<p>While we're at it, I wonder which a college adcom would prefer</p>
<p>Person A:
SAT: 2100
Graduated 2 years early (but doesn't have anti-social/immaturity syndrome)
Same other credentials as a standard harvard applicant</p>
<p>Person B:
SAT: 2250
Standard Harvard Applicant</p>
<p>For all they know Person A could still be growing mentally to eventually reach a 2300 SAT two years later, but if you were to accept Person A you would be accepting a less intelligent person upon the reference frame of the first day of classes.</p>
<p>I guess it relates to whether Harvard wants raw mind-crunching power or potential (much more subjective). Man, I'd hate to be an Adcom.</p>
<p>Sorry if this is leaning towards a hijack and for future reference I am not either of these people.</p>
<p>Neither Person A nor Person B would get into Harvard if you ask me unless you're leaving some info out of this hypothetical situation or one of htese candidates had outstanding essays.</p>
<p>do harvard adcoms grade your application based on a scoring rubric (sorta like the AI, cept for everything) or do they just write notes but it is not pure quantitative?</p>
<p>do harvard adcoms grade your application based on a scoring rubric</p>
<br>
<p>Yes, they do. So do alumni interviewers. It's a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being the best. There are separate grades for extracurriculars, academics, and personal qualities, as well as an overall score. (These scores are really, really uninflated; alumni are instructed to give a student an academic 1 if the student is not only a probable straight-A student at Harvard but shows "summa cum laude potential" and "original scholarship"; on the overall score, if we think that the student is "a clear admit; one to recruit," that's only a 2.)</p>
<p>do they weight certian parts like maybe ec is *2 or grades is *1.5 or something? i mean certainly a 1 one ur interview isnt going to be as greaet as a 1 in ur ec or something</p>
<p>they contribute equally to the final score if that's what you mean. the things i know however are mostly from research in my spare time so don't trust me too much... after all it's Harvard so it can't be too simple.</p>
<p>interestingly enough, I cannot be val/sal of my class because the courses I did not take as a sophomore (I was taking junior classes) I must take now as a graduation requirement and they do not add anything to my GPA. Also, my independent study (maxed out of spanish) does not help weighed GPA. Add to that having probably two of the hardest teachers in the world....and yeah.</p>
<p>Actually I don't care what my GPA is anymore. I was 1st in the school as a sophomore but pretty much had no life. Since then my grades have gone "down" in comparison but my willingness to look beyong myself and contribute greatly to the community has increased. Hooray for introspection.</p>
<p>Hanna's information regarding the evaluation of potential Harvard candidates by the admissions committee is accurate.</p>
<p>I would like to add that a single <em>MAJOR</em> flaw in the character/personality department of a potential Harvard applicant can spell doom. Harvard can look over badd grades or even perhaps horrendous test scores, but bad character on the part of a student as evidenced through essays/recs/etc. cannot be so easily forgiven. The Harvard admissions officer clearly stated that applicants who felt that they "deserved" Harvard inherently or crafted a very arrogant or conceited application are almost always the first to be rejected/politely deferred.</p>
<p>College apps is definitely one area in life where an egotistic attidtude doesn't fly.;)</p>
<p>Each applicant on a scale of 1 to 6, along four dimensions: personal, academic, extracurricular, and athletic.
It goes without saying that the personal cathegory is the most important cathegory. Those with a rank of 4 or worse on the personal scale had, have a rejection rate over ninety-five percent. Those with a personal rating of 1 have a rejection rate of less than 3 percent.
Rumor has it.</p>
<p>NOTE:These are my views on the issue. You don't have to agree.</p>
<p>According to the official survey that Harvard filled out, which is now on the College Board website, every part of the application is "Considered," which means everything is on equal footing and they review your application as a whole.</p>
<p>Saying that GPA>SAT or Essays<ECs is just nonsense. Good essays can make up for sub-par scores, and excellent scores and grades can compensate for OK essays (as long as you don't convey your voice inappropriately). It's the overall picture that they're looking for, not for "hooks" in the CC sense. Hooks at Harvard consist of being likeable and easy to work with, being able to utilize Harvard resources to benefit society, and taking the initiative to better yourself and the world.</p>
<p>Some applicants with great academic credentials are deferred or rejected simply because the essays sucked (field trip to DC), or included a no-no topic such as:</p>
<p>Sex
Drugs
Crime
Dishonesty/Plagiarism</p>
<p>Others are denied, despite the fact that they may have great essays, because the academic credentials are weak. </p>
<p>The Adcoms all sit down together, and go over your entire application. If they like it, you'll get accepted. If not, then you won't. It's as simple as that. There aren't any hidden formulas that guarantee acceptance or whatever.</p>
<p>Yeah, but they have to like you a lot. There are 22,000 people to go against, and when you get to the last 3,000 the competition gets freakishly intense. That's why we're here picking apart the details.</p>
<p>But I agree: people and not computers are evaluating these applications. Some people have different preferences than others; that's why three or four officers read your application, and the entire committee debates. There are four categories for simplicity, but the overall effect has a lot to do with how strongly someone will support/oppose your admission in the discussion.</p>
<p>Yeah is simple-have good grades and don't be a jerk and you'll get in. What I'm wondering is what constitutes "good grades" I mean what is the standard?</p>
<p>its on a sliding scale isnt it sharkbite? i mean if u have strong atheletic abilities then ur grades dont have to be perfect, rather than if ur ecs are weak, then ur grades better be damn near perfect (with national recognition)</p>