<p>This would be me if I weren't lucky enough to be a pretty good athlete as well:</p>
<p>My UW GPA is 3.95, my SAT is 2400, my subject test score average is 795 (hopefully 798.33... after the June testing day). My schedule is the toughest workload possible; I've even accelerated a year ahead in math and have taken two languages throughout high school. My school is a competitive public and has a great track record of sending kids to top-caliber schools.</p>
<p>And that's where the good ends (in this only slightly hypothetical situation). I am a member of only two clubs, both in which I actively participate but I have no awards/leadership positions to show for it (I might get some rather minor awards for math but that's it). No community service, no jobs, and the ECs my parents tried cultivating for me I basically threw out over the last few years because of my lack in interest. My summers comprise paid-for summer camps, vacation, and athletics. That's basically it. (Yes, my true major EC is preparing for spring season. And yes, odds are I'll get recruited. But God forbid I get hurt, this will be all I have to show for the thousands of free hours I've had during HS. And while I will say that athletic dedication is partially to blame for my lack of EC activity, I will also concede that my own laziness has to do with it.)</p>
<p>Oh yeah, the fun doesn't end there. I'm reticent in the classroom; not to a point where it's a cause for alarm or anything, but I'm definitely not one of the most active participants. I'm concerned that this will be touched upon in my letters of rec, and even though I have a lot going for me in the classroom (teachers like my writing style and, well, I do well on assignments) I worry that this may be a rather glaring hole in my application.</p>
<p>So yeah, just to summarize: Ignore athletics for the purpose of this thread, and I am basically a kid with great academics but pooey everywhere else (ignore essays as well; who knows how well I'll do on this). Now, everyone emphasizes that for the highest echelon of schools, you really need strong holistic elements to get in as an unhooked applicant. Do I stand a chance at any of HYPSM? Keep in mind that my school has a strong track record of sending its strong students (in our school that pretty much means 3.7+ GPA) to Ivies and other top institutions. How much, however, would you anticipate my lame holistic qualities hurting me? Is Harvard an absolute pipe dream?</p>
<p>You’re asking for an honest opinion, so I’ll give you one - please don’t take offense.</p>
<ol>
<li>What sport are you potentially getting recruited for?</li>
<li>If you’re, in reality, not HYP-recruit worthy then I’d say your chances with just test scores are very slim.</li>
<li>If you’re Asian or White and you can’t get recruited, I’d say your chances are even slimmer.</li>
<li>If you’re a URM, legacy, or first-generation college student, I’d say your chances are great with/without the athletic hook.</li>
<li>If you’re ASian or White and you can get recruited, well you’re recruited, now aren’t you? ;)</li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t know why NSM says you’re a longshot at ivies or elites. if you’re a recruitable athlete, then I would think an elite would love to have a brainy one. I don’t know how many ECs a person is expected to have if they’re a top varsity athlete who has to spend year-round conditioning and such.</p>
<p>What is your sport? What colleges/coaches have expressed interest? ARe you interested in Div I or what?</p>
<p>By the way, the kids from my school getting into top schools for the most part have decent but unremarkable ECs. Maybe 1 leadership position within the school, handful of community service hours; your “typical” ECs. I understand that “typical” ECs are not supposed to exactly garner admissions, but that’s exactly what they do at my school when the applicant has a high enough GPA and SAT, at least from what I can deduce from Naviance. So I ask, are ECs used as a significant factor only when they are truly distinguished or remarkable or are they relevant on any scale; as in, will it matter to have the “typical” ECs instead of having completely lame ECs?</p>
<p>Forgive me but I’m not a believer in holistic admissions, not at least for kids coming from feeder schools such as my own. It seems that the academic standard is higher (the mean SAT score of acceptance at most Ivies is ~2300 for my school and the mean GPA of acceptance is ~3.85; 3.7 for slightly less selective institutions) but the subjective standard is not as high. Maybe there is an understanding that for students that come from an academically rigorous environment there is simply not that much time to cultivate ECs. Or maybe I’m being misled by the Naviance figures as well as my knowledge of the “subjective profiles” of many now-Ivy Leaguers that came from my school.</p>
