<p>I'm very sorry if I was being insulting, it certainly and truly was not my intention at all. </p>
<p>I just asked because legacy and minority status are two factors that adcoms at H and other schools will look at, and so there's really no reason for us not to. I was just trying to get a clearer picture of CACutie's stats. </p>
<p>Again, truly sorry for any disrespect!</p>
<p>y17k,</p>
<p>that's great. thx for sharing.</p>
<p>I'm going to be presumptuous here and pretend I know what the admissions officers want, but instead of sprinkling my whole post with "I think" and "it seems," I'll just put this disclaimer here and feel free to write with conviction.</p>
<p>I think we're forgetting one thing: personality. People focus a lot on grades, test scores, leadership, and prestigious programs because those are obvious, but often overlook the others things that are still important. They want a diverse class but something they don't want is diversity in kindness. They don't want some haughty jerks to balance out the modest philanthropists. Kindness is not overrated, and neither is sincerity. And I don't really care if I get sarcastic "well isn't the world all sunshine and rainbow" comments from people, because that's what I believe in. I was talking to a Harvard graduate who conducts interviews and he said that he interviewed somebody who seemed wonderful on paper, but was a 'total jerk'. And he made sure to include that in the report he wrote up. </p>
<p>But don't take these words and write up really phony essays about how much you love helping others and how rewarding it is for you to work in the nursing home when you really can't stand it and seldom if ever go. They can see through all of that and know more tricks than you do. They have years of experience and training and have reviewed thousands of applications. I'm sure in those thousands, at least a few have been slightly insincere and they've found out about it. So just be yourself in your essays and interviews. Everything else falls into place too.</p>
<p>I'm sorry about your friends who had 1600s, great grades and leadership and still didn't get in, but nothing in the college process should be taken for granted. And I'm glad that they still got into great colleges and are probably thriving at them.</p>
<p>2 things:</p>
<p>Chatterjoy is completely right--most of our resumes probably look pretty similar: great grades, strong scores, diverse activities. Personality is what sets people apart from the crowd. What about you has a spark? When did you take a risk (and maybe fall)? </p>
<p>Mr Sanguine--I know you didn't mean to be disrespectful. I understand your point about legacies and URMs. I think about that a lot--I got in EA....as a recruited athlete and as a legacy. I acknowledge that those 2 things helped me a lot...but in my defense: Legacy status is not an automatic in as some people may believe--it's just that qualified legacies tend to be safe bets for colleges. Legacies are usually the children of people who thrived in the schools, so adcoms can wager that legacies themselves will be strong students. Likewise, athletes have a leg up in admission--but someone who has been a committed athlete shows a great deal of dedication (just as a successful musician or playwright does).</p>
<p>I know that there are probably people who are as qualified as I who were deferred from Harvard because they weren't legacies or athletes, but I hope that I got in for more than just those traits--for my strong SAT scores, valedictorian status, and personality.</p>
<p>Haha, okay...enough of that. Sorry for rambling, guys.</p>
<p>Legacy admits are really about building loyalty to the school. By admitting legacies, colleges ensure continued alumni support of the institution. Admits with family histories are more likely to give gobs of money to the institution than will admits without family histories. As the college fosters strong alumni relations, its endowment grows. (See A is for Admission, Legacy)</p>
<p>I don't feel that a legacy would be admitted over another candidate because "adcoms can wager that legacies themselves will be strong students". A legacy candidate is not admitted to Harvard because they are capable of doing the work. How can you make any judgments about a kid from who his parents are? 85% of the students in the Harvard applicant pool are able to do the work. I actually find the "if the candidate is qualified, and if his dad went there, he'll be a stronger student than anyone else with equal or even better qualifications" assertion to be somewhat ridiculous.</p>
<p>Athletes are admitted because strong athletic programs bring in big bucks. Ice hockey, basketball, and football are the three sports that tend to have the biggest weight in the admissions office (see A is for Admission), because they are the biggest money sports. The Ivies have sports rivalries, and they also want to field nationally competitive sports teams. Being an athlete does not necessarily mean you are any more dedicated than anyone else is. Sure, the dedication that usually comes with success in athletics will help the student succeed once he gets in. But I disagree that the superior quality of dedication is why athletes are given a leg up in admissions.</p>
<p>There are no subliminal messages that come with the "tip factor" admits. These are more justifications for the "tip" that certain people recieve in the admissions office. Certain tips are fair enough, but let's cut to the chase, and not create a world in which tagged applicants bring skills like dedication and competency to a school. Tagged applicants are admitted for very specific reasons, so let's not construe those reasons to mean anything else than what they mean.</p>
<p>Joey</p>
<p>That sounded kind of harsh. She would definitely not have been admitted if she were JUST an amazing athlete. They don't recruit athletes who have 1.5 GPA and 900 on the SAT. They recruit athletes who have many other qualifications as well.</p>
<p>that is true to a degree, but i am sure if an amazing athlete with subpar scores would be admitted... i.e. a nationally ranked junior hockey player, or any other nationally recognized player... not terrible, but below harvards standards...</p>
<p>I didn't say anything of the sort. My main message was ... if someone gets an admissions tip because they're a legacy or athlete, don't try to rationalize that it gives them any special personal qualities that are better than anyone else's.</p>
<p>Obviously Harvard is not admitting athletes with 1.5 GPA's, and scores like so. I'm merely suggesting that lower standards may be applied because of the specific things athletes, legacies, and other tagged cases provide for universities.</p>
<p>Joey</p>
<p>Actually, I was surprised how hands-off Harvard's athletic recruiting tactic was in comparison with other schools I have dealt with in recent months (though it could be merely the sport I am dealing with). With the immense endowment the school has, Harvard does not need to rely on sports for revenue as much as other schools do. Harvard coaches do not need to "recruit." Harvard coaches can "select" because they have a hook greater than any full-ride scholarship: A Harvard education.</p>
