<p>
Of course? That is simply absurd. You really think that everyone that posts on CC gets the information they report about schools from admissions officers? If that were true, how do you explain that different people can “report” completely contradictory things about the same school? You have no idea what you are talking about, I am afraid.</p>
<p>And your link proves absolutely nothing. It has no useful data relative to the point being discussed.</p>
<p>BTW, with regard to your comment about Asians, all the top schools have a much higher % of Asians as students than their % of the general population. It makes it a bit hard to see how they are at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I honestly have no idea where this adage came from…or its variant, ‘If the Ivies accepted all the 4.0/2400 applicants, they could fill their class over X times’.<br>
They couldn’t.<br>
Not unless their class sizes were as big as that of Deep Springs, anyway.</p>
<p>I never heard that adage. What I said is what the head of admissions at Harvard has said numerous times, which is that the pool of applicants qualified to be accepted to Harvard is at least twice as large as those that are offered admission. It has nothing to do with having a 4.0 and/or a 2400 on the SAT. I really have no idea how this thread got fixated on those stats.</p>
<p>“So if these admission officers lie, the information is distorted.”</p>
<p>And if they don’t lie, it’s not distorted. Duh.</p>
<p>I think most honest people assume others don’t generally lie.</p>
<p>I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. HYP has X-many beds and therefore can accept X-many candidates. Some of those people will be academic heavyweights with perfect GPAs and perfect SAT scores. Some of these people will be exceptional bassoonists, soccer players, curlers, African drummers, philanthropists, and entrepreneurs. Others will just be bright kids with a nice resume and an interesting essay. But all of them are “perfect” applicants in that they have satisfied some unwritten institutional requirement, which enabled them to cut through the noise. By the same token, there are many similarly qualified people out there–all talented drummers, test-scorers, and athletes in their own right–who do not gain admission into HYP. This does not make them unqualified applicants. It merely means that they were not accepted. That is why people apply to safety schools.</p>
<p>Yes, one would rather have a 2400 than a 2250; yes, it’s better to have a 4.0 than a 3.8. But it’s also better to be an Olympic medalist than a varsity shortstop; it’s better to be a professional Broadway star than French Peasant #5 in your school’s production of Les Mis. Some people won’t be any of these things. Some people will be all of these things. But it comes down to a strange blend of luck, talent, and umph, and if you aren’t selected to sleep in one of the X-many beds at HYP, your rejection does not negate the value of your 2400, the effort you spent on your academics, or the fun you had singing in the chorus as Peasant #5.</p>
<p>Mostly agree with epigram.</p>
<p>Some here are focused on certain pieces, as through there were one or two determining factors. Instead, it is a pattern of info that comes through about the applicant. It’s not hook this or well rounded that. It’s not the same for a Harvard versus a great LAC. It’s not about being a rural URM major in Chinese poetry who gets a 1800 but can stand on her head. It starts with having stats in the range the college wants. Starts. And, that can be a mighty wide range. Then, I’m sorry, but it gets very black and white; the cynical view would be: does this kid mess up his/her app (ie show some concerning flaw?) or follow through and excite the reader? </p>
<p>With thousands of apps from 3.6-3.8-4.0-plus kids with all sorts of achievements, significant and same old/same old, there just has to be some way to determine who’s got the goods. It is more than legacy, diversity, stats, captain of this or president of that, sci olympiad winner or champion whatever.</p>
<p>In that respect, French Peasant #5 might well be more interesting than the star. Gotta remember, the process is ultimately subjective.</p>
<p>Luck, talent, oomph. And an app package free of dumb mistakes.</p>
<p>^Agree with the previous two posters. As others already said, various versions of this discussion about “perfect applicant” being rejected go up on CC all the time. Here’s the one from last year, for anyone who may be particularly interested in the topic:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/720706-i-know-many-2400-4-0-valedictorians-get-rejected-all-ivies-2.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/720706-i-know-many-2400-4-0-valedictorians-get-rejected-all-ivies-2.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although WashU accepts lots of applicants with great credentials, it is also known for frequently waitlisting seemingly well qualified applicants, especially those who haven’t found explicit ways to express interest in attending. There is nothing surprising at all that the Intel finalist was waitlisted. