<p>Being a URM isn't a "label" in the admissions office at Harvard College. Plenty of URMs with fantastic stats apply to Harvard. Through your essays, teacher recommendations, etc., it becomes pretty obvious who is using the URM label to boost their chances and who are genuinely Black, Hispanic, or Native American. </p>
<p>Just be true to yourself and everything will fall in its place.</p>
<p>Ok yes, that makes sense, but are you still considered a URM if you are 50% Caucasian, or Asian? I doubt this is a question of being yourself-- you are what you are, and if you are completely Asian and you fill in Hispanic, then that is lying. But I am talking about those who are both, and how does it play into the overall process. I understand if there is no clear answer to this, though. :) </p>
<p>Oh, and just curious, how would teacher recommendations reflect ethnicity? </p>
<p>I'm sorry if I am redundant, or annoying with these questions, but I am just looking for a clear answer, even if that answer is not known.</p>
<p>Development admits, legacies and recruited athletes are at a great advantage because their application is read not by a regional admission officer and advocated by the regional admission officer, but rather their application is read by the Dean of Admissions and often decided before the admissions committee ever meets. For the unconnected applicant, a regional admission officer reads the application and the application is read by someone else on the regional committee. At the admissions commmittee before all the other admission officers the regional admission officer presents those applicantns in his or her region. Development admits, legacies, and recruited athletes bypass the regional admission officer. Recruited athletles are decided by the coach and the Dean of Admissions. Legacies have the added advantage of having their applications read in most cases by the Dean of admissions. Development admits are decided before committees meet with the Development office giving the Dean of Admissions a list of those applicants that the development office feels is very important to the school and the Dean reviews those applications. So many connected applicants ect are decided before the committee meets. Even under represented minorities have an extra liason in the admissions office to additionally advocate for them. Since many recruited athletes, legacies and development admits apply early,it is likely that a large percentage of those accepted early were decided in a process separate from the advoation by a regional admission officer. To me it appears much more difficult for an unconnected applicant even a compelling one to get in early given that probably about half of those accepted early had some type of separate or extra advocation.</p>
<p>Actually, collegebound5...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Development admits, legacies and recruited athletes are at a great advantage because their application is read not by a regional admission officer and advocated by the regional admission officer, but rather their application is read by the Dean of Admissions and often decided before the admissions committee ever meets.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Not true. All applicants are read by the regional admissions officer first and the case IS debated in committee. Granted, most of the applicants make it through, but the basic admissions process is not different for anyone.</p>
<p>Think about the morale of the admissions staff if half the class was accepted through this process. It would not be too high. Admissions officers are pretty idealistic; they want to help out the kid who really stands out. Dean Fitzsimmons cannot overrule the committee's decision; remember, a simple majority of the 35 admissions officers are needed for you to be accepted. This is not any different for special cases.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Development admits, legacies, and recruited athletes bypass the regional admission officer.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Again, no they do not. There are plenty of athletes, legacies and even development applicants who are not accepted. Of course, you have the one applicant every so often who really does not deserve admission who is accepted, but overall, it is OK. If you deserve to be accepted, you will.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Recruited athletles are decided by the coach and the Dean of Admissions.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>No, they do not. The coach submits lists of candidates they want to have here, but the ultimate decision lies with the admissions commitee. Of course, the higher ranked the athlete is on the coach's list, the better prospects of his/her admittance, but it's not a guarantee. Besides, to be on the coach's short list, one must probably be nationally ranked, as Harvard has a NCAA Division I program.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Legacies have the added advantage of having their applications read in most cases by the Dean of admissions.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Not at Harvard. The Dean of Admissions himself is in charge of several subcommittees. With plenty of applicants' files to read, I highly doubt he has time to read the tons of legacies that do apply. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Development admits are decided before committees meet with the Development office giving the Dean of Admissions a list of those applicants that the development office feels is very important to the school and the Dean reviews those applications. So many connected applicants ect are decided before the committee meets.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Not so. Dean Fitzsimmons isn't exactly a person that you can easily control when it comes to shaping the class. Some development cases fall flat, and remember, at Harvard, with its endowment, does not blink an eye at a donation of $1 million. If your parents were to donate a building or endow several professorships, that would be a different story. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Even under represented minorities have an extra liason in the admissions office to additionally advocate for them.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Though the admissions officer in charge of the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program very much cares about the diversity of the class, I know him well enough that he would not advocate for a candidate that he knew would not make it through committee. He has actually been around for 20+ years, so he has a ton of experience. </p>
