In case that’s unclear, what it means is that yes, a case that reaches the full committee has the advantage of many eyes and ears, discussion, and painstaking reviews and re-reviews, but only only perhaps 3000? 4000? or so of the applications get to that stage.
The mushrooming numbers of applications would seem to mean that the first readers have a very tough job. On the other hand, most applications are not competitive, so perhaps that part of the process moves quickly despite the volume spiraling up.
One more thing: why no “second” reader? Second readers are not normally assigned and a second reading can slow things down. If the first reader is absolutely flummoxed, and thinks someone else on the docket might get a better handle on a candidate, they can refer the case. This is discouraged, however.
Even hearing about this process, which is impressive if it is followed, there are elements of randomness, mood, and luck that permeate the whole process.
Maybe a reviewer has had a bad day. These are just normal people who fight with their spouse and struggle to pay the bills.
Maybe someone writing a letter of recommendation is a reserved person who noted that you performed well but isn’t the kind of person to write the most informative letter chock full of examples, details, and challenges overcome. There went your application!
The problem with having too established a “process” is that people naturally will game that process rather than just being honest and letting their true character shine through. Do you really want an entire class filled with people who (along with their families) are sophisticated at gaming an admissions system? Of course, maybe gaming systems is what is being selected for. Who knows.
I contend that there is little to differentiate the 5% chosen from the top 50% of applicants other than perhaps luck, mood, and maybe effort to check the boxes. Having sat on these admissions groups before, I know that most are qualified and so after that it’s just a matter of personal taste on the part of those processing the applications. Trying to over analyze it is wasteful of time and energy. Kids should put their best foot forward, be honest and true to themselves, and not let some school redefine who they are - whether they achieve admission or not.
2 Likes
That’s interesting, in light of statements you hear that the vast majority of applicants to HYPSM (say, 70% and up) have the qualifications to be successful academically and that’s why it is a crap shoot when applying to these schools. I guess there’s a big difference between being academically qualified and being competitive.
The bandwidth for being academically qualified is wide, but the bandwidth for being academically qualified and possessing all the other attributes is narrow.
1 Like
I’m not sure that there are many applicants who successfully “game” the Harvard admissions process, but perhaps your characterization is correct. What a miserable group of young people that would be, 
, so I hope that isn’t true. I’m relieved to say that I don’t recall interviewing any applicant like that.
Is that gray area between being coded out as a 3 or coded in for the next step as a 2- or above a tad fuzzy? It is, but that seems unavoidable unless one moves to a strict test based system. But, such a system would only shift the subjective point elsewhere because then the discussion becomes, why do some test well and why do some test poorly?
As someone who has also sat in graduate admissions committees as well as committees doing faculty searches, I understand your perspective and fully agree applicants and parents should not treat this as life and death matter. As you say, kids to aspire to a selective school are going to do just fine no matter what a particular admissions decision is.
The other attributes… which are subjective.
In my opinion many here have placed this process on a pedestal. At best, it selects those kids whose application communicates traits that are popular among the reviewers, in the manner in which they like to receive it. Many factors completely out of the candidate’s control - like what a recommender chooses to write about - have an outsized effect. Who this child is as a person is rarely effectively communicated, rather it is a slick marketing package.
I have seen this process at other institutions from the inside. There is horse trading of candidates and evaluators who get enamored or disgusted by candidates that form hardened opinions that others tend not to dispute because they want their own choices and opinions to be honored when the time comes.
Maybe Asians scored low on the subjective “personality” profile because there are few Asians on the review committee. Perhaps culturally they are less likely to be self-aggrandizing and so other candidates fared better in a system where we “strive for 1’s.”
There are many more applicants than slots, so there needs to be a process. Perhaps this is as good as it gets. But having seen behind the curtain, I’ll never agree that it is truly “fair” or an accurate measure of worth or potential. Reviewers have a huge burden of work to get through and they know it really doesn’t matter is applicant A with an amazing background is chosen, versus applicant B with an amazing background. One must be cut and what decides that is typically whimsy and luck.
2 Likes
Please note, I am not advocating for change in admissions to any school.
