<p>A more interesting comparison would be this.</p>
<p>Suppose there are two science-type candidates. One went as far as Siemens nationals, the other only a semifinalist. But the finalist, though earning good grades in the humanities, and participates in various ECs, does not demonstrate exceptional abilities in those areas. Meanwhile the semifinalist is also an accomplished artist and skilled writer. Given this year's results, it seems Harvard would choose the semifinalist over the finalist.</p>
<p>Well, either that or they have their priorities jumbled up. From what I can tell, they have probably rejected some future Nobel laureates to give their athletic teams that <em>extra edge</em>.</p>
<p>excalibur, no I am not, lol. Granted, I really should've used a further removed example. But I swear I really did try to conjure two hypothetical candidates in my mind. Only later did I realize the resemblances.</p>
<p>No no no...you've got it all wrong. Those are two hypothetical candidates. Note the characteristics I attributed to the Siemens finalist. I do not know any of them well enough to claim that those belong to a real person. So they are obviously fabricated. And the other example...well...that hit a little closer to home than I intended.</p>
<p>On an unrelated sidenote, did anyone else get a letter of congratulations from their adcom representative? I got one today, complete with a personalized handwritten message ("It was so nice chatting with you last week" etc.). Very nice touch, makes the whole thing feel so much more personal and less businesslike.</p>
<p>"From what I can tell, they have probably rejected some future Nobel laureates to give their athletic teams that <em>extra edge</em>."</p>
<p>ok...again, this is coming from an recruited athlete, so take this with a grain of salt, but..asiaknight, Harvard wants a well-rounded class. That means the class is to include the athletes, the scientists, the writers, the politicians, etc... Harvard does not just accept anyone, athlete or not. All of the athletes at the school have worked to get there; they deserve to be there. So, if Harvard did not accept some athletes, and only scientists, they would not achieve the well-rounded class that they are looking for.</p>
<p>Exactly. Harvard isn't MIT or Caltech. It attracts the best in every field and as much as I would love for them to accept more scientists, that isn't what Harvard is about and science isn't the only skill out there.</p>
<p>That being said, if Harvard adcoms are reading this and they're maybe looking for another scientist or two, I hear those Siemens national finalists are prettttty good bets. :p</p>
<p>^Right, but they are still restricted to looking for academically well-rounded classes, right? I don't see how legacies, recs from important people, recruitments, etc. play into that.</p>
<p>Well recs from important people don't really count. If the President writes a rec but never even met you, it's worthless. I had a rec from my mentor at Harvard and still didn't get in. It's not enough. YOU have to be good.</p>
<p>With that said, I think legacy is a necessary evil (no offense to any legacies out there).</p>
<p>I'm legacy and I disagree with the policy from a moral standpoint but... well... you have to admit, financially, it's working out for them. It's not like legacy brings in tons of incompetant people either. I think legacy works more as just a "Well these two people are about equal, but this one has legacy (or parents who made a big donation, etc.), so we'll pick her instead." It's unfair but you can't just get in on legacy.</p>
<p>I am writing to congratulate you on your admission... blah blah blah... glad to serve as your staff representative... blah blah... ask if you have any questions... you can come up to the school in April... hope you come... blah blah...</p>