<p>Gibby wrote:
</p>
<p>Unless Gibby has some source that s/he has not yet specified, this is just wrong with respect to Harvard, though it is true with respect to Reed (whose financial picture is very different from Harvard’s). Gibby was clearly incorrect in claiming that at Harvard “For every student requiring need, there are one or two students who pay full-fare,” since, as danstearns points out, about 60% of Harvard undergraduates receive financial aid. Perhaps Gibby didn’t pay close attention to the following quotation from the article about Reed:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Havard is clearly among the nation’s richest colleges, and Harvard admissions has consistently said that admissions is need-blind, and that it will meet the full need for all students. I believe them because I’m confident Harvard can budget enough financial aid to keep its word. </p>
<p>So, financial aid is a misleading red herring in response to OP’s original question. To answer that question more directly, students with strong statistics and national distinction are a Harvard target, and having both improves one’s chances. But, there’s no guarantee. What level of national distinction, in what field, and how an applicant stacks up with other people with similar credentials, are among the many variables that could make a difference.</p>