@gibby, wouldn’t the well rounded students fit into the “200-300 students Harvard takes that have in that have an impeccable talent?”. In my case, I don’t think I did any resume padding but I have 10 Leadership roles as well as internships, jobs, and even started my own charity! I don’t believe that any college would see that as a downfall.
And regarding the SAT part that I previously mentioned… Can you please tell me why they all shoot for 2300+?
Top students don’t “shoot” for 2300 or any magical number. They just do their best.
I agree completely with what Gibby said in post 39. Harvard is looking for lop sided students and a well rounded class of them. It makes for an interesting mix. I think Harvards philosophy is if you do one thing well your chance for making an impact on society is vastly greater. If you do great in Biology maybe someday you will be a great doctor or researcher. If you are a great orator maybe someday you will be the next president. The list goes on and on. At Harvard they also take their clubs seriously. You cant join 10 of them and be successful at all of them. Maybe you can join a couple of them . The clubs want you to put in the time to do something productive
Human nature/bias affects the decisions – having a 2380 is better than a 2200. While practicing the Dark Art of holistic evaluations, one can’t dismiss the bias that a “36” or “2380” can impart.
I recall speaking with one admissions officer (it was a private conversation):
He was advocating that files that were being read in committee (i.e. past the first stage but needing consensus before moving fwd) be assigned “high” “high middle” and “middle” to the test score totals. He had noticed that people subtly favoring the “2400” over the “2360” even though everyone agreed that the difference was non-existent. By blocking out the actual numbers, he hoped to dispel a pattern of inherent bias.
It was noticeable enough to him that he wanted to introduce a new process. When we were speaking, his idea had not gained any traction. Dunno if it was ever implemented …
DS and DD each got one wrong in the Math section. The curves were different; he got a 760, she got a 780. At this level, the test measures very little; he’s actually more accomplished at Math.
@verizonwireless: That’s wonderful, but those 200 to 300 applicants that William Fitzsimmons was speaking about usually don’t have time for 10 leadership roles because they are focusing with laser like precision on one or two things. For example: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681325/what-happens-to-genius-kids-after-they-win-the-google-science-fair
Shree Bose is probably one of those 200 to 300 kids that William Fitzsimmons spoke about. Notice that she didn’t have the time to do 10 leadership roles – she did one thing really good!
FWIW: For college admissions, it’s not the quantity of leadership roles that counts, it’s the quality of them, and how many years you’ve been devoted to them.
@Verizonwireless: Colleges understand that students taking a rigorous course schedule must spend 3 to 4 hours a night on homework. That leaves about 20 hours a week to devote to extracurricular activities. When you complete your EC list, college’s ask you to list your EC’s in order of importance to you – and they prefer students who have a passion for an activity and spend 3-6 hours each week on several activities, rather than students who have a laundry list of activities that they spend one or two hours a week on.
To me, your 10 leadership roles, internships, jobs and charity sounds like a laundry list of activities – which is NOT what selective colleges are looking for. As you fill out your EC list on the Common Application, you might be better served to focus on 4 to 5 of those leadership roles and omit the rest. Student’s do not have to list everything they’ve ever done on the EC list and sometimes “Less is more.” See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-hansen-shaevitz/extra-curricular-activities-college-admission_b_3040217.html
I think the dichotomy that the admissions folks set up between “well-rounded” and “well-lopsided” is exaggerated. I can see that both of my kids could be described either way. Each displayed significant strength and/or interest/“passion” in a specific area, readily outpacing peers (well-lopsided), but both demonstrated significant ability across the entire standard curriculum, and thus, it would be difficult not to call them “well-rounded.”
What would you call a “math kid” who nonetheless wins the Latin, German, and English prizes?
A rarity. And certainly not like my kids.
@gibby; I already tried minimizing some and those 10 are very “prestigious”
Some are seasonal ec activities … Like the fed challenge etc
All of those EC’s really won’t matter unless you can boost your SAT from 1900 to 2100+
@gibby I understand that… and am very well aware of that, but if I only focus on SAT … I will get in LITERALLY no where.
Getting into Harvard takes stellar abilities and character, and a lot of luck.
@albert69 watch the link I sent @gibby … thats not true what you just said (excluding the luck part)
OP, there is literally nothing you can do that will 100% guarantee you getting into Harvard. Why do you think that what @albert69 said is inaccurate? I personally think it’s quite true! Some people will say that having so many EC’s/leadership roles is a plus, some will say it’s a minus, but from what I’ve seen from talking to the other admitted students is that there are always exceptions to every rule! (except maybe academics-wise. I doubt a straight-C student would ever get in.)
So just keep being yourself and trying your hardest in whatever you’re interested in and either it’ll be what they’re looking for or it won’t. In the meantime, make sure to get excited about other colleges and apply for those too. That’s my advice, anyway. Everyone else on this thread knows a lot more than I do so I’d definitely listen to what they’re saying.
You gotta focus on the SAT, or try the ACT, because your 1900 is about the average score for SUNY Binghamton: http://www.binghamton.edu/oira/cds/CDS_2014-2015%20FINAL.pdf
@gibby Im taking it in October and Im expecting a decent jump … I see where your coming from and I’m not disagreeing that my 1900 is getting me nowhere … But I want the rest of my application to be spectacular as well.
@radmadeline I’m not saying that he’s incorrect , but as dean fritzsimmons said"1500 are good all-Arounders in grades, extra curricular activities, and personality". So that means that if someone has a phenomenal skill… YES they might get in , but they’re competing for fewer spots on a smaller applicant pool. And regarding luck… As the jewish people have said for thousands of years כל בידיים חי (it’s all in the hands of g-d)
If you were to give each applicant a score out of 1000 based on EVERYTHING on their profile/application, URM = at least 500 points.
In other words, to Harvard. 2400 White/Asian < 2100 Black/Hispanic/Native American.
So yes, there is a way to get into Harvard. Be URM (you don’t have to be in a low income bracket. I’ve seen >$150K URM’s get into Ivies) and be DECENTLY smart with above average, but not necessarily spectacular, scores and some above average EC’s. Boom. Harvard.
Oh and if anyone doesn’t believe that being a URM helps you to get into Harvard, take a good look at each of the posts on the 3rd page of the Harvard Class of 2019 RD Results Thread.
There’s an Asian with a 2400, 2x USAMO, Siemens, ISEF, and awards from math competitions from Harvard and Stanford - Waitlisted.
There’s an African-American Female with a 2380, the regular awards of a lot of applicants (National Merit, AP Scholar, etc.) - Accepted
and SOMEHOW stated how she had no idea how she got in.
@Akashi how did their GPAs compare? As stated before, there is little difference between those two SAT scores