Schools like Harvard do not really accept students into majors. They do, however, expect students to succeed in their majors AND their generals AND their electives. That is the value of an Ivy or any decent liberal arts school. You major in a discipline. Your DEGREE is in the liberal arts, and a student needs to be prepared for the whole thing. – Note: I am not disagreeing with every point you have made.</p>
<p>
No one, actually. Some Harvard admits are like that, but most are not. My daughter sure isn’t. What you’re describing is urban legend or a cartoon or something.</p>
<p>And what’s up with this “Hahvad” stuff anyway? JFK? Mr. Magoo?</p>
<p>I’m not really qualified in any way, I mostly just read a lot of CC, but I think the problem is that the disadvantaged kid with mediocre grades and an abysmal SAT score is competing against the disadvantaged kid with great grades and a pretty good SAT score. If you had a choice between the two, who would you take? Not every disadvantaged kid does poorly. And just being disadvantaged is not enough of a qualifier. You have to prove that you are in some way qualified, whether that’s through ECs, grades, SATs, teacher recs, something has to be exceptional for these schools to be willing to take a chance on you. If they bring in kids who aren’t qualified, as someone upstream said, they’ll just fail out, and that’s no good for anyone. </p>
<p>^ Here’s the deal: Why would colleges pick between “just grades” vs. “just other qualities” when there are looooootttsss of students that have both?? Why eat only brownies or only ice cream when you can scoop some ice cream on top of the brownie? lol</p>
<p>Yeah you can really tell someone’s “other qualities” in 5 sheets of papers when you’ve met them before. That’s holistic admissions for you folks. (Note that even in holistic admissions grades, demographics, and test scores carry the most weight)
Those 5 sheets of paper and your almost definitely flawed interpretation of it should hold more weight than 4+ years of grades and the most (for most students) important test of your high school career.
Yeah …</p>
<p>A underachiever does absolutely no good for him/her self if they get into these schools, there are absolutely no excuses in low performance. The reason they underachieve with such spectacular ability is the fact that they were not able to build learning skills which are essential in life even after secondary school. Why would the admission officer ever admit a student someone who is a world class violinist/pianist but has a GPA of 2.8? Admitting them will ruin their life since they did not learn the building blocks required for their intended major and probably have a hard time with per-requisite courses, they should go to schools like Berklee which focus specifically for musicians. One thing different about College GPA is that it actually goes on your resume, which you need to get a job when you graduate, you screw up once it sticks with you.</p>
<p>Top schools aren’t a place for everyone, we all have a school where we will belong in the end</p>
<p>That does not mean that the interview is most important for all applicants. It means that the interview is most important for applicants who have passed the GPA/MCAT/etc. screen to get to the interview.</p>
<p>Medical school admissions and super-selective college admissions can basically be thought of as knowing that you must be at the top end of the scale in several criteria. I.e. excellent GPA and excellent test scores and excellent [other criterion] and excellent [other criterion]… Missing any one of these greatly reduces your chance of admission.</p>
<p>^ Thank you for pointing that out. I don’t know why OHMomof2 was nitpicking over my wording.</p>
<p>Really, the point I was trying to make is that test scores and gpa do matter in the real world. It annoys me when people say “Oh, GPA and test scores barely matter in the real world.” They say this like its an excuse for their poor grades, perhaps to make themselves feel better.</p>
<p>I get it - test scores, GPA and other hard factors, aren’t everything. But, on average, if you take students who scored well on the SAT and have good GPAs, they probably will be more successful in life, however the hell society defines what ‘success’ is.</p>
<p>-Perez didn’t invent this wheel. It’s in practice now at many selective and higher schools.<br>
Just picking a few misconceptions.
-In holistic, “grades, demographics and test scores” do not carry the most weight. Try to remember all the info Gibby points kids to.<br>
Using the Harvard example, tell us what gpa proves to those adcoms. Oh, you don’t believe what H says?
Post 25, more misconceptions.</p>
<p>Hate to sound snarky, but if you are the sort of person who is satisfied with misinfo, hearsay, assumptions and taking your understanding no further, if you are convinced it’s a crapshoot and some unworthy person will get in for unworthy reasons, you will have a hard time conveying the quality of thinking and judgment top colleges need to see. Regardless of your gpa and scores. Holistic isn’t perfect, but it is one fine filter.</p>
<p>Another way of thinking about GPA and test scores for admission to highly selective colleges is that high GPA and high test scores are generally necessary, but not sufficient, to gain admission (recruited athletes and development applicants excepted).</p>
<p>@SammyxB How do you determine their “other qualities?” You don’t get to shadow every student for a month before deciding whether to admit them. And what “other qualities” are good enough to overcome poor grades and SAT scores? </p>
<p>And, as a few people have pointed out now, even if you are the best trampolinist (or whatever, pick your poison) in the world, that doesn’t necessarily mean you are smart enough to cut it at a top school. Even disadvantaged kids, who probably have not had the same opportunities as the typical upper-middle class white/Asian kid who has two parents and lives in the suburbs, needs to prove in some capacity that they are smart enough to excel. How do you know that if you moved the disadvantaged kid with a 2.8 GPA to the suburbs, he wouldn’t just be a “normally advantaged” kid with a 3.2 GPA?</p>
<p>Disadvantaged student who does what is expected by colleges > disadvantaged student who doesn’t.</p>
<p>Test scores and GPA have always been indicators of success and being able to get into college, why complain about it now? Complaining isn’t going to change anything.</p>
<p>Underachievers are not prepared for college, and the only people who really whine about the process are those with low test scores and low GPAs. How about instead of complaining, you work just a little harder? And if you don’t want to, why not start at a community college or something?</p>
<p>Come on now people, stop grabbing at air for excuses.</p>
<p>How do you know that if you moved the disadvantaged kid with a 2.8 GPA to the suburbs, he wouldn’t just be a “normally advantaged” kid with a 3.2 GPA? Fine thinking point. </p>
<p>the only people who really whine about the process are those with low test scores and low GPA
No, it’s those kids who pursued 4.0 and got some great scores, who whine about how unfair it is and point fingers. I don’t know why it’s so hard to grasp that, for elites, it’s not all about stats, that it’s not all about how well you fit your one high school’s expectations. Nor many other assumptions. It’s not like your hs has a college that auto admits the top X%. </p>
<p>^^ They do, but most other state colleges do not base their admissions on the same meritocracy. In fact, I think Texas is the only State in the nation that does that. Private colleges do not do it.</p>
<p>UT Austin admits the top 7% of those ranked in HS now, Tx A&M top 10%. This is obviously based on GPA/rigor (relative to classmates) but not in any way on SAT/ACT.</p>