It’s sometimes a good idea to use this section, and sometimes not. If a candidate uses this section for “more detail,” that detail had better be extremely important and unique.
Before deciding to do this, keep in mind that the golden rule of admissions is “The thicker the file, the thinner the candidate.”
If all the standard sections of the application fail to make a case for admission, it is highly unlikely that an extra section of self-descriptive narrative will tip the balance from a “no” to a “yes.”
I disagree. I have heard more than one AO from highly rejective schools say something like 'if we give you another 650 words to tell us about yourself and you choose not to use it…"
Many students applying to these schools have excellent ECs, that would benefit from extra detail beyond the 150 character descriptions allowed in the common app activities section.
No doubt. But, I’m thinking here of candidates who might have great choices other than Harvard. A cross-admit to Harvard, and oh, Princeton, would wise to consider what a year of housing overcrowding on top of the usual issues might mean.
Perhaps some AOs do, I couldn’t say. Generally, the 150 character limit is mean to enforce conscious editing and reflection among applicants, and reward the AO with a quick understanding of what the applicant values the most. If the admissions consensus was that more information was needed about ECs, this section wouldn’t be so limited. Moreover, many selective schools practically beg applicants, in both their written instructions and on their portals, not to send in extra information unless it is very important. Many even state explicitly that the standard components of the application are more than enough for them to make a decision, which is true.
I suppose, since this is a Harvard thread, there there might be some number of candidates who were on the “no” pile that get moved to the “yes” pile because of they continue a narrative about themselves in the additional information section. But, I doubt there are many. By the same token, might there be candidates who eroded their cases by going on and on about themselves, or come off a bit desperate? Yes.
There are definitely good things to park here if they apply to you. If you’ve published academic papers in real journals, this is a good spot for a list and perhaps short abstracts, which if compelling, might cause the reader to request the complete paper for forwarding to faculty for a full review. This is one of the two main avenues for getting an academic 1.
Since this is a Harvard thread, keep in mind that their supplemental essay has a choice of prompts, including expanding on an EC or detailing future goals. The additional info section can be helpful for some purposes, but I would hesitate advising an applicant to use it as overflow.
Upperclassmen will generally move into their room early. First years may be in a different room prior to move-in day.
Upperclass housing is decided in the Spring. The initial house selection which occurs in Spring of the first year is random. Varsity plays no part in housing.
They write the same thing in the interviewer handbook of class of 2026… I am not sure the Harvard Alumni have time to interview some applicants only for the fun…
I am sharing my perspective from what I’ve learned as a Harvard College alumni interviewer for many years. If you are an applicant or parent of one this year, whether you take my advice or not is entirely up to you, and I wish you good luck in the process!
Are you able to comment on the categories and grading? I heard there were 4 categories, academics, athletics, ECs, and personal. And the rating was 1-4. One place said 1-6. Earlier someone posted a recruited athlete was a 2, which would mean a non athlete is a 4. Doesn’t seem that different. So someone with crappy ECs would be a 4 and pretty good ones are a 2? Since winning Math Olympiad or publishing a real paper is an academic 1, then pretty much everyone else if a 2. Since the bulk of the kids applying will have SAT in the top range, top grades 5.0 or 4.0 depending on your school. Then the bulk of applicants have a 2 in academics. Right? There isn’t much differentiation then except for personal, which would be the interview. So if the interview went south, you could get a 4? So a super star could get a 4, and worst case is 16? It would be hard to sift through the center.
Do we know for sure whether Harvard is using the exact same admissions criteria/system/process as they did during the time of the lawsuit data (2014ish?)?
Don’t know for sure, but I would doubt that the basics have changed much. The criteria are pretty general by category and have always allowed them to holistically shape a class that they feel is optimal.
47% is the admit rate of children of faculty/staff for the class of 2018, not percent of admits. We can see the admit rate for legacies (Harvard College Parent) at somewhere between 32-33% admit rate.
Need blind means that inability to pay is not factored against the applicant. In fact low income can be a “plus”.
I suspect though that faculty kids are a self-selecting group, with very few applying that are not strong candidates on their own. The best hook is to buy your way in if you are a mediocre student.
Some of the following is direct knowledge and some second-hand, so please take it as such. Also, I do not know how the recent pandemic test-optional surge in applications have affected the proportions I mention below, but if I had to guess, it probably has mostly fattened the bottom of the pyramid.
