<p>So I've been looking at the forums a bit and I've noticed that certain top colleges place more emphasis on certain parts of applicants.</p>
<p>For example, Yale is rumored to favor the more "artsy" and "quirky" applicants, while Stanford likes the "young entrepreneur" vibe. Princeton is supposedly more "numbers" inclined and accepts more high scoring/high GPA applicants (with slightly weaker ECs) than its peers.</p>
<p>What are your thoughts about these "stereotypes"? Do you think it's true? If so, in your opinion, what quality does Harvard appreciate the most?</p>
<p>(Before someone bites my head off, I know that there's a general consensus that diversity matters, and that each school is looking for a wide range of people. Nevertheless, I also understand that each school tends to have its own distinct culture, and sometimes these factors may play a role in the admissions officers' decisions.)</p>
<p>Above all, I think Harvard seeks a diverse student body. At least from what I’ve seen from the packet they sent me, they emphasized the importance of diversity a lot. Thus, I don’t think any stereotypes can be applied to Harvard’s admissions policies.</p>
<p>Being good at anything and everything… probably a “godly” or “beastly” vibed applicant</p>
<p>if you haven’t cured AIDS yet
it’s too late buddy :/</p>
<p>Harvard is wickedly diverse, as are its peer schools. To reduce things to “distinct culture” is to ignore the complexity inherent in the student bodies of such institutions and the variety of groups that flourish there.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s a reasonable answer for your question.</p>
<p>I heard that they like the “overachievers”…passionately involved in anything and everything l. This may seem like it applies to all colleges which it does to some extent, but compare that to Princeton’s “numbers” and Yale’s “artsy” and you can kind of see the difference. Of course this is just speculation. I know one guy who got into Harvard and he was the biggest underachiever ever… So honestly it doesn’t really matter</p>
<p>Stop being dumb. You won’t get into Harvard if you think this way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Statement of the obvious, eh? ;)</p>
<p>Not arguing…but I think this post was more for fun than anything 
No one is going to pick up a trumpet or paint a mural simply because they want to go to Yale. I don’t normally respond to non-constructive posts such as this one, but I thought it was kind of a cute post…haha that sounds silly. Anyway I’m assuming that the OP is most likely a younger CC member (sorry if that’s not true!) and this is just kind of way for him/her to pick a dream school or develop a larger interest to their dream school…not a bad thing…it gives you a goal to work towards. It’s really not causing any harm so let OP categorize the Ivies if he would so like. I’m sure that it’s less destructive than all those threads ranking the Ivies in terms of prestige…end rant :)</p>
<p>^
Actually, I’m a rising senior applying SCEA to Yale. I was just curious since my sister is a current Harvard student.</p>
<p>I think they like people who rise above futility</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ironic for you to be saying that.</p>
<p>I’ve heard that applicants who use prime dslr lenses have a much higher than average chance of getting in.</p>
<p>(although, i’ll have to tell you that i’m using my 35mm a lot more than my 50mm)</p>
<p>How is it a burn? Wouldn’t rising above futility – to rise above something futile be a quality that prospective Harvard students should have?</p>
<p>@ bitesize…he was just meaning that you wasting your time insulting the OP on a thread that is harming no one was equally (if not more) futile and pointless than the OP wondering what traits Harvard is looking for.</p>
<p>Note: Just the messenger :)</p>
<p>I wasn’t insulting the OP though, lol. Rising above a hopeless situation (homelessness, single parent while going to school full time, blind student, etc, etc) would be a favorable trait for prospective Harvard students. Perhaps I could’ve used a better word, though.</p>
<p>^ Okay I think that it came across as though you were saying that the OP’s thread was pointless because other posters had commented as such</p>
<p>Perhaps “adversity” or “obstacles” would be a better word?</p>