even what your hobbies are all play a part in getting jobs and other opportunities. Indeed, often the people who do best in life in terms of getting promotions and similar things are people who are best at getting along with people. They simply are people who are extremely well liked and are good team players.</p>
<p>I know that I've been sometimes passed over for opportunities that based on experience I was the best qualified for. Sometimes it appeared that I was passed over due to an old boy or girls network (and where I now live, the old boy network is strong and is populated by people who attended the flagship state university). Sometimes my guess is that my background may have intimidated people.</p>
<p>Anyway, there's absolutely nothing in our society that runs "fair" if one considers "fair" being a robot way of adding up needed characteristics and then selecting people based only on those characteristics. The sooner one realizes this, the happier one will be.</p>
<p>There are and have been societies in which quantifiable attributes were the only things used to determine employment and universit admissions. The U.S. has never been that type of society despite the myth that it's a meritocracy.</p>
<p>Marite,
I read this amazing young woman's profile. Harvard may have several dozen applicants with 2400s especially if one wants to considerthe best scores of multiple sittings. She is one of a kind.</p>
<p>My son's Harvard interviewer actually did ask my son why he didn't apply SCEA. My son replied he thought he was a better fit at MIT or Caltech. Harvard accepted him anyway. Perhaps because he was a legacy, perhaps because they are trying to expand their engineering department. The only Ivy he applied to was Harvard, partly because I knew that these factors, plus the fact that Harvard seems like our school better than Yale or Princeton do made him have a somewhat better chance there. </p>
<p>From our school, Havard accepted the valedictorian, the number 8 (out of ca. 650) and waitlisted the number 4 kid. All of them were NMS finalists. I don't think their standards have gone down, but they aren't just looking for perfect grades and scores. None were URMs by the way.</p>
<p>I suspect that for some of these mystery acceptances, the kids do things outside school that those in school may not be aware of. My son for example did programming outside school that was on the same level as the other professionals in the office where he worked. He had relatively few in school ECs.</p>
<p>"My son's Harvard interviewer actually did ask my son why he didn't apply SCEA. My son replied he thought he was a better fit at MIT or Caltech. Harvard accepted him anyway."</p>
<p>The Harvard interviewer shouldn't have asked that question. Harvard didn't care about the answer. </p>
<p>Being a legacy could have been a tip factor. However, every legacy that I've seen get in could have gotten in on their own merits, and were by far and away extremely strong candidates even in very strong pools. Perhaps in earlier decades, there was a big difference between the legacies and nonlegacies who got in, but I don't see any difference now. </p>
<p>"I suspect that for some of these mystery acceptances, the kids do things outside school that those in school may not be aware of. "</p>
<p>Very possible. I also think that most applicants and possibly GCs overvalue things like NHS and Student Council and undervalue things like working a job or doing ECs in outside of school activities that others think are weird or boring.Those outside of school ECs -- in particular the ones that the student pursues by following their own bliss -- tend to be far more impressive than being yet another NHS president (and doing nothing except chairing an occasional meeting) or being yet another SGA president and figuring out the prom theme and doing what teachers tell one to do.</p>
<p>It's far easier to distinguish oneself in the applicant pool by passionately pursuing an out of school EC that matches one's own interests than by doing something in school where one has to do what the school bureaucracy allows.</p>
<p>"For example, based on what I've read of Bill Gates' personality, I doubt that he was teachers' pet, and I doubt that when he got interested in computers, most people were impressed by that hobby."</p>
<p>Remember though Bill bailed sophomore year so Harvard wasn't all that for him. I think he did OK though. </p>
<p>It may be that H doesn't want out of the box thinkers. Bill was out of the box with a concept so new it may not have been embraced at the ivy. </p>
<p>Maybe Bill got more from his HS (lakeside) than Harvard was giving him. </p>
<p>And no I'm not so much anti harvard as I am anti wanting something so much you lose sight of yourself. If not making Harvard means your life is incomplete and you can't be successful, well I guess you're correct then.</p>
<p>Northstarmom,
I do not know whether "quantifiable" attributes are necessarily the best criteria for admission. Sorry to use another medical example, but seveal years ago I was in Japan and talked with a colleague who was involved in medical education at his institution. He lamented that the students at his school (one of the top medical schools in Japan) did not always have the character, social skills, creativity, and energy that he had seen in the U.S. They had accepted a class of great test-takers who were burnt out. The challenge for him and the faculty was to reignite passion in their students for learning medicine. I agree we do not live in a true meritocracy with quantifiable factors for admission or job offers (although I think we would all agree some of those metrics may be informative). Instead, other "desirable" factors come into play. The choice of these factors are subjective and unpredictable by the applicant. It is for this reason, I recommend students apply with their best foot forward and present themselves accordingly. Like mathmom said in her post, who knows whether an Adcom was impressed with her son's ability to work in an adult environment and contribute meaningfully there? He was able to apply his theoritical knowledge to practical situations-a very useful and valuable skill. His work experience also showed a level of personal and social maturity. It could be argued that the outside job was more impressive to a particular AdCom than the h.s. student assembly presidencies of the three applicants that he or she had just read earlier. Subjective yes, but also defensible.</p>
<p>I wouldn't put much weight on erj1's opinion about H's admittees. Our local HS has had 8 in the last 3 years. When I heard about a couple of them, I remember thinking "Wow, I wouldn't have expected him to get in." Then I started paying attention to who this person was and what he had actually accomplished - under the radar (maybe "over" is more accurate!) for some of us, but very impressive! Then I realized that H knew what it was doing.</p>
<p>pmyen:</p>
