<p>how much does a place like harvard look to restrict the amount of students coming from one high school? i imagine they can only take maybe one or two students from a given high school</p>
<p>No. There is no quotas of any kind. For example, my high school has ranged from 0 to 5, and the number of applicants roughly remained the same at 15 to 20, which on the grand scale of things do not mean much.</p>
<p>Stuyvesant HS in NYC fluctuates from 9 (for the class of 2009) to 20+, whereas the number of applicants again remains pretty static where approximately 95 kids apply every year.</p>
<p>'Policy Debate(3 years)
*Member/Novice Judge(9th-11th, 2003-2006)
*5 hrs/week plus tournaments during Fall</p>
<p>Forensics(3 years)
*Member(9th-11th, 2003-2006)
*2 hrs/week plus tournaments during Spring" </p>
<p>ummm... this looks really shady. how are these two things different? Do you mean speech events by forensics? And if you've been so involved in CX and speech for 3 years, investing such a massive amount of time, why haven't you won anything?</p>
<p>forensics and debate are two different things</p>
<p>What sarasote said is highly inaccurate. 750 is NOT the average for Harvard students. That statistic is not published so no one can be sure. The only thing we can be sure of is that the middle 50% of accepted applicants have SAT section scores in the 700-790 range. That means a full 25% of applicants have SAT section scores below 700. And Harvard does NOT have a 25% Hispanic and Black population so those sub-700 scores are not just affirmative action cases. Scores of 760, 740, and 720 are therefore on-target, if not above-the-target, for Harvard.
Please, don't make posts if you're not informed. Don't perpetuate lies.</p>
<p>re: forensics and debate are two different things</p>
<p>no, actually you're wrong.</p>
<p>fo·ren·sics Audio pronunciation of "forensics" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-rnsks, -zks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)</p>
<ol>
<li>The art or study of formal debate; argumentation.</li>
</ol>
<p>SEE ALSO: National Forensic League (NFL)</p>
<p>QED, fool.</p>
<p>Ramses, you are wrong. I know several students involved in the activity referred to by high schools and colleges as Forensics who do individual events that involve acting. They do not debate or argue. They do things like Humorous Interpretation and Dramatic Interpretation. Other NFL-sponsored forensic activities include Prose/Poetry and Storytelling. None of the mentioned forensic activities involve debating.</p>
<p>Mallormar,
745 would technically be the average then... So yes, he's just a bit below average. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that also means that 25% of the school also got above 1580 on the old SATs... </p>
<p>You forgot to factor in legacies, donors, and athletes for those sub 700s, those make up a chunk of the student popular as well.</p>
<p>It's logically incorrect to assume that the average score is 745. You can't deduce that from a range. Your calculation assumes that there are an equal number of 790s and 700s--we have no idea whether it's distributed that evenly. For all you know, it could be that more people have scores on the 700 side of that range.