<p>Remember: minority or not, if you are attractive enough, you will be accepted. If you are not attractive to Harvard, you will be to someone else.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
To me it appears much more difficult for an unconnected applicant even a compelling one to get in early given that probably about half of those accepted early had some type of separate or extra advocation.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Hence Harvard is abolishing early action because of this. Many athletes, legacies, developmental admits do apply early and are accepted. The unusual "strength" of the early action pool comes from these tip factors, leaving very little room for unconnected students in the RD round, most of whom are unconnected. By abolishing SCEA, Harvard wishes to level the playing field, so that all applicants are considered together when the apply.</p>
<p>(Your statements regarding how they are admitted are not true, but the fact remains that these applicants with special tip factors do make up the vast majority that do apply.)</p>
<p>Thank you for your analysis. I guess I have come to these conclusions only because I know of some who had these connections and applied to HYP early and seemed to know way before applications would have been reviewed that they were going to be accepted. ie. the applicant who would not typically have been considered compelling but grandfather gave a building ect. I understand what you are saying but have to imagine that certain candidates in the category of very important development admits will definitely be accepted if they meet a threshold of grades and SAT scores. It sounds like the process as you explain it at Harvard might be more fair than other schools. As for recruited athletes I know that the coaches typically give the Deans of Admissions a list of who their top recruits are and in certain sports like football, 30 of the 50 will be accepted. I am under the impression that the coaches decide this with the Deans of Admissions but I could be wrong. I understand your analysis and appreciate it but still think the odds are much stronger in the early round for those in those categories. I agree with what you are saying that the morale would not be high among regional admission officers if certain candidates bypassed them in the early round.</p>
<p>I know this is kinda a stupid question but I know of atleast 5 people from my school who applied to Harvard and one that was already accepted for wrestling (this from a school that rarely sends kids to ivy leagues, i guess my class is really special lol) will this lower my chances of getting in?</p>
<p>As far as i know the wrestler has never taken an AP class and doesnt even make honor roll (i know i hate him too), his brother went to harvard too..... for wrestling. It sucks. There is another wrestler applying but he is actually pretty smart, another is a really great track runner and probably our valedictorian, another is a chinese girl that truthfully has no chance of getting in (her SAT is less than 1900), another is a girl that is graduating a year early so she took a lot of AP classes a year early and is acing them, and of course me lol (i have a pretty low SAT too but my ACT is ok). Thats all I know for certain, I'm not sure if other people applied too. My school is tiny, there is only 200 people in my grade. What do you guys think will happen?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I know this is kinda a stupid question but I know of atleast 5 people from my school who applied to Harvard and one that was already accepted for wrestling (this from a school that rarely sends kids to ivy leagues, i guess my class is really special lol) will this lower my chances of getting in?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>No. If you deserve to be accepted in context of the other 23,000 students that apply internationally, then you will be accepted. Applicants are not compared by school. As long as you are in the top 10-15% of your class with a rigorous courseload, 600-800 on each section on your SAT Is and on each of your top three SAT II subject exams, you have much of a chance as anyone else.</p>
<p>k thanks :)</p>
<p>Hey xjayz-
Not sure if you answered this yet... but what is the makeup of the admissions committee? So are there basically 35 admissions officers each representing a different region and a subcommittee for each region?</p>
<p>What is the hierarchy?</p>
<p>xjayz, you mentioned in response to Pyar that you should be in the top 10-15%. I'm curious, since the term "top ten" and "top 10%" is frequently used interchangeably, which is the one that is most dominant? Are they looking for top 10 or is top 10% fine?</p>
<p>In other words, are you still in the playing field if you are ranked 30/300, or 20/300. Both are top 10%, but not top 10. </p>
<p>I've just been a little confused with this. Thanks. :)</p>
<p>I think it depends on what school you go to. If you go to an elite private school where it was extremely competitive to get accepted and almost half of the class are academic superstars then the top 15% is probably fine. If you go to a public school where there is a composition of bright kids and kids that are not very academic I think you would want to at least be in the top 10%.</p>
<p>Yeah... at my school you really should be in the top 2% to have a good chance at harvard, but at... say, a school like Andover, top 25 or even 50% is probably good enough.</p>
<p>How can I measure my school in this way? I am not sure where my school is at on a scale between the regular school and Andover. :)</p>
<p>Well, A-san, how many students get into Harvard from your school in a typical year?</p>
<p>(By the way, don't forget that any kind of prediction is almost completely useless. The ONLY way to find out if you got in is to wait. This is mostly just a way to pass the time).</p>
<p>Well as far as I remember there is usually one admittance every two years or so, maybe every year. But wouldn't that just mean that there weren't qualified applicants? Such as, not that many in the school itself that gets good SATs, or ECs, or special circumstances? Can it really just be a correlation between ranking and the number accepted each year?</p>
<p>Yale is apparently calling and sending out "likely" letters to selected RD applicants, not just athletes, but others as well. Does Harvard do the same thing?</p>
<p>allegory: Harvard does not utilize likely letters that often. The vast majority (virtually 100%) of likely letters are sent to varsity athletes.</p>
<p>"I have read a number of different sources about this, including the one article about the process at penn."</p>
<p>Can anyone give me a link to this article? Thanks!</p>
<p>How many of you are waiting to hear from all your schools the end of March, beginning of April</p>
<p>I am. YEAH!</p>