<p>From a Harvard self-study, it appears that the college accepted 200-300 students on academic criteria alone (academic superstars). I do not think that Sarah, impressive though I think she is (and I know her!), was among them. But she has a pretty amazing combination of academic achievements, musical talent, leadership skills, and she is an all-around wonderful young woman. I was thrilled to hear she'd decided to go into teaching.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I have said this before, and will say it again. My impression of H and Y has gone down, down, down, when I see the kids that have been accepted there from our school, and the ones that have been outright rejected (I should know - I taught them, and the ones that will go and just eake through got in, and the best were not). It is as though they want to prove they are no longer elitist. In their effort to become more politically correct in taking the lesser, I believe they are worsening their reputations.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>If Harvard has for some reason taken to accepting "the lesser" and leaving the academic gems on the table, how do they manage to keep their stats so high? Shouldn't their median SAT scores be going down, down, down along with your opinion? Instead it is among the very highest in the nation -- year after year. </p>
<p>And why do star students such as the USAToday High School Academic All Stars keep enrolling at Harvard year after year (in 2007 14 out the 20 First Team went to H)? Shouldn't Harvard be avoiding these kids in favor of "the lesser" if what you say is true?</p>
<p>You have to be joking, who really care? Toward the thread starter.</p>
<p>Marite,
I also would add that academic superstars do not have to score 2400 as some truly brilliant students have particular areas of excellence. The young poet may score 800 verbal and 650 on math, and yet if it were possible, he/she could score a 1000 if the test were redesigned and scored to reflect that. One might see the opposite scores with the math whiz. Intelligence does not have to be evenly distributed in an individual. Einstein reportedly did not speak much until after age five. </p>
<p>The SATs, after recentering, also do not allow for a lot of discrimination of the best students at the top. Additionally, the type of verbal and math skills assessed by the SAT are relatively elementary. For the math portion of the SAT, algebra and geometry are all that is needed. For a math genius, taking such a test would be doing trivial stuff, perhaps akin to asking a regular high school student to do their multiplication tables as fast and accurately as possible. For the math genius. the poet, the musician, or someone with exceptional ability in a particular area, standardized tests do not reflect their abilities. Instead, it is evidenced by their creative writing, theorem proofs, new software designs, inventions, etc. High test scores alone do not equal brilliance, although it can. The point I wanted to make originally is that although the student with a 2400 SAT may be the star student at their particular high school, there are quite a number of them that will apply to Harvard. Their test scores no longer stand out by themselves when there are others with identical scores. If they have proven themselves academically beyond the SAT, then they would probably be a Harvard academic admit. If the 2400 SAT score is their major academic calling card, and the rest of their application, particularly if their ECs are not reasonably strong, they likely will not get admitted. Particularly if someone as exceptional as Sarah is in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>I remember reading a thread earlier this year about an Asian-American student at Yale who is suing Princeton for racial discrmination since he was rejected "even though he scored 2400" on his SAT. I believe he is barking up the wrong tree with his misplaced sense of entitlement based on his test scores, and I say this as a racial minority. Scoring 2400 means you are bright (but not necessarily brilliant) and a great test taker whether natively or acquired (I believe SAT scores can be coached and improved with practice. There are students with 2300 scores who "study" so they can score 2400). But the truly brilliant academic students will have other evidences of their abilities that go way beyond a test score. Harvard and some of the other top colleges see applications from these students who as I said earlier may even score at the median level SAT level for their school but still be admitted for academic reasons.</p>
<p>A few more observations:</p>
<p>Re 2400s: Each of my kids had an 800 on the writing test. One is and always has been a gifted writer, one who has understood structure, syntax, and precise word choice since she was 10. The other is . . . well, functional as a writer. Sometimes a little better than that. But miles behind his sibling. (Who, by the way, had to struggle a bit to learn how to write good college papers.) My son also had an 800 in Math, and 790 on the Math II SAT2. Yet he struggled a lot with his calculus BC class -- and got the same grade his sister got with her 700s on the SAT I and II, and her nasty habit of not doing any work at all in the course for weeks on end.</p>
<p>The point being: 800s on SAT tests are not very meaningful when you are talking about elite education.</p>
<p>EJR: I appreciate your perspective, but that's not what I've seen at all. Because of my kids switching schools in midstream, I've had a lot of familiarity with who was in their class at two very different schools in my area, and my overwhelming sense is that Harvard and Yale get it right an amazing percentage of the time, given how difficult their choices are. That doesn't mean that they made the very best choices possible, but that they made good choices that the teens and adults in the applicants' community respected. </p>
<p>10 kids were accepted at Harvard or Yale from those classes, and of those 10 only one was not clearly one of the top three or four kids in the class, not statistically, but in terms of the combination of intellect, achievement, leadership, and character. The one who wasn't one of the top three or four was clearly one of the top 10 or 12, an extremely nice girl without an enemy in the world (and no hint of any connection, by the way).</p>
<p>Harvard and Yale (and etc.'s) strength is NOT in picking a class where you could say with confidence "Every kid here is better than every kid not here." It's more that, one way or another, they accept and enroll a stronger overall class than any other school, and thus provide the greatest associational benefits to the students who enroll. They don't have to be anything like perfect to do that; they just have to be pretty good, and they meet that standard.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>my overwhelming sense is that Harvard and Yale get it right an amazing percentage of the time<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The H acceptees from our high school have been fantastic kids (nobody has gotten into Y that anyone can remember), no doubt about it. We don't get more than 1 every couple of years. But I do think that they leave a lot of excellent fruit unpicked.</p>