<p>And usually a household with parents who went to good schools is a good culture for learning.</p>
<p>By the way, I think genetics gets totally underplayed when talking about the Asian "advantage". I mean, they get the genes of all the smart people Mao and the Red Guard kicked out.</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm totally offended when people say that Asian just work hard and that's why they're an overrepresented minority. Asians (and by that I mean those in the US) DO tend to be naturally smarter, since immigration is hard. It's like natural selection, only immigration selection.</p>
<p>*Decision:ACCEPTED *</p>
<p>Stats:[ul]
[<em>] SAT I: 2370 (800M, 800V, 770W) before: 1550 (750M, 800V)
[</em>] SAT IIs: 800 US History, 800 Chemistry, 800 Math IIC, 750 Biology, 760 Physics, 760 Literature
[<em>] ACT: 36 (10W)
[</em>] GPA: 4.34/4.0 (weighted for AP classes)
[<em>] Rank: my school doesnt rank, but I know Im one of the top two
[</em>] Other stats: 5s on all 5 AP tests (AP scholar w/ distinction), AIME qualifier for four years (AMC school winner for 3), Semifinalist on Teen Jeopardy Tournament, All-State Quiz Bowl (and captain), National Spelling Bee participant, Student Council VP, Choir president and State Honors choir member, Science Olympiad captain (1st place in state for last two years for cell bio), Summer School Math tutor (100 hours community service), Taking Calc III at community college, Varsity Cross-Country, NHS officer, USABO semifinalist, Italian poetry recitation contest winner (skipped one year of Italian), MMSS math and science camp at U of M for two summers, All-State Choir at Interlochen for 1 summer, Mentor in a girls mentoring organization at my school, 236 on PSAT (National Merit Semifinalist listed Harvard as my first choice)
[/ul]Subjective:[ul]
[<em>] Essays: One was a very good narrative of visiting my grandparents home in Sri Lanka and the duality of my life (and even name) as the daughter of immigrants. The short essay was on what expressing choral music means to me, and how it can affect me in both the largest and the most minute ways. The optional essay was just a list of the books that have most affected me.
[</em>] Teacher Recs:
Social Studies: Ive only had class with him for a semester, but Ive known him since freshman year, because he loved my brother before me, and I wasnt going to ask, but he volunteered to write my Harvard rec.
Science: I really dont know. It could have been good or bad. The teacher is a genius, and he seemed genuinely pleased when I asked him to write it.
[<em>] Counselor Rec: We have a good relationship, and she actually interviewed me about my feelings on Harvard before she wrote it.
[</em>] Hook (if any): Teen Jeopardy? The fact that I love both Choir and Quiz Bowl? Being Sri Lankan? I really dont know.
[/ul]Location/Person:[ul]
[<em>] State or Country: MI
[</em>] School Type: Public
[<em>] Ethnicity: Sri Lankan
[</em>] Gender: Female
[<em>] Perceived Strengths/Weaknesses:
Strengths: great transcript, well-rounded ecs, really good test scores.
Weaknessess: No one focus, not a legacy/prep school, all of my ecs are affiliated with my school, and the simple fact that Harvard is so darn hard to get into.
[</em>] Why you think you were accepted/deferred/denied: I really dont know. Almost everyone Ive read about so far sounds amazing, and I really dont know why I got in when I was rejected by RSI and TASP while others, with really great credentials, didnt.
[/ul]Other Factors: I didnt want email notification, but the invitation for the admitted students chat came before the letter of acceptance! When I finally understood what it meant, I cried for a good fifteen minutes. I didnt even realize how badly I wanted to get in, and how stressed out I was waiting.
General Comments/Congratulations/Venting/Commiserations,etc: To those rejected, you are still awesome, and I hope that you find a school even more perfect for you than Harvard was. To those deferred, good luck to you in the next round. I think that deferred EA applicants still have a higher chance than RD applicants, but I might be wrong on that. You guys are amazing! To those accepted, congratulations! I am absolutely awed and overwhelmed to be considered among you, and I hope that Ill see you at the chat on Monday!