I happen to know 2 Asians who were not legacies, donors, or athletes who got in with SAT scores below 2100--one had a score in the 1900s. The fact of the matter is that evil<em>asian</em>dictator's scores are absolutely FINE. Those Asians I mentioned actually did not have stats as impressive as evil<em>asian</em>dictator's.</p>
<p>Also, you can't assume that 25% had scores above 1580. You can't assume that the people in the 790-800 range on one section were in that range for the other section too. Someone with a 790 in math could have been sub-750 in Verbal. You can't calculate total scores from ranges. Be careful--keep your logic straight!</p>
<p>It's stated that the middle 50% is 700-790. I'm sure there are not an equal number of 700s and 790s, but that's the middle 50% of scores. Thus can we deduce that the middle is somewhere around there?</p>
<p>Regarding your assumption about 700-790 being for only 1 section:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=227265%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=227265</a></p>
<p>And please, don't put words in my mouth. I never said his scores weren't fine, or that he couldn't get in with them. I said they were just a bit below average.</p>
<p>Someone getting in with lower scores doesn't mean anything, you didn't really factor in any external influences other than SAT stats and ethnicity (which can be different as well, Indians have it harder than some other Asians).</p>
<p>yeah put him in his place.</p>
<p>But those asians you mentioned were either flukes or had huge ECs.</p>
<p>USNews puts 75th percentile at 1580. So that means that 25% above that.</p>
<p>Jerry, AGAIN you cannot add the 790s together. I agree that the range for both math and verbal is 700-790. HOWEVER, the ranges are calculated separately--they're individual sections. Just because someone is at the top of the verbal range does NOT guarantee that they will be at the top of the math range. It's illogical to ASSUME that the 25% of Harvard students with 800 V are also the 25% with 800 M.</p>
<p>If anyone has actual statistics, I will happily believe them. The media's estimation is not accurate. However, if Harvard published the actual statistics, I would believe that. I believe US News fell prey to the same logical fallacy that caught our misguided friend jerryhathaway. Harvard will not secretly disclose total SAT scores to US News and withhold them from the college board. Especially because US News dropped Harvard from #1 :)</p>
<p>My bad, I see my error, I've seen the 1580 stat thrown around alot and I didn't actually step back to take a look. </p>
<p>My point still stands, 25% of the class scored above a 790 on math, and 25% scored above a 790 on verbal. It's likely that there is some correlation there right? So I think we can still safely assume a chunk of that 25% scored 1580+. Doesn't that say something?</p>
<p>And if you factor in the legacies, AA admits, recruited athletes, and hooked applicants, that really doesn't leave much room for the average joe does it? Especially the Asian average joe.</p>
<p>It certainly leaves space for the average joe. Remember that 18% of all accepted applicants used ACT scores instead of SAT1 scores (although everyone has to submit SAT2s--that's why collegeboard says 99% of students submitted the SAT and 18% submitted the ACT). That 18% obviously did worse on the SAT than they did on the ACT, otherwise they wouldn't submit the ACT (of course there is a very tiny fraction of that 18% who never took the SAT1 but did take the ACT--again that's probably a very tiny fraction because most people only take the ACT after doing "badly" on the SAT).
So do you see my point? Tell me if it's unclear.</p>
<p>actually mallomar, I think the math is correct.</p>
<p>Ex...mid 50 is 700-790.</p>
<p>If 790 Ms ger 700 Vs, and viceversa, total combined is still 1490 averaged out. In a normal distribution, curve will still follow the same pattern, so the US News figures are pretty accurate.</p>
<p>It's a statistical trick.</p>
<p>I see. A 1490 is MUCH more reasonable. People are always going around saying you need scores in the high 1500s to get into Harvard. That's baloney.</p>
<p>However, take a look at the College Confidential official Harvard results threads--you will see plenty of high-600s scattered in there amongst 800s and 790s (from applicants who aren't special cases, either).</p>
<p>Thanks for calling me a fool ramses88....that was really civilized and it makes your logical proof (that was wrong) all the more convincing.</p>
<p>Jimbob1225...really appreciate the clarification on my behalf.</p>
<p>I am here to clarify, as you can see from all my posts on CC! (I also happen to be jimbob!)</p>
<p>no, mallomar, I meant that 50% is clustered around the 1490. </p>
<p>The real results is</p>
<p>1400-1580 for the middle 50th.</p>
<p>why? take some figures and plug them in.</p>
<p>if we take the 50% with 700-790 on each..we get median of 1490 on both...spread normally....</p>
<p>the top 25% will still be above 1580.</p>
<p>You guys are arguing semantics that I doubt the admissions officers will even care about once they confirm that your test scores/grades are "in range" for Harvard and you will be able to handle the workload there. After that, it will be your essays and your recs that will leave the lasting impression rather than the quantifiable stuff. The subjective stuff is clearly what "makes or breaks" the application. I have slim chances of getting in as do most of the people that will apply, but this opportunity will only come once in a lifetime right?? The worst they can do is reject me.;)</p>
<p>Also, from a purely statistical perspective, I don't think you guys took in to account that Harvard mixes/matches scores from various sittings. Statistics just don't tell the whole story...</p>