Worst Stats getting into Harvard?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
1

<p>What are the worst stats you've ever heard that got into HYPMS? It doesn't matter if it was because of amazing EC's, Essays etc. All that matters are low stats like a 20/300 rank, 3.6 gpa and a 2100 Sat. </p>

<p>(Btw: please don't post about Minorities/Legacies/Rec Athletes)</p>

2

<p>A 3.6, combined with good ECs and High test scores/rank, is possible.</p>

3

<p>I know someone with a 1360 who got in.</p>

4

<p>zephyr151- i do, too, but they had a high rank. i also know someone who got in with a 1380, but they also had a high rank.
by high rank, i mean like, top 2%</p>

5

<p>1360 OUT OF 2400!!!! I DON'T BELIEVE YOU AT ALL (and I'm a firm believer in the quality of an application over numbers)</p>

6

<p>My school publishes a list of the stats of every past student, and the colleges to which they applied. The names are obviously deleted to protect identity. This is what I found a while back:</p>

<p>A kid from my school (class of 2004) got into Harvard with a 3.2 GPA and ~650's on the SAT I. He half-jokingly applied RD and was not a recruited athlete, although he did run track (and was very involved in it, but wasn't a huge superstar). I have no clue what his essays/interview/recs were like, nor do I know if he was a legacy. He must have really stood out though, and that's what counts. Remember, normal people can and do go to Harvard.</p>

<p>My school does not weight GPA's, and it does not rank. For the past 5 years, Havard has always taken 4 students from my school, usually from a pool of about 15-20 applicants.</p>

<p>And with all due respect, a 3.6 is the low end of the top decile for my school. It is by no means a low GPA. I can count the number of people with 3.8 or higher on two hands, and half of them are in all easy classes.</p>

7

<br>


<br>

<p>I'm pretty sure they were talking about 1360 out of 1600 -- the old test.</p>

8

<p>yeah, it was out of 1600 haha</p>

9

<p>Well, more specifically I mean low rank. Low gpa means low rank. Stanford only accepts 7% of people with Gpa's at 3.75 or below. (according to the common data set) This means if you don't have a 3.75 uw gpa, you basically have no chance. How does this apply to risers? The average Gpa of acceptees is 3.9. (Sorry, this is all Stanford stuff, but obviously Harvard is very similar)</p>

10

<p>Gore got into Yale with a 1200, Bush with a 1260, if I remember right.</p>

11

<p>Well Bush obviously had legacy...</p>

12

<p>low gpa does not mean low rank, especially if you go to a high school with a lot of smart people.</p>

13

<p>Wait what? You mean except instead of especially? Venus, I don't get it. And yeah, there are a ton of smart kids competing at the top.</p>

14

<p>no i meant especially. like at my high school, where a lot people have 3.5 and higher. Those people who are in the second or third decile, would be in the first decile at another high school, where there weren't as many people with high gpas.</p>

15

<p>I'm still not understanding you, Low Gpa but not low rank would mean the scores are deflated, not neccesarily a lot of smart people.</p>

<p>If their was a lot of smart people then you would have to have a like a 3.5 but be in the 2nd decile. A lot of smart people would mean High Gpa but low Rank.</p>

16

<p>he he....i see. I meant to say that many at my high school have "High gpa but low rank"</p>

<p>yeah what i said about low gpa and low rank doesn't make sense in the context i was giving it in.</p>

17

<p>Aaaww. >/ That means I have a low rank. :] My GPA is going down. Yay for me! >] Let's see if I could get in with a low GPA. XD</p>

18

<p>i confuse even myself sometimes :)</p>

19

<p>you can't compare SAT scores from the 60's to now. They were recentered a decade ago. </p>

<p>Conversion of SAT scores from pre-1996 to recentered:</p>

<pre><code>New Dif New Dif
</code></pre>

<p>Old Verbal Math
800 800 0 800 0
790 800 10 800 10
780 800 20 800 20
770 800 30 790 20
760 800 40 770 10
750 800 50 760 10
740 800 60 740 0
730 800 70 730 0
720 790 70 720 0
710 780 70 700 -10
700 760 60 690 -10
690 750 60 680 -10
680 740 60 670 -10
670 730 60 660 -10
660 720 60 650 -10
650 710 60 650 0
640 700 60 640 0
630 690 60 630 0
620 680 60 620 0
610 670 60 610 0
600 670 70 600 0
590 660 70 600 10
580 650 70 590 10
570 640 70 580 10
560 630 70 570 10
550 620 70 560 10
540 610 70 560 20
530 600 70 550 20
520 600 80 540 20
510 590 80 530 20
500 580 80 520 20
490 570 80 520 30
480 560 80 510 30
470 550 80 500 30
460 540 80 490 30
450 530 80 480 30
440 520 80 480 40
430 510 80 470 40
420 500 80 460 40
410 490 80 450 40
400 480 80 440 40
390 470 80 430 40
380 460 80 430 50
370 450 80 420 50
360 440 80 410 50
350 430 80 400 50
340 420 80 390 50
330 410 80 380 50
320 400 80 370 50
310 390 80 350 40
300 380 80 340 40
290 370 80 330 40
280 360 80 310 30
270 350 80 300 30
260 340 80 280 20
250 330 80 260 10
240 310 70 240 0
230 300 70 220 -10
220 290 70 200 -20
210 270 60 200 -10
200 230 30 200 0</p>

20

<p>i know we can disregard bush and gore because they had different...err...situations.
but the scores that i said above were from 2004 and 2005 which makes them valid i believe</p>