Also, GuitarManARS, among others, has been absolutely amazing and gracious about his deferral, and I really hope that he, and everyone else, makes it in RD.</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>This is a touchy subject. The question is, what is Harvard's goal? No offense to the athletes, but I personally agree with you and think that college is principally about academics and sports are only a secondary, making recruits a bad idea. I figure someone who works very hard and performs well at sports will make it to a great sports team, while people who are very strong and hard-working academically will make it to a great college. That being said, Harvard and many other unis would disagree, and to be fair, a top athlete is working hard and performing at the top of what they are talented at, just like a great writer or scientist. So I can definitely see Harvard's logic. So it isn't a purely academic thing, then. It's a matter of creating a class filled with the best, in whatever they do.</p>
<p>ruvgirl--Thanks so much (:)) and congratulations!! Those are some pretty crazy scores and ECs so you totally deserve it ;)</p>
<p>And by the way, Teen Jeopardy?? haha that is awesome. How'd ya do?</p>
<p>GuitarMan, I agree that the athletes may be slightly lower academically than a Siemens semifinalist or another scientist, but in many cases that is because an athletes ECs are not academic projects as many non-athletes are. This simply means that athletes may have less time to study etc. because the time a scientist is focusing on their EC is about learning, while an athlete is focusing on the field outside of school. Athletes can also bring in qualities that may not be find in a scientist or someone purely focused on scholarship.</p>
<p>Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said. Among Harvard acceptees, the athlete excelled in athletics, the scientist excelled in science, the writer excelled in writing. The common factor is excellence; nothing more.</p>
<p>Except athleticism is a bit removed from academics, and Harvard is an academic institution.</p>
<p>Therein lies the argument against athletic recruitment.</p>
<p>guitarman, perfectly stated. and duality, it's not like the athletes get 1050 on their SATs and never took an AP class. Harvard athletes are still scholars.</p>
<p>That's besides the point. The argument against athletic recruitment does not assume athletes are single-faceted. It simply states that the facet of athleticism should not be considered at an academic institution. In another words, if this argument holds, then athletes will be judged for admission while completely ignoring the fact that they are athletes. However, like most ideal situations, this sort of arrangement goes against the pragmatic goals of the college.</p>
<p>I concur with dualityim.</p>
<p>As do I but it's the opinion of the higher-ups that counts here, not mine. These people see the University as a place where people who are very accomplished in all walks of life can come congregate. Personally, I think that a university is principally academic and should judge solely by that, but that's just our opinion, not an absolute fact. If you assume that the perfect Harvard class in the eyes of the AdCom differs slightly from that in your (duality, zogoto, even myself, etc.) eyes, then it's easy to see the merits of athletic recruitment.</p>
<p>the athletes can juggle a sport and academics with surprising dexterity lol</p>
<p>Haha. That made me chuckle. Good one.</p>
<p>GuitarMan, since you believe that because Harvard is an academic institution, we should judge applicants solely on that, would u also support adcoms ignoring nonacademic ECs?</p>
<p>No, because it still contributes to the vibrantness (word?) of the campus. Sports would still be looked at as a great EC, but NOT as something you would get in for. Academics always take precedence over ECs, but in recruitment, that rule is broken.</p>
<p>Yeah, sorry about that Excalibur, let me correct myself. Academics should be foremost but creating a great community is also a priority.</p>
<p>Actually, though, give me an example of what you mean by a "nonacademic EC".</p>
<p>I think studies have shown that in many cases athletes are more successful in the job world than their academic counterparts (in fields such as i-banking). In light of this, wouldn't you think the Harvard adcom would take into account the future potential of those they are admitting also?</p>
<p>examples of nonacademic ECs are</p>
<p>Varsity Football, Crew, Tennis, Basketball
Band/music
Student Council</p>
<p>Academic ECs are</p>
<p>Scientific Research
Olympiads
RSI/TASP</p>
<p>Got it. Shall I be honest? I'm not sure what to think here. I have a very hard time saying that a prestigious musician shouldn't be accepted to a great school on the basis of their music, even thought it's true, that isn't quite academic. So I'll just stop now because it's so subjective, and really not that useful a topic of discussion :p We know how the people over at H feel about it and that's what counts in the admissions game ;)</p>
<p>Dude what is Rivers Cuomo doing taking up your spot? ;)</p>
<p>Who is that?</p>