Official Harvard EA Decisions - Class of 2010

<p>Quite possible. Although I wonder how Siemens wouldn't be considered an indicator of "spectacular" science talent (and so I don't seem self-aggrandizing here, let's forget about me and talk about the other three Siemens deferrees). Not just Siemens, but research competitions in general, putting STS in a similar boat come RD. If you're doing award-winning research, it's not just a test you can study for and do well on. You've devoted a considerable amount of your life over the past summer, year, whatever, to conducting a research project. Not only did you do it exceptionally well, but just by doing it and taking it to the level (remember, the majority of us are or will be first authors in major peer-reviewed journals) you demonstrate an extreme level of passion, just as much as I'd think USAMO and IMO would.</p>

<p>I don't think Siemens and politics factored in. It's just that for some students, Siemens and the rest of the app were good enough, and for the rest of us, Siemens couldn't change a deferral to a surefire acceptance. Not much more to it ;)</p>

<p>What degree did you choose Guitar? The engineering division recruited me, so I think my degree choice is one reason I got in.</p>

<p>I don't really have a "spectacular" science talent, but I've been to Siemens Regionals and RSI. I could never even qualify for the USAMO though. Randomperson is right.</p>

<p>PorSK--I applied with the plan to take an honors astrophysics concentrations with physics, if that's what you're asking :) I would very much like it if the astrophysics department at Harvard were to recruit me or pull for me at admissions, but...ehhh....lol, we'll see. Next month I'll be in the presence of 77 Harvard astronomers so I'm hoping maybe I can make some good contacts then!</p>

<p>Zogoto--Making regionals for Siemens is still pretty damn good!</p>

<p>Well I have done both the research and the olympiads and I have to say that the olympiads are more difficult. Now don't get me wrong, Siemens is incredibly difficult. But research is a bit more random (more luck involved) than the olympiad tests which necessitate strict discipline, lots of training, and lots of brain power. For example, a research project may take a few months or a year/two. But many of the people who have been training for the olympiads have been doing so for many more years (e.g. I started math "training" 6 years ago). Research results can be misrepresented to seem more WOW than they are and mentors play a tremendous role in research. Intel STS is a bit different from Siemens in taking a look at the whole applicant rather than only the project. But please don't take this as a bashing on research (or SWC) as I love doing research and am very much humbled by some of the outstanding research scientists on this board. The post is just indicative of what I have (generally) perceived in the past.</p>

<p>That depends on the level of your research. Some research really isn't that much, but the people I met at Siemens are doing Ph.D.-level research, being published as first authors in major journals, pouring their heart and soul into it. An Olympiad requires mainly talent and studying, no?</p>

<p>And plus, you don't make it far in Siemens OR STS or any other good research competition if your mentor did all the work or if your results are just luck. They judge on how much YOU did and know about your project.</p>

<p>Sorry, some of this is coming from a personal standpoint even though I'm trying to keep that out of it. This isn't related at all now to my Harvard decision so pleeease don't take this as me saying "I should have gotten in", but I'm speaking to research in general. Now I've never done USAMO or even AIME (I've been consistently shot down at the AMC level, sad to say, lol), so this is based on a little opinion that may be false, but these are the kinds of things that seem to be indicators of pure talent. Doing well on a math test doesn't, I think, so much show a love or a passion for math as it does an extraordinary math ability. And I mean I look at people like you USAMO guys and feel nothing but respect for the immense brainpower that you all have and the crazy amounts of effort that must have been put into it, seriously. But it's a measure, I would imagine, of pure brainpower. I feel like it's when you get to the realm of research that the passion starts to at least become more evident. I mean, I look at someone like Michael Viscardi who did both USAMO and research and I see a person who is simply in love with mathematics. He's insanely good at it and he can't get enough of it. That's what I think is the worth of research competitions like Siemens, STS, etc. I can go take an astronomy test (like at the Science Olympiad, although that's not quite USAMO :p) and do really well on it, but that just tests my knowledge of astronomy. It doesn't at all probe my actual love of space and my potential or ability to contribute to the wealth of knowledge that we humans have about the universe around us.</p>

