<p>^ your hypothesis is false! or at least you need to be more specific. If you really think about it, anyone who doesn't check the decisions all at once (which will be everyone since that's nearly impossible) will need to check the decisions in a certain order, and they are probably the ones to come up with that order, so technically, everyone "arrange[s] the order of the colleges they check on decision day" and obviously Harvard does not reject *everyone<a href="read:%20some%20people%20do%20get%20accepted">/i</a>.</p>
<p>The issue is: how far ahead of time do those people have to arrange the order? Obviously just arranging the order as you check decisions will be quite different personality-wise from planning out the order weeks ahead of time and considering it at length.</p>
<p>If I understand you correctly, you seem to be emphasizing the ends rather than the means. Positive thinking only helps when things can be done - it is useless afterward and can be switched off. Perhaps this is true in the most practical sense, but for long-run, I'm not entirely sure. Humans are creatures of habit - we form routines and means that we often repeat. In fact, the reason most of you are relatively successful in your high school careers is that you have made a habit of what is unpleasant to those who do not succeed on the same level. Studying for hours and rejecting immediate gratification are two examples. I believe that the next highest step is not only making a habit of what we do but what we think as well. Thinking positively is unpleasant in many situations - like many have said, it can lead to disappointment. But doing it constantly, and renewing it each day, will in the long run create an individual who is confident and unafraid of more difficult challenges than any confronted in college. This is why I do not believe positive thinking is "powerful only to the extent that it motivates you to appropriate action."</p>
<p>Have you heard the defense, “I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist”? In this case, I believe the two are very similar, if not synonymous. To be realistic is to accept the numbers – and I thought Americans were all about rejecting numbers and promoting individuality. The numbers state that approximately 93-94% of applicants will not be accepted. I have a 93-94% chance of not getting in. If this is the case, how can I separate realism from pessimism without any active optimism?</p>
<p>
[quote=ZFanatic]
It's not setting yourself up for failure, it's being realistic... I'm prepared to take the rejection in stride.
</p>
<p>In many cases, if you are honest, being realistic is in fact synonymous with setting oneself up for failure. And I don’t think being optimistic, if one is strong enough, will completely crush a person or leave them wondering why they’re failures. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t “take the rejection in stride.” What I’m saying, like in the post above, is essentially that renewing one’s dedication to the means of positive thinking will create an individual who is confident and unafraid of more difficult challenges.</p>
<p>So, if an equation is something like F(x) = a+bx+cx^2, or whatever (some function in X)
And if a partial differential is....well. the partial derivative of some function (we'll just say in X as well, lol)
We can say a differential equation is some function (equated to) something involving itself and orders of it's derivatives. (So, like, first order has first derivative, second order has seconds derivative, etc.. etc..)</p>
<p>Then a PDE is a differential equation, but specifically one involving partial derivatives.</p>
<p>At this point, the text I'm using hasn't even mentioned applications of anything beyond first and second order. It'll probably be something wickedly useless and obscure in Physics, I'll bet.
<em>giggles at Physicists</em></p>
<p>@mcb52:
So, when you say "surprised", should we take that to mean those students who are qualified, but without ungodly extras are not typical of Harvard..ians(?), but a small minority uncommon enough to surprise someone?</p>
<p>(I'm being facetious, but, you know what I mean)
Do most people, yourself included, have some massively awesome hook, then?</p>
<p>-Googles partial derivatives- They don't seem all that hard to understand, but that might be because I tend to solve problems in a very mechanical way. I personally love doing big computations, but I'm not so good at the abstract thinking behind solving higher-level problems. </p>
<p>And I personally think Physics (pre-university, anyway) is pretty interesting. I actually did a Physics A-level, which makes me one third physicist :).</p>
<p>^ Yeah, most computations get really algorithmic...(actually, some proofs do too!)</p>
<p>I love the abstract thinking bit.</p>
<p>I have nothing against Physics. I actually like it a lot; it's where most serious Mathematics gets an application (secretly, I loathe Economists...)</p>
<p>But seriously...that there isn't a unified theory for relativity/quant and people are paying attention to STRING THEORY just really, really upsets me.