The are five categories, not four. The fifth is an overall rating which is subjective and not computed from the other categories.
The standard rating range is 1 to 4, with 1 being best. Ratings of 5 and 6 are reserved for special situations that differ by category.
A capital R, capital A “Recruited Athlete” would be a 1, not a 2. An excellent athlete (varsity in a good program, varsity letter, winning regional record and placings, team leadership, possibly known and supported by a Harvard coach in a non-Ivy sport) would be a 2 or 2+. Ratings in the category of 1 are extremely helpful, 2 and 2+ are very slightly helpful, 3s and 4s don’t affect the case negatively. Not being an athlete doesn’t hurt you except in the sense that good athletes of all kinds are viewed positively.
Yes, as you delicately put it, “Crappy ECs” will often be rated EC 4 . A rating of 1 is extraordinary, far beyond what is typically noted on this board as superlative: it is for applicants who are jaw-dropingly amazing. Fewer than half a percent of applicants get this rating. A 2 or 2+ is truly excellent ECs, not just “pretty good,” and is more typical than not for students who are admitted. The very best types of ECs ever posted on this board’s “chance me” type of posts might warrant a 2 or 2+, most do not. About three quarter of the applicants each year are rated 3 or lower for ECs.
Being on the US Mathematics Olympiad team, or a finalist the Regeneron STS, or publishing a paper as primary or sole author in a respected journal are not Academic 1s…but they are a good start . It’s not like punching a ticket where if you do this or that particular thing, you get a 1. If those accomplishments are part of a pattern of academic originality, impact, and achievement of the highest order, then it might be a 1. Less than half a percent of applicants are Academic 1s. It is a big drop to an Academic 2 (perfect or near perfect test scores, perfect or near perfect grades, the most rigorous course load possible at one’s school, evidence of college courses or college-level academic research, etc), and 2s and 2+ traditionally compose about half the applicants and a great majority of the admitted. The flip side? A great number of 2s are also waitlisted or rejected. A very shiny high school academic record is merely a foot in the door at best.
The personal rating is not the alumni interview, but an amalgam of teacher recommendations (most important), school counselor statements (more so for those applying from independent schools, if one is from a low-resourced high school, not much will be made of the counselor report), and the alumni interview which brings up the rear in relative importance. Very, very, very few get a Personal 1…you could fit them in a couple elevators each year. Only about a fifth of applicants get a Personal 2, meaning nearly 4 in 5 applicants get a rating of 3 or lower.
Overall, the largest single category of admitted students usually are those who are straight 2s across the board, and then come smaller groups with spikes among the different categories. Since 75% to 80% start with EC and personal ratings of 3 or lower, a great number of applicants out of contention early on unless they are extraordinarily accomplished academically, athletically, or personally. The final discussions and decisions, however, are subjective and are not governed by numerical ratings by themselves. Because the majority rules on the full committee, many of the candidates who are admitted still have committee members who are not fully on board with their case.
I hope that is helpful, or if unhelpful, at least interesting. Please keep in mind that the numbers above are typical and general ranges, but fluid year by year.
No doubt. But, I’m thinking here of candidates who might have great choices other than Harvard. A cross-admit to Harvard, and oh, Princeton, would wise to consider what a year of housing overcrowding on top of the usual issues might mean.
. A rating of 1 is extraordinary, far beyond what is typically noted on this board as superlative: it is for applicants who are jaw-dropingly amazing. Fewer than half a percent of applicants get this rating. A 2 or 2+ is truly excellent ECs, not just “pretty good,” and is more typical than not for students who are admitted. The very best types of ECs ever posted on this board’s “chance me” type of posts might warrant a 2 or 2+, most do not. About three quarter of the applicants each year are rated 3 or lower for ECs.
. It’s not like punching a ticket where if you do this or that particular thing, you get a 1. If those accomplishments are part of a pattern of academic originality, impact, and achievement of the highest order, then it might be a 1. Less than half a percent of applicants are Academic 1s. It is a big drop to an Academic 2 (perfect or near perfect test scores, perfect or near perfect grades, the most rigorous course load possible at one’s school, evidence of college courses or college-level academic research, etc), and 2s and 2+ traditionally compose about half the applicants and a great majority of the admitted. The flip side? A great number of 2s are also waitlisted or rejected. A very shiny high school academic record is merely a foot in the door at best.