<p>Couldn't have said it better, GuitarManARS.</p>

<p>Hehe yea well just remember that what I say isn't about you personally it's just some general observations from working with research and olympiads :). Anyhow, there is evidently passion and brainpower in both of the aforementioned endeavors...now the degree of passion and brainpower is a bit variable. But man when I go and hang out with these kids who are crazy about math its amazing we do problems on napkins, at 4 in the morning, in the dirt I mean that's passion. It's almost impossible to do really well on a test like usamo without liking math so that it's almost unhealthy haha. But then again it's almost impossible to be shut up in a lab 14 hrs a day...in the middle of summer...doing research without having a real passion either. I just feel like research ppl have more facilities/support than olympiad ppl... i kno i've been advantaged by having mentors and working in good labs. I've presented some research and won awards even tho I definately don't kno a lot of the background... its really difficult to learn everything in a field that others have devoted PhDs and years of their life to. With the olympiads you just need a book and a lot of time/willpower. But anyways it's undeniable that research/olympiads are both indispensable and that SWC, STS, etc are all really worthy and rewarding and inspiring programs.</p>

<p>Yes, research measures passion, but olympiad measures skill. I know Regional Finals/RSI are good, but I'm not particularly "gifted" in science. I just work hard, and with a little bit of luck, I've been successful. Same doesn't go for USAMO.</p>

<p>Just to warn you, I haven't been reading this thread. I may be completely off topic. I also don't really know what all these competitions are and what the letters stand for, but I think I've got it pretty much figured out.

[quote]
Doing well on a math test doesn't, I think, so much show a love or a passion for math as it does an extraordinary math ability.

[/quote]

[quote]
But it's a measure, I would imagine, of pure brainpower. I feel like it's when you get to the realm of research that the passion starts to at least become more evident.

[/quote]
Who says that passion is more important than talent/skill? Although I am sure schools look for kids operating at 100% who are passionate (and good) at what they do, I imagine that they look just as closely for kids who are smart and have the ability to operate at a much higher level than they currently do. Schools are looking for potential. You and a lot of other students have already shown and demonstrated what you can do, but I would guess that schools pay just as much attention to the kids who have not begun to reach their potential as to those who already have.</p>

<p>These are two different types of applicants, and I think schools are looking for both of them.</p>

<p>I think one thing we can conclude from ffsoul and the friends of randomperson who got into H.: Harvard is still exceedingly interested in getting the most highly accomplished kids in math and science, despite the fact that they are also equally interested in outstanding humanities kids, and those that fill other niches. So, there's no need to speculate about politics, changes in the school's priorities, etc. And that can bode well for those of you who are so accomplished but were deferred. So make sure that you --in a low key (read: not braggy) way-- keep Harvard up to date with any new achievements, and at the same time, remain realistic about the odds: do put your heart and soul into your other applications.</p>

<p>I am pretty sure what Harvard desires is the Renaissance scientist, mathematician, and engineer, such that it looks for excellence in the arts, humanities, and linguistics, even among its most accomplished aspiring scientists and mathematicians in the applicant pool. I suspect that this may be the cause of deferral of many of such accomplished persons.</p>

<p>Thats good because my recs discuss how I am sooo interested in Art History while wanting to major in Biology. I have also taken a very diverse courseload before..... AP Art History, AP Computer Science A, and other off the mainstream courses...</p>

<p>Duality--Not true. At least in most of the cases I'm aware of. Personally, I have 770 Writing and 760 CR on the SATs, 760 SAT II U.S. History, and 5s on AP World, U.S., and English Language. Same goes for many of the deferees I know. No, I don't think being one-dimensional (just math/sci) was a problem with most of these kids.</p>

<p>It depends on how you define "one-dimensional". If you define it according to courseload, very few math/science star students fit the bill. Almost all of them take AP history courses, english courses, etc. They usually have very high, if not perfect, scores on the relevant and SAT and AP tests. </p>

<p>If you define the term using outside activities, many probably would be rather "one-dimensional". That, however, does not prevent them from being admitted, as I have mentioned before.</p>

<p>Quite possibly.</p>

<p>Have you noticed, by the way, how pointless this entire thread has become? :p</p>

<p>my theory is that all threads become pointless at one point or another. it's just a matter of time.... :)</p>

<p>I don't think you define someone as being multi-faceted by their SAT's or course load. It's not even by joining a few extra random clubs. I think its has more to do with having "passions" in more than one field. That being said, I remember the adcoms at Harvard specifically stating that they don't necessarily look for "well-rounded" students, but rather seek a well rounded class. So the "well-lopsided" kid (his words) --someone who's done outstanding things in one particular area--, can be as desireable as a kid with accomplishments in multiple areas.</p>

<p>However, if the math/science prodegy also is an outstanding musician, or debater, etc., who will enhance the quality of the Harvard community by joining the orchestra or debate team, that could give them an extra edge. Schools like H. not only want to have the best students for the various academic departments, they also want to enrich the college by selecting students who will contribute to the vibrancy of the school's extracurriculars. So, perhaps if you have two IMO gold medalists, and one is an all-state musician, and the other played tennis but isn't good enough for their team, if they have to choose, they're likely to pick the former.</p>