<p>At Harvard, sports is just another hook. I don't need to start reciting my stats like some narcissist, but I assure you, I am no slouch.</p>
<p>JPrentice--you clearly misread my statement. I did not say "legacy students are stronger because their parents went there." Don't put words into my mouth. If a school has to make a choice between a legacy and a nonlegacy with similar qualifications, a legacy is a more practical choice. A legacy is more likely to attend because of family ties (part of my reason for choosing Harvard is that the school is what my family knows), and a legacy is likely to be qualified since his parent(s) were qualified. (Heaven forbid we acknowledge the fact that intelligence is genetic!) This is not to say that legacies aren't kept out of Harvard--go read the stats of the EA pool, and you will find that many legacies were deferred.</p>
<p>Admitting legacies acknowledges the importance of comittment to the institution. I've accepted with Harvard, and I will be the fourth generation in my family to attend.</p>
<p>an athlete was recruited from my school during the EA round. 1250 SAT, no AP classes (my school offers quite a few, actually), and received low A's in the classes he did take. Rank was maybe top 30%. </p>
<p>I am pretty sure he was on the lower end of recruited athletes though (academically speaking). </p>
<p>simply fyi</p>
<p>that seems very unusual, indeed.</p>
<p>Anyhow, I've decided to cease posting on this thread. No matter what I say, I will appear either a) egotistical and self-important, or b) pathetic and desperately seeking reassurance that I'm smart.</p>
<p>So goodbye, guys! (blows kisses...somewhat sarcastically)</p>
<p>aw, les lunettes du soleil! restes avec nous!</p>
<p>I don't think you're either a) or b) and people who read your posts probably find them helpful. You can't judge everyone's responses by the two people who actually decide to post. </p>
<p>That said, it's probably a smart choice to at least stop posting as much because CC is somewhat time-consuming.</p>
<p>I am not a legacy (first generation... so I guess that is an up) and I am a minority. Darn. Now that I have stated that I feel as if I have demoted my acceptance a little, haha.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Legacies are usually the children of people who thrived in the schools, so adcoms can wager that legacies themselves will be strong students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
legacy is likely to be qualified since his parent(s) were qualified
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This statement is what I categorically disagree with. If a legacy and another student have very similar qualifications, why will the legacy get the tip? Not because the legacy is likely to do better than the other student. Adcoms are not making bets on who will do well at the college and who will not do well at the college. When 85% of the pool could succeed at the college (or at least that's what the admissions officers say), no bets need be made on whether or not a student could do the work. Why do you think legacies would do any better than the equally qualified (or even more qualified candidates) that they're often taken over?</p>
<p>If we were to go with your argument, why don't admissions offices simply take qualified students whose parents are Ph.D.'s, rather than legacies? Clearly, a Ph.D. has went through extensive education, and they've had to have done well to attain that level of education. But I think you'd see that having a highly educated parent is a disadvantage in the admissions process, rather than an advantage. Better yet, should Harvard give Yale legacies a boost in admissions? Since Yale is viewed as just as rigorous as Harvard, that would work well. If the candidate is qualified, why not admit them? Their parents were able to do the work at Yale, so why not at Harvard?</p>
<p>I just can't accept your reasoning on that one, because that's not how the process works, at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admitting legacies acknowledges the importance of comittment to the institution. I've accepted with Harvard, and I will be the fourth generation in my family to attend.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. That's just what I said, legacies are about building loyalty to the institution. I assume legacy admits will go to the college. It doesn't make sense for them not to. They have a strong family history there, and they are dedicated to the institution. Their family is also possibly contributing to the school's endowment, but that is just a side-effect of the loyalty. Although admissions offices see that side-effect as very important.</p>
<p>I didn't mean any disrespect to anyone personally. I'm sure sunglasses is a more-than-qualified candidate. And so are many other recruited athletes and legacies. Many of these students would make it in without the tip. I am just trying to clarify why they do recieve a boost in admissions, whether or not they would make it in without the tip. Almost all of the information from the last two to three posts was garnered frorm A is for Admission.</p>
<p>Joey</p>
<p>thats an awesome book btw</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not a legacy (first generation... so I guess that is an up) and I am a minority. Darn. Now that I have stated that I feel as if I have demoted my acceptance a little, haha.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you should never feel that your accomplishments are not deserved! Someone tried to pull the whole "you only got in because you're an URM" trick with me, but it's just bull. Adcoms look at each applicant as an individual person, and they chose you because they trust that you are a qualified and promising student, given whatever background and economic/academic situations you may have. Don't worry about why they made their choice. They made it. Now it's up to you to take advantage of Harvard's opportunities and prove them right!</p>
<p>And sunglasses, you didn't have to go. You know you're qualified for Harvard, and so does Harvard admissions, and I agree with chatterjoy that you don't sound like a) or b). There's no shame in defending yourself, and there's no shame in being an athlete or a legacy. Athletics is an additional talent/EC for a person's resume, as you said, and it should be treated as such. And as Harvard's viewbook says, legacies only get "an additional look" among a group of similarly qualified applicants. Legacy status doesn't make or break an applicant.</p>
<p>pimps get into harvard</p>
<p>hands down</p>
<p>People who are recruited for sports get into Harvard. ;)</p>
<p>If you think a 1390 is a little low, I know someone who wasn't recruited who got in EA with a 1320.</p>
<p>Anyone accepted in harvard mind sharing your stats??
SATs, SAT 2s, ECs, GPA and rank???</p>