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can see what you mean. There are people who are trying to build their lives around some form of formula or admissions strategy, especially seen frequently on a website like CC. But then again, this comes to how you define a “perfect applicant”. Someone attempting resume padding tend to have long lists of superficial activities but no substantial, genuine interest or involvement in each, in a way that is not very constructive to admission chances or worth all the painful effort put in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The estimate for perfect scorers is perfectly correct, but then we’re back again to debating whether anything 2250+ or above some other arbitrary cutoff is arguably treated the same as anything 2400, as showing that the applicant has the skills tested by the SAT. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If by “perfect applicant” you mean someone with 2300+ on the SAT and near perfect high school GPA, then common sense suggests that they are indeed being rejected more and more often, since there are more SAT takers scoring 2250+ than even 4 years ago. Back in the days, someone with JFK’s academic credentials can make it to top schools, whereas that same applicant will unlikely be admitted today. The average GPAs back then were also lower. In addition, current SAT takers have about a 100 point advantage over those who took the test fifteen years ago----in other words, if in year 1990 one had a 1400 on the SAT, today that is equivalent to something around 1500 on a 1600-scale. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t even tell whether this is a rhetorical question :o. Think of it this way: someone scoring a 600 total on the SAT is even more unique. So why does that not satisfy colleges? Why aren’t they admitted for their uniqueness?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because extraordinary stats, recommendation, activities, and so on are ways to tell whether someone will be successive in their respective fields, with their individual goals in the future? Indicators of whether the applicant can succeed academically at the institution? (Was this some trick question 
?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was an actual statement by an admission officer from a legitimate source, but frequently, as here, it is misquoted. I think it might have been the interview on Harvard Times with Fitzsimmons…</p>
<p>xrCalico - as much as I disagree with the OP and his attitude towards this question, let’s be fair, especially since he is not a native English speaker.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come on, you know that is completely silly. It is obvious that there are uniquely positive traits or accomplishments versus uniquely negative ones. Bell curves and all that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seemed clear to me there was an unstated implication at the end of his statement. "So why do they select some with extraordinary stats and whatnot (this includes rec, activities, award, like the CC community) over others that have these same qualifications? I think that is the question which, while not ridiculous, has been answered often in these posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m quoting this entire post for emphasis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because we’re all equal; some are just more equal than others.</p>
<p>Something interesting to note: schools like Harvard will say things like “we could have accepted a second (or third) class without any drop in quality.” But they never say “we could have taken a sixth class without any drop in any quality.” </p>
<p>(I’m paraphrasing from somewhere but I forget where)</p>
<p>Seems like once you’re in that upper echelon, there’s a good deal of luck involved.</p>
<p>mj rothlan - I have no idea what your point is. Of course the pool is not infinitely deep. The point is why do they accept, in Harvard’s case, the 2500 applicants they do (for a class of 2000), and not anyone from the next 2500 or so of seemingly equally qualified applicants? I think in the end that is what the OP is wondering, along with why some of those 2500 that are accepted seem to have lesser qualifications (statistically at least) than some of the ones that are not accepted. I think those questions have been fully answered on here. And you are right in your last statement, there is luck involved once you are in that mix of 6,000 or so qualified applicants.</p>
<p>I read on another thread re: interview disasters about an applicant to an Ivy League school with perfect stats. In the interview, she was asked what she did for fun in high school or some similar question. Her response was that she and her friends would pick on gay kids. Some perfect applicants are mean…and stupid. The interviewer highly recommended that the applicant be denied, which she was.</p>
<p>Excuse me for answering truthfully and the last time I checked, no ones opinion is wrong. This is a forum and I simply voiced my opinion. Your bashing is not necessarily what I would call the most “mature” thing I’ve ever read in my lifetime either, so please practice what you preach.</p>
<p>@OP: What is a perfect applicant to you?</p>