<p>I found this article about the Harvard admissions process-- fascinating reading. </p>
<p>
[Quote]
One applicant in the early sixties, for example, concluded his autobiographical essay with the sentence, "I aspire to become a student at Harvard so that I may live and work with the creme de la creme. " That young man from Illinois had an academic rating of 2, and achievement scores over 780 in both American History and Chemistry. But his personal rating was 4, and he was rejected. "That kind of phrase can ruin you," Peterson says.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>
[Quote]
In the same class, a boy from a suburban Boston school with low 500's on achievement tests, who spelled three words wrong in his essay, was accepted. He was not a "Harvard son," and he was not a great athlete. But his alumni interviewer called him "one of the nicest I've seen this year" and the admissions staff rated his personality 1.
<p>Obviously the entire admissions playing field has changed drastically since 1969, but to what extent do you think that the sentiments expressed in the article hold true? </p>
<p>A nice person may be rated “1” for personality but his alum interview means nothing unless he is viewed poorly by the interviewer. The Alum interviews are for PR only. They enhance the chances that an accepted student will accept an offer to the college. If you do something outrageous during the interview you can blow your chances but there is nothing you can do to make that interview meaningful in terms of weighing heavily on admissions decisions-it won’t. There are articles about how frustrating it is for the interviews who see that the candidates they rate as walking on water are ultimately rejected. Right. They don’t get it either. </p>
<p>Hmm, I wonder then, why colleges don’t just change interviews to ‘personal college information sessions with alumni’ and only invite admitted kids? </p>
<p>On another note entirely, do you think that the personal rating is made without any input from the interview whatsoever?</p>
<p>Though a lot has changed in Harvard Admissions since 1969, when they had only 5000 or so applicants in order to admit nearly as many as today, I personally think there still is quite a trace of the importance of personal characteristics left. But only AFTER an applicant has been deemed to be academically apt for studying at H. Given today’s competitive admissions climate, a 1500/1600/1700 on the SAT and a 3.0 probably wouldn’t pass the initial screening unless she/he has some serious hooks (development case, President’s son, you name it).</p>
<p>My impression is, however, that Harvard any say would take an applicant with say a 2150 over one with say a 2350 provided their transcripts are similar(as H actually seems to place more emphasis on grades than scores) if the former has glowing rec letters, unique ECs showing commitment and great potential while the latter doesn’t have either of these. </p>
<p>Bemused, I think that the letters of rec are probably far more important. After all, your letter writer has known you a long time over different situations while the interviewer has only talked with you for an hour.</p>
<p>I agree with this sentiment entirely. I’ve always thought of SAT scores and grades as a ‘hurdle’-- once you’re over it, they don’t count, if you’re under it, they count enough to guarantee rejection.</p>
<p>“The Alum interviews are for PR only. They enhance the chances that an accepted student will accept an offer to the college.”</p>
<p>Maybe true at some schools, but not true at Harvard. Harvard takes its yield more or less for granted. It would not ask thousands of alumni to interview tens of thousands of kids if the interview didn’t matter. Shining in the interview is one of many ways that a candidate can stand out from the pack of highly qualified applicants. I’ve interviewed a lot of terrific kids over the years, but the three who got in were my three strongest letters. (The fourth strongest kid I ever interviewed got into U of Chicago and ended up at Amherst, </p>