Native NJ

My daughter recently was accepted at a top school and never applied to Harvard. She recently said, "Why does everyone think Harvard is hard to get into? There's another school that is just as famous that has a lower acceptance rate and higher yield rate!" I couldn't for the life of me figure this out. Then she said...








Julliard.

Milkmagn

It's spelled "Juilliard"

beefs

***** , sorry native nj but you got "ownd"

HSisOverrated

Different kind of competition.

Same for film school, art school, and individual departments of schools. Some departments within schools have acceptances rates of .5%.

coureur

^^Yes, there are nursing schools with lower acceptance rates than Harvard, but it's an apples an oranges comparison.

aquamarinee

I agree with the above.

And also, Curtis > Juilliard.

hsmomstef

Deep Springs has a selectivity percentage between 6% and 15%, depending on the year, and a yield of about 90%. However, it isn't famous.

beefs

its transfer students end up mainly at top 15 schools and very frequently at harvard and its peers

Metallica2289

But there is a difference between Juilliard and Harvard in competition. Yes Juilliard has a lower acceptance rate, but all you need to be able to do is just be badass at one instrument and read music. However, at Harvard you have to have great grades, test scores, and EC's. So, while one is completely based on your musical know-how, the other is based around hard work, brain power (in terms of test scores), and your character qualities (which includes EC's). So if you ask me, its still harder to get into Harvard. Besides, some people that get into Harvard may be good enough to get into Juilliard. I doubt you could ever say the other way around.

Nickel Xenon

Even so, I think it's still very impressive. So good luck to your daughter.

cgarrett101

was all that space before the answer just for dramatic effect?

collegealum314

@ Metallica: anyone who is talented enough for Juilliard would be considered very strongly for Harvard even if they were just a "B" student.
Chances are an 18-year-old who is a nearly professional level classical musician is probably an excellent student anyway.

Besides, I have a problem with your description of Juilliard people as people with "musical know-how." It's called talent and hard work.

froghorn

As a serious French hornist, pianist, and student, I agree with above comment. Music requires extreme discipline, intelligence and passion. To say that musical ability is predicated upon "know-how" is a great oversimplification of the challenges of classical music. Playing an instrument is not something that anybody can apply him or herself and learn how to do; it is an incredibly self-selecting skill. That said, it is silly to compare Juilliard to Harvard though the original point is taken.

dukie11

Curtis

'Nuff said.

stellastar

"all you need to be able to do is just be badass at one instrument and read music."


I think that is an extremely simplistic way to look at it. There are children who are groomed for Juilliard from grade school onwards. Children who start playing at 3 or 4 and by the age of 10 are already practicing 6+ hours a day. It takes incredible long-term discipline to be "badass" at one instrument.

Juilliard grants a 10 minute audition. By the time you walk in, greet the jury, tune up, they get their papers ready to go, glance at your accompanist, you have 7 minutes to convince them that you are at the top of the top and that you have a viable career in performance ahead of you.

Harvard is, in some senses, more forgiving because you have so many more ways to prove yourself. You can show you are smart through grades, you can show that you earned academic honors, you can show character through recommendation...all Juilliard gives you is 7 minutes to blow them away.