<p>academic allstars:
Int. physics oly, int math oly, int bio oly, int chem oly
10 make it(not to traveling but w/e) about so 40 there
Siemens/Intel finalists, some there
2400 + 4.0, some there
State AP Scholars who take like 18+ AP Exams and score many 5’s
There are some others too…</p>
<p>In that same interview with Fitzsimmons, he said there are like 400 candidates that are extraordinary on a national/international level, and then another 300 well lopsided I think.</p>
<p>You also can’t assume ALL oly winners apply to Harvard early… -_-</p>
<p>well-lopsided doesn’t mean recruited athletes or donors…</p>
<p>@starktony826: 400 nationally/internationally extraordinary and 300 “well-lopsided”? Are those numbers for EA or in total (including RD)?</p>
<p>EA and RD.</p>
<p>The majority of oly winners end up going to MIT or harvard I think though.</p>
<p>it seems that Harvard doesn’t want to release its early applicant number, or maybe they ran into some issues haha</p>
<p>I don’t think it is as bad as it looks. 2400 + 4.0 is not very impressive, and definitely not on the same level as Intel finalist, and I can imagine over half of these people getting deferred or rejected. Similarly the chem and bio olympiads are not as competitive as the math olympiads.</p>
<p>@ lovenerds: Yeah, I’m really anxious to find out Harvard’s numbers even though it won’t affect my chances whether I know or not, haha.</p>
<p>@ Foundered: I agree with the 2400 + 4.0. I personally think 2250 or 2300 + is nearly equivalent to a 2400 but maybe that’s just me. </p>
<p>And once again, just a note: Even olympiads can get deferred because very very VERY few will get into Harvard based on merit alone. Just something to remember, I guess…</p>
<p>well, 2250 isn’t really nearly equivalent to 2400. It works more like this: anywhere 2300-2390 is roughly treated equally, and then 2400 gives a little bit (not much) bump. 2250-2290 is decent enough for Harvard to consider you, and anywhere <2200 you must have some great EC’s or essay.
The traveling team members almost never get rejected, but the campers do get rejected from Harvard fairly often (but MIT love these kids). Side note- MOP is weighted more heavily than camps of other science olympiads due to the fact that about 20 as many times students participate in the AMC series as those in other olympiads.</p>
<p>And here’s a depressing thought - I’m pretty sure Harvard doesn’t want 20% of it’s class to be filled with math whizzes. So while making mop or other camps might be enough to get you in, USAMO alone probably won’t. Though it’s probably a really nice supplement to other ec’s!!</p>
<p>I saw somewhere that MIT rejects 50% of USAMO qualifiers and 75% of AIME qualifiers, and Harvard’s numbers for these qualifiers are definitely a lot lower than MIT’s because clearly the two schools have somewhat different focuses.</p>
<p>“well lopsided” was all-inclusive. fitzimmons did not mention any other groups when saying who was “obviously Harvard material.” as for SAT, I heard a stat that said Harvard gets enough people who are 2400s, perfect unweighted GPAs, and valedectorians (all 3) in one year to fill 3 graduating classes, but obviously doesn’t…</p>
<p>^ So that means there are 6000 students applying to Harvard this year with a 2400 SAT and are all valedictorians with a 4.0 U.W. ._. No. </p>
<p>"There have been fewer than 300 students who score 2400 in each recent year. "
-TokenAdult</p>
<p>However, keep in mind that superscoring on the SAT raises the number of perfect scorers a substantial amount, and add in the 700 or so students who score a 36 on the ACT every year (on the same level as a 2400 for admissions purposes).</p>
<p>Now, I don’t think that would still make enough for three whole graduating classes (4800 students? I don’t think there are THAT many who are valedictorians with perfect scores and GPA’s), but the number is still substantial.</p>
<p>Also, from Dean Fitzsimmons:</p>
<p>"In a sense we think of everyone we admit as a good “all-arounder” — a person with outstanding academic, extracurricular, and personal credentials. And most of them are, with the following two caveats:</p>
<p>"1. Several hundred of our admitted students each year have the kind of stunning academic credentials — well beyond test scores and grades — that our faculty believe place them among the best potential scholars of their generation. Such students are exceptional in their love of learning and intellectual curiosity and originality. They often present scholarly work that confirms their strong academic credentials and recommendations. Many such students are also outstanding extracurricularly, but it would be fair to say that it was their academic potential that was most attractive to the admissions committee.</p>
<p>“2. There are also several hundred students who pursued some activity to an unusual degree. Such students — as well as those who are among the best potential scholars — have outstanding achievements largely because of their strong personal qualities. They have made a commitment to pursue something they love, believe in, and value — and to do so with singular energy, discipline and plain old hard work. Such students may continue to be involved in this activity in college — or they may use the personal qualities they developed pursuing the activity to do something else, perhaps entirely different. Such personal qualities are also useful long after one graduates from college.”</p>
<p>Source: [Guidance</a> Office: Answers From Harvard’s Dean, Part 3 - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/harvarddean-part3/]Guidance”>Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 3 - The New York Times)</p>
<p>lovenerds, where are you getting the info about SAT scores and olympiad acceptances?</p>
<p>For the MIT olympiad acceptance: I saw that somewhere- most likely during a MIT math jam on AoPS sometime during the past few years.
For the SAT score info, I think I got that from a college conference (I don’t quite remember, but I didn’t get it from an internet source).</p>
<p>@Seriwe: What if you’re not hooked, not an amazing scholar with big awards, and not nationally/internationally recognized for an interest or activity?</p>
<p>Are there qualified individuals who get in without being spectacular provided that they’re interesting?</p>
<p>“The truth is that there is substantial overlap among the three categories potential scholars, extracurricular stars, and the substantial majority who are most easily seen analytically as ‘all-arounders.’ The attributes that led them to pursue their interests in secondary school will lead them to seek others in the same kind of context in college. Extracurricular activities and research opportunities in the lab or the library provide settings that allow students from many different backgrounds to educate one another in ways that make the college experience transformative.”</p>
<p>Overall, the majority of admits will be strong, well-rounded students. Perhaps only 400 to 600 students in each admitted class are the stunning scholars and extracurricularly distinguished students Dean Fitzsimmons is talking about. But overall, most of each class is going to be a cohort of well-rounded students. However,the admission of these students over other well-rounded students will depend largely on the personal qualities that set these students apart.</p>
<p>@Seriwe: Do you think one weakness, such as an SAT score in the mid 2100s, could break an application, given most are all other requirements are met?</p>