My only point is that parents should recognize that the admissions process can never be even close to fair or perfect, that an admissions rejection (while disappointing) is often based on subjective criteria, and that a person’s worth or potential is not connected to their success or failure of acceptance at any specific university.
One secret to a fulfilling life is that after putting one’s best foot forward, if there is a setback then it was just meant to be, and often opens other windows of even better opportunity for those with the motivation to seek out those opportunities.
2 Likes
Well put and very reasonable, even if I’m not on board with some of this perspective entirely. When the words are “accept” or “reject,” it feels like someone beyond one’s control is passing judgement of the severest sort, when it’s actually more like “welcome” or “regret you can’t join us” in most cases. I don’t think there is as much hand-to-hand combat among the principals during those discussions behind the curtain in college admissions, where adults are dealing with children with a sense of stewardship, than further on in the educational process like graduate and professional schools, where adults are dealing with other adults over even more valuable professional prizes. College admissions includes a lot of caring and conscientous people who pursue their work with as much dedication as you or I might, and they are not cynical as whole.
I noted early on in this thread that one of the great strengths of American higher education is that it is so generally non-selective and porous to those seeking a college education, unlike in many other countries. Even at the most selective end, the phenomena of applicants applying to 20 schools in one go creates an atmosphere of perceived scarcity that doesn’t really exist. This is why you are quite right that the difference between the top 5% and the top 50% is isn’t a vast gulf, and fortunately, that top 50% and even the bottom 50% are near certain to end up in a college or university where they will get a fine education and have a great time if they continue on their positive paths.
Curious about scoring a 2- or a 3. Considering over 8000 early applicants got deferred last year. Less than 1000 were out and out rejected. Were all those 8000+ a 2-? Because if they were a 3, they would be in the rejected pile? Correct?
1 Like
I wouldn’t know what the relative numbers were. It would be a plausible guess that the REA round produced 3+ rating deferrals for whom a midyear school report was thought to be useful to see. The REA round, moreover, isn’t a duplicate subset of the overall review process, very particular things happen in REA (like athletic recruiting) that skew numbers this way and that compared to the total admission pool.
More importantly, last year was very unusual and so might this year be because of the ripple effects from the pandemic. Last year, it sure seemed that Harvard was very conservative in the REA round. There’s no way for any outside the admissions committee to know if that remains true or if they are returning to a more typical set of targets after successfully navigating their way through the uncertainties of last year.
Question for tamenund or others who are knowledgable. Suppose a candidate has published academic writing, and let’s also assume that it is of reasonably high quality. The candidate lists such writing as an EC, as it is the activity where the candidate has most invested. But that writing also could (perhaps?) contribute to a higher academic rating. Does or can that writing “count” for both ratings? Or would a reader make a judgment about where it ought to count?
Let’s not conflate opinionated with knowledgeable. Nobody here has any inside knowledge.
6 Likes
No judgment intended! Just interested in people’s views, understanding that they may not be (entirely) accurate.
No one outside the admissions committee can answer can your specific question, and I doubt there is a generic practice common to all readers.
From time to time, a first reader will ask for a copy of an academic paper to be sent on for faculty review if it hasn’t already been submitted as supplementary material, but it would be sensible to be circumspect about what that might mean because the results might not be what the applicant hopes for. And the applicant will never know what transpired or what role it might have played in an admissions decision unless that applicant is admitted and hasn’t waived post-admissions access to their admissions file. Even then, there might not be any compelling clues recorded.
1 Like
Thank you. Of course, I understand that it’s not possible to know how research is evaluated. I was just wondering into which general bucket–EC or academic–it tends to go, or if it goes into both buckets.
No way for anyone on the outside to know. 
1 Like
My guess is that it counts as an EC
1 Like
Are there a full 40 committee members for the REA round or just in the RD round? If there are less committee members in the REA round, how many? What if it’s a tie like 5-5 to admit or reject, who makes the tie break decision?
How many applications would go through the full committee? Going back to the 8000 deferred last year, would they have all gone through the full committee to either get accepted or deferred?