That WOW factor

Colleges & Universities A-Z Harvard University
1

<p>I have been reading about Harvard, chances and what not for sometime now, and it seems to me, (and has been stated many times) is that students who get admitted seem to have some sort of "wow factor". What I mean by this is that applicants that have done something really unique and/or challenging can really get a boost in the admissions. I know this isn't true for all students admitted; some kids are just great and well rounded. But, I read somewhere that schools like Harvard don't really care if your valedictorian because think of all the kids that are valedictorian, despite that it is a great achievement.</p>

<p>So here is the point of my thread. Can you give me some examples of students that have done something really great, which helped them in the admissions. To be clear, I don't intend to copy an idea and do something that isn't me to get ahead. I just want to know some stories. :)</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

2

<p>To be fair, the “WOW” idea comes from an interview with Harvard admissions dean Fitzsimmons in which he said that about 200 applicants per year seem to “walk on water” and get admitted without any substantial discussion. So that’s maybe 10% of people admitted, not all of them. I imagine that included people like Natalie Portman, Peter Sellars, Rivers Cuomo, Yo-Yo Ma, or Stefan Jackiw.</p>

3

<p>As JHS said, about 200 applicants have the “WOW factor.” The others are basically “good all-arounders.” See: [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>

4

<p>I think the OP is not talking about that much wow, just something pretty awesome. So I will list what I think constitutes WOW:</p>

<p>Published research (In a journal or conference, not a high school science comp…)
National Sport
Professional music performances (i.e. with top adult orchestras or national youth orchestra’s)</p>

<p>These are just the 3 I thought of first. Backed up with top scores (and numerous other EC’s and good essays) I would say that someone with one of these would be a Wow applicant.</p>

<p>Wow for me is just something very rare, and these 3 are…</p>

5

<p>In the interview cited above, Fitzsimmons says :</p>

<p>“Each year we admit about 2,100 applicants. We like to think that all of them have strong personal qualities and character, that they will educate and inspire their classmates over the four years of college, and that they will make a significant difference in the world after they leave Harvard. So 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” had “stunning” academic credentials (meaning beyond grades and scores) </p>

<p>2)“Several hundred” pursued an extracurricular in an intense and remarkable way</p>

<p>He also discusses inequities in school systems, parental resources, and guidance counselor to student ratios, and says that one of the best recommendations ever received came from a school janitor who supervised a student doing some work in the school.</p>

<p>Fitzsimmons stresses personal character and the potential for a given student to inspire others while at Harvard. Also, a history of overcoming obstacles seems to be important in assessing students who apply.</p>

<p>Finally, Fitzsimmons seems to mention Howard Gardner’s ideas on “multiple intelligences” in every interview he does.</p>

<p>Some examples of kids at Harvard now, who have “hooks,” aside from or in addition to academics, might include a student who exhibited photographs at a city museum or a student composer whose music was played at college concerts during high school, a state squash or swimming champion, a prizewinning musician, a student who organized some important community service, students who made films, did theater, won an important Girl Scout award, or lived in the rain forest with scientist parents. Geographic diversity seems to be important, as well as economic, racial and ethnic diversity, which is taken for granted by students on campus these days. Some students have overcome challenges with health, poverty/homelessness, or war.</p>

<p>I am not sure if “hooks” are the same as “wow factors,” but clearly there are more than 200 students with hooks, and probably half the class of 2000+ is either stellar academically or in an extracurricular, as described above.</p>

<p>It seems as if the mix is the important thing, and it is how the individual contributes to the mix that really counts.</p>

6

<p>Natalie Portman <3. </p>

<p>She’s got more than one wow factor.</p>

7

<p>thanks for the responses, does anyone have some more good examples.</p>

8

<p>^hahahahaha</p>

9

<p>In math and sciences, probable wow factors are:

  • Winning IMO, IPho, IChemo, IBO, IOI, etc. medals
  • Or to a lower level, winning USAMO (or just qualify for it, to a lesser extent), USABO Finalist etc.
  • Winning Intel/Siemens
  • Winning ISEF
    etc.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, I’ve seen some applicants with these credentials rejected over the years, but I’ve yet seen members of U.S. IMO teams rejected from their top choices tho, usually, this happens to international students. As for USAMOers etc, rejections were the norm, according to past threads.</p>

10

<p>If you win Intel/Siemens, I highly doubt you would get rejected from anywhere…</p>

11

<p>^^ yeah, what do they define as the stunning academic students? for the usamo qualifiers applying, i see more rejections than acceptances.</p>

12

<p>Well for USAMOers to MOSP, thats a bit better, and to actually win USAMO and win IMO medals, thats exceptional. However, only about 4-6 ppl get to do it each year, so imagine u have to be the cream of the crop. I believe those are the ppl who get likely letters as academic superstars.</p>

13

<p>^ number of ppl who get MOP or better and the equivalents for the other sciences combined is probably at most 50 per year… something is not right here</p>

14

<p>I think it’s obvious that IMO medal winning is very impressive, but not an automatic admit to Harvard, since every year (or two) it seems there is some IMO medal winner (or two) who gets rejected. Ditto Siemens and ISEF. Winners of those and similar competitions have a great, but not perfect admissions record at places like Harvard.</p>

<p>I am not certain exactly what constitutes evidence of academic superstardom at 17, but I suspect that winning formal competitions isn’t exactly it.</p>

15

<p>^ Those IMO medalists who got rejected because H can’t fill all of its class with math/science genius: it needs diversity. H prolly accepted enough ppl from that “pool” to fill its class, so some wouldn’t get in. On the other hand, most IMO medalists who got rejected are international students who have problems in English etc, or some other medalists from the same country have gotten in. I’ve yet seen U.S. IMO students rejected from their top choices, however. In math and science, especially math, winning international medals is a tremendous achievement, only 20-30 ppl get to do it each year.</p>

16

<p>I think many people overlook the impact and potential hook of starting businesses/community projects. Everyone focuses on national awards, etc, but from what I’ve seen, there are more applicants who get accepted with these in-depth community-centered projects than just national awards.</p>

17

<p>^ good idea, do you know any good examples of this.
thanks
conner</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah… She’s got two ;)</p>