<p>In my view, Harvard has been far more open about its admission than its peer institutions.</p>
<p>I believe the phrase was “distinguishing excellence” - and that he did not say this was their exclusive appeal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe all these elite schools do that to some extent when there is a true genius-in-the-midst (assuming he or she is of good character and doesn’t kick puppies, of course). </p>
<p>I think there’s a bigger issue I want to touch on, though, when you say things like leadership, charisma, service, humor, etc. “might not be weighted” for this group. </p>
<p>I think you’re assuming that they all come in with uniform weights person to person, and thus when the genius-in-the-midst comes in, we can / should relax those weights. My view is different. I absolutely don’t believe they are looking for the same blend of “40% academic, 20% leadership, 10% charisma, 10% service, etc.” in EVERYONE. This candidate might be appealing precisely because he demonstrates leadership qualities, that one because she practically defines service to the community, etc. There IS no universal set of weights to consider deviating from when the genius’ app gets put on the table. It’s JUST LIKE hiring people. I hired this person because he’s an analytical genius, and that person because her ability to build relationships with clients is unparalleled; this person because he moves at the speed of lightning and gets things done fast and rallