<p>I know a lot of people who get into Harvard, Yale, and Princeton without having 2200+ SAT scores or taking the hardest loads at school or doing a ton of extracurriculars. Maybe there's something unique about them...?</p>
<p>Well there are always going to be people who don't appear to be as strong an academic powerhouse as people you see on this forum. They probably had strong essays, unique backgrounds, other intangible factors (athlete, legacy..) Btw, you don't need to do a ton of extracurriculars to get into a top school.</p>
<p>^^ is there a reason why you don't? just curious.</p>
<p>They have one important thing...passion. There are many ways to show it. The easiest way Adcom can see this is from your essay and your teacher recommendations because they show the real you. </p>
<p>Let me tell you...those two things are very very important.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Btw, you don't need to do a ton of extracurriculars to get into a top school.
[/quote]
I agree, I just put that there because otherwise I knew someone was going to say that there's more to getting into college than just test scores, etc. and that's known.</p>
<p>don't forget the fact that these schools want at least a few people to pay full tuition</p>
<p>But aren't there enough people who can afford full tuition and get really good "stats" too?</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>And if you have to ask, you aren't one of them.</p>
<p>Nobody said I was one of them. Anyways, that still doesn't answer the question of why quite a number of rich people with seemingly mediocre "stats" get in while there are other rich people with excellent "stats". Or am I analyzing incorrectly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^ is there a reason why you don't? just curious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doing tons of extracurriculars doesn't necessarily show that you excel outside school. You need to have passion in your outside activities, not just doing a bunch of ECs for college, although there are many applicants who excel in bunches of activities. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyways, that still doesn't answer the question of why quite a number of rich people with seemingly mediocre "stats" get in while there are other rich people with excellent "stats".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Usually, legacy applicants whose parents have contributed large sums to the university are considered "developmental admits" and are given a huge boost in admissions mainly because many private universities rely on donations for their endowments and that "developmental admits" have high potentials of donating back.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe there's something unique about them...?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. Maybe they had fabulous teacher recs that called them "the most passionate and creative student I've ever taught." Maybe they had standout essays that showed passion and personality as well as talent. Maybe they've committed themselves to their few ECs in a way that is really impressive (founded clubs or new programs, won competitions, raised HUGE amounts of money in fundraisers, etc.). Maybe they've done something outside of school that you don't know about (published independent research or creative writing, learned a really rare instrument or second language, etc.). Maybe they met and really impressed one admissions officer in person, and that officer really pushed for them (al la "The Gatekeepers"). Maybe, as someone said, they have a unique background. Etc. Etc. Etc.</p>
<p>FYI: "development" admits don't have to be legacies. And for the Ivies, we're talking in the multi-million dollar range -- maybe even +$10M. A few hundred grand doesn't make a donor's kids or grandkids "development" admits.</p>
<p>For the Ivies one has to remember, HYP have tens of Billions of dollars in endowment. The other five have lesser amounts but still considerable. Even at full tuition, the school loses money for the cost of educating each undergrad. But they can afford it.</p>
<p>The big piece of the puzzle that we're missing here, stats wise, are ATHLETES.</p>
<p>Recruited athletes, according to a recent Harvard study, have a 40% higher chance of admittance per each SAT quartile (ie if a regular kid with a 1900 has a 25% chance, then a recruited athlete has a 65% chance of admittance).</p>
<p>But I think the OP simply DOESN'T KNOW the kids he/she is talking about. Odds are these kids are more than just their SATs. SATs are a measure of knowledge and really any score over a certain limit 'qualifies' you. Other things are necessary.</p>
<p>I read the Overachievers by Alexandra Robbins. Although the first paragraph starts out a little over the top, woven in between the student stories is some good sound facts and advice (which is definitely why the book is worth a read for parents and kids going through the admissions cycle).</p>
<p>from page 202..</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard's dean of admission and financial aid, Bill Fitzsommons told me that applicants have to do some unusal things to distinguish themselves is a "misconception". "in brad terms, there are 3 ways to get into Harvard," he said. </p>
<p>Each year out of 23,000 applicants and 2,100 admits, </p>
<p>about 200 to 300 students get in because "they are among the most exciting potential scholars of the coming generation." </p>
<p>The second category consists of "people who do something extraordinarily well.' 200 to 300 excelling in dance, drama, or athletics, whose achievements "are almost surrogates for energy, drive and commitment." </p>
<p>The third way to get into Harvard is the most common: students who have "plain old accomplishments on a day-to day basis. it is not about gimmicks, but about substance."</p>
<p>Harvard tells students there are hundreds of excellent colleges choices, and while Harvard may be one of them, other schools might be a better match
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very interesting quote Sybbie</p>