I mean, really. What if Aristotle developed maths that allowed him to back up; "Smoke is like the sky, so when it is produced, it drifts toward the sky!"?</p>
<p>Yeah, the math would be legitimate......But maths are only legitimate because the axioms we set up in creating it Will produce truths...</p>
<p>I do not believe that expecting rejection, at least from HYPSM, necessarily implies masked arrogance or self-delusion. The situation is pretty objective, really -- of the tens of thousands of people who apply to each, 10% or less will be accepted, but somewhere between 30% and 70% are considered "qualified" by the admissions office in terms of statistics and accomplishments (this is a rather flexible definition, but ultimately all that matters is that it is endorsed by the admissions officers). At that point, it comes down to largely subjective factors like essays, recommendations, interviews, etc. to find out who will be the best "fit" and what particular perspectives and assets they will bring to the campus. Assuming that each exceeds some minimum level of academic capacity, how would one compare a state champion oboe player to a person who speaks four languages fluently to a student with perfect SAT scores and a dozen 5s on AP exams? Ultimately, even most very talented and accomplished applicants SHOULD expect rejection, probabilistically speaking.</p>
<p>However, students likely to fall into the "qualified" group should still apply, because the expected return is positive. If a student is distinguished enough to make it to that group, then his or her chances are somewhere between roughly 1 in 7 and 1 in 3 per the above figures (or perhaps a bit lower, but it does not matter, as we will see). Estimate that a given application to a top-tier school has an application fee of $60 and that conducting all necessary research, interviews, etc. and completing a high-quality application to such a school (of which many elements can be re-used for subsequent applications) takes perhaps 40 hours. Assume that we can value this time at $7 per hour. Then the cost of an application equates to $340, with diminishing marginal costs as one applies to an increasing number of schools. Assume that the benefits of attending such an insitution, for most people, are worth several tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over the costs, to the extent that they can be monetized at all. Returning to chances, the expected return lies somewhere between ($[hundreds of thousands]<em>1/7)+(-$340</em>6/7) and ($[hundreds of thousands]<em>1/3)+(-$340</em>2/3). Obviously, the benefits of attendence dominate the resources expended in applying even when one's chance of acceptance is poor (but non-negligible -- note again that these calculations are meant for "qualified" students).</p>
<p>Ultimately, one should aim as close to perfection as possible when applying, but know in the end that a significant element of chance (or chaos, if you prefer) is involved in the process. One should apply to a few safety schools, a few match schools, and a lot of reach schools, expecting acceptance at at least one safety and match and rejection from the reach schools, and wait for the results. Maintaining a clear view of the situation is critical.</p>
<p>Maintaining a clear view of the situation is critical.</p>
<p>Situation right now is that millions of kids applied to loads of colleges and they are going absolutely nuts waiting for their decisions.
Solution?
Release all the decisions today man.</p>
<p>Guys, you all need to realize that the admissions decisions are outside of your heads. YOU may feel confident and special to YOURSELF and some other people who know you, but to a Harvard admissions officer who is "blessed" with other great applicants, your just another likely reject. I think when it comes to Harvard admissions, students should realize that this Harvard! Harvard has been increasingly competitive for eons and there is nothing we can do about it. Just chill out come decision day (i know i should be telling that to myself haha) and if you get in, great, but if you dont, you can become a member of a really big facebook group haha ;) Harvard Rejects 2013 woot!</p>
<p>what if they gave you two options when you go to access your admissions decision: "decision 1" and "decision 2". then you have to choose between the two without knowing what the decision is behind the...err...button. hehe that'd make things interesting and cause alota people to FREAK</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, when you say "surprised", should we take that to mean those students who are qualified, but without ungodly extras are not typical of Harvard..ians(?), but a small minority uncommon enough to surprise someone?
[/quote]
No, I don't mean they aren't typical of Harvard students, but think of it from those students' perspectives: there's thousands of qualified but not uberqualified kids like them applying, some even slightly more qualified than them; what are the chances that Harvard would've accepted these specific qualified but ungodly applicants over the others?</p>
<p>I agree with the original poster. It's unfair for you to just assume that you will get rejected. Why did you apply in the first place if you 'know' you're going to be rejected. Obviously, you saw something in yourself that drove you to apply. Even if you are not valedictorian of your class, or weren't nationally recognized, you still have just as much of a shot as most people of getting in. It is documented that Harvard could fill each class multiple times over because they have so many applicants who are wonderful. **It's not like the admissions committee is going on a treasure hunt to find the only 1700 qualified kids in the pile of 29,000 applications who are THE meant-to-be Harvard students. Most of the applicants are 100% qualified to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>You cannot set yourself up for rejection because most applicants are capable of gaining an acceptance. Yes, the acceptance rate is very low, but if you sike yourself out you wont push yourself to work hard because subconsciously you don't think that you could get in. Think positively. You have to tell yourself that the admissions committee is probably reading your application and is really impressed with what they see. Hopefully, they will keep you in the acceptance pile, but if they don't, think about how hard it must be for them to decline admission to you because you ARE qualified. </p>
<p>So, don't tell yourself you are definitely getting in, because that's unrealistic. But DO tell yourself that you are a great contender, and if you get in, great! If you are rejected, you know that the chances were slim anyway, so you shouldn't get upset about it. You'll go to another great school where you will be just as successful.</p>