<p>Carin, if you wish to know, I play baseball. Like I said, that is not the focus of this thread (to be honest, this thread is more of a curiosity question because it probably won’t be personally relevant (knock on wood!) because nobody really talks about this scenario). I mean, yes, I suppose I can’t completely ignore it for the purpose of this thread; after all, it is far and away my most major EC (I will probably be captain senior year FWIW). So consider that if you wish; just don’t consider the possibility of recruitment for this thread :). m2ck, yep, have already spoken to several D1 coaches. I don’t want to divulge too much for the sake of anonymity (not sure how much I have left at this point but oh well) but yes, I have received interest.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure it doesn’t matter whether you believe in hollistic admissions or not. If you think you have a chance, apply. There’s no point in hypothesizing if you’re going to apply anyways.</p>
Like I said, this is a multifaceted curiosity question: do I in this hypothetical situation stand a chance, and how holistic is the admissions process? I’d really be interested to hear from anyone else who comes from a competitive HS to know if they’ve observed a similar trend in feeder school admissions (higher academics, lower subjectives). I’m not going to not apply to Harvard just because someone tells me it is a long-shot in this situation, which again may I reiterate, is probably not my own!</p>
<p>“I don’t know why NSM says you’re a longshot at ivies or elites. if you’re a recruitable athlete, then I would think an elite would love to have a brainy one.”</p>
<p>You are right. I took his title at face value and missed the fact that he may be a recruitable athlete. Being excellent in a sport is as strong an admission factor as having a very strong EC. Obviously, students who are tops in their sports often don’t have time to pursue other ECs, and colleges understand this.</p>
<p>…Holistic basically means it’s not just “Have this GPA and above, and meet this test score, and you’re in.” kind of admissions, so I’m not sure why you don’t believe in it. Holistic, in this case, implies they read through your file and look at your essays and decide based on educated opinions (presumably if they spend time on your file…) not based on numbers alone.</p>
<p>It’s not something you need to believe in, it’s a simple fact of admissions at some schools.</p>
<p>Oh I believe in it. I know a few complete school-grinds (different kind from that which I’ve described in this thread, however) who found that out the hard way. It’s just that I’m not sure to what extent it really occurs. Just how holistic is it when Naviance data at my school from hundreds of applications shows some pretty clear distinguishing trends with regard to the SAT, even at the 2300s level?</p>
<p>^If you’re just talking about the most selective schools, the Naviance data means that once they find out who’s the best, holistically, they can still be picky because they have so many applicants and can choose the “cream of the crop,” as it were.</p>
<p>The problem lies in that HYPSMCC (I’m adding U Chicago and Cal Tech as well) could fill up their classes 5 times over with kids who have 2400’s and 4.0s… I’m not saying that a lack of ECs would necessarily rule an applicant out but EC’s are often used to differentiate the increasingly large number of applicants who whether it be through grinding or pure brilliance have stellar stats.</p>
<p>My suggestions: You mention that you are a couple years ahead in math, if you aren’t a senior try doing the Math Olympiad system exams and see how far you can get. Getting to the AIME doesn’t take lots of dedication, as the AMC isn’t a format of mathematics too different from school math.</p>
<p>My high school sends no kids to Ivy schools. I’d say that 1-2 kids have been ACCEPTED to these schools in the past couple years. Last year the best acceptance was to Cornell. So are colleges more lenient or not? I don’t know if this is because kids just don’t apply there or what, but from what I have observed, the kids here live in the moment. Of the smartest kids, maybe 1 or 2 care where they go to college</p>
<p>Yeah, this sounds exactly like how my brother is shaping up to be. He’s only a HS sophomore, but still. Top of his class, 4.0 GPA, great PSAT scores, he’s an excellent writer so his essays will be great, and his teachers love him so I’m not worried about reccs. But he does almost nothing outside of class. He plays one sport and is in one club, and he didn’t join either of them until this year. I’m not too worried, but I still want him to have a nice post-HS life…</p>