<p>daniel it can be said objectively that for one to receive a likely, B (her stats, collectively) must be much better than C (university average stats), as per the definition of A (a likely letter). I have trouble seeing how this is the case.</p>
<p>Okay, I tried.</p>
<p>Yalehopeful and desertman, when you grow up, you're free to start a college that determines admissions and judges people's merit and intellect (not to mention the quality of their high school) on the basis of a one-morning test. </p>
<p>As a Harvard alum and a Harvard parent, I'm pretty happy that Harvard doesn't do it that way.</p>
<p>I won't debate with you anymore. If you fail to understand the nature of your speculation, that scores may not be the sole determining factor of admissions, even to deserve a likely letter, then there's nothing more for me to say on the issue.</p>
<p>Yes! A different topic of argument:</p>
<p>yalehopeful - </p>
<p>"The facts:
A- she got a likely (if we assume she is telling the truth...dubious)
B- her stats (these can be taken pretty confidently as true)
C- typical Harvard admission standards, like SAT percentiles</p>
<p>Comparing C to B leads one to question the validity of A. No 'speculation'."</p>
<p>By assuming that savvy would not get a likely letter due to low marks proves precisely what you deny. Please, reread your posts. They really are over the top - would you send what you just posted to Harvard?</p>
<p>Daniel-</p>
<p>You too are entirely wrong. Again, I have never promoted using SATs to gain admittance. It is a part of the puzzle so to speak. However, I think that it can be OBJECTIVELY SAID that someone with 700 x 6 is probably not as smart as someone with 800 x 6. But either way, it doesn't really matter, because they didn't base the likely off of SATs. I know that, and I have repeatedly said that. When someone who understands my position is willing to discuss this with me, I'm willing.</p>
<p>I have said that OVERALL, it does not appear that she is in the top .5% of the Havard applicant pool. That's it. That is my position. And that is based on her COLLECTIVE stats: weak ECs, weak SATs, good class rank, no hook, no URM status, no legacy.</p>
<p>Dan you are hopelessly confused. STATS does not mean SATS.</p>
<p>I know this is what you meant. You'd have to be very narrow minded not to know this, and I doubt that you are.</p>
<p>However, you have trouble putting your thoughts into words if you were able to confuse multiple people.</p>
<p>Really, if you were objective, you'd realize this. </p>
<p>By the way, did you get into Yale?</p>
<p>How did she get a likely letter postmarked January 7th. Doesn;t that seem extremely quick to anyone?</p>
<p>the letter postmarked January 7th is for a completely different person and came from Yale actually. read more carefully</p>
<p>I've been reading the thread and thought I'd comment that Lynn Classical isn't quite the "elite" school that people are making it out to be. I live nearby, and I'm not making any kind of statement about this particular person, but Lynn isn't the best of areas in MA - that much is agreed upon by most. Classical's a good school, but no better than that which the average applicant attends.</p>
<p>Perhaps that factors in the demographic part, as I'm sure Harvard would be looking for applicants in areas like Lynn more than other cities. It makes me wonder if this applicant is a URM as well, which would add yet another boost.</p>
<p>I've read it before, and I think the statement is true: Not everyone that deserves to get into Harvard is accepted, but everyone that is accepted deserves it. I'm sure that applies to this particular person as well. She seems to be committed, and working a job while maintaining grades is not an easy task...I personally would know. Coming home at 8:00 or 9:00 PM on some nights, with homework and studying to do and a paper to write is not the most enjoyable of situations. Throw in her other leadership positions and playing a varsity sport, and she seems like a match to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe you're surprised, but I'm not. Congratulations. :)</p>
<p>Wow just wow!!! Even RSI kiddos, TASP kiddos, Siemens winners, Intel winners, and nationally recognized athletes don't get likely letters from Harvard...congratulations savvy_sleigh!!!!!!!!:):)</p>
<p>My Gawd, hasn't this gone on long enough? 9 freaking pages of bashing on people who get likely letters. It's madness! Pure madness!</p>
<p>it'll be settled in april in the mean time fight in the streets not on a forum.
lol
madness! Pure madness! that sounds like some part of a play or soap opera can't remember though.</p>
<p>So... have likely letters been sent out?</p>
<p>I typically don't look at this web site but for jollies decided to take a look today. It is truly comical to see a bunch of students who think they know what it takes to get into Harvard. It is more than test results. All schools are looking for people who will have an impact after they leave. There is very little correlation between success in the real world (not just economic success) and test scores. There isn't particularly great correlation between test scores and academic success either (at the most - only the first year and since you guys are so bright, you know that an undergraduate education involves 4 years). The SAT II's are geared towards a very specific knowledge base. A lot of schools don't teach this material. For example, my daughter took the Math IIc test. She had never seen a lot of the material before and when she asked her math teacher about it, the response was: "We haven't taught that stuff for years! It is irrelevant." As a Ph.D. theoretical physicist, I hadn't seen a lot of it before and it is certainly not used anywhere that I know of. I don't believe that a lot of these tests including IQ tests measure much of anything particularly innate intelligence. One of the greatest physicists of the 20th century - Richard Feynman, only had a 125 IQ. By the way, speaking of "likely letters", my daughter got one for Dartmouth.</p>
<p>Well said, well said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think one of the main functions of this website is to allow students to debate over what it takes to get into any given college. Sorry to disappoint you with such a "comical" argument.</p>
<p>daniel--sigh as well :p MUST i explicitly say ¨I don´t flaunt my superiority assuming I have any of which I probably don´t but I am unqualified to judge but I probably don´t?¨ lol I can assure you I don´t think of myself as superior in any way--this is the Harvard board, for Christ´s sake--but yeah, I guess the language is open to misinterpretation. <em>exasperated</em> lol</p>
<p>By the way, regarding savvy´s likely again. First of all, I am inclined to believe her--what reason would she have to construct such an intricately-woven lie? To teach us the errors of ours ways in placing too much emphasis on numbers? :p Now I don´t think anyone will argue that on the basis of her grades and SATs alone she qualifies as a likely. But there are SO many unknown factors, you just can´t come to a conclusion.</p>
<p>Remember, by the way, the only weak point is in her SATs. I mean, she´s valedictorian at a very strong (private?) school. One number can´t possibly mean the difference between a likely-worthy and non-likely-worthy candidate.</p>
<p>Now, this thread is getting a bit out of hand so here we go:</p>
<p>I´m not an egotist and I don´t think I´m superior to everyone here so stop trying to prove that I do, we don´t know what savvy´s app look like except for a brief description that she gave us that doesn´t even mention essays or the all-important recommendations so stop trying to show how you´re better than the admission committee given limited information and just be happy for her.</p>
<p>Whew! There we go :)</p>
<p>By the way, DocT is absolutely right and congratulate your daughter for me!</p>
<p>OK, end of my string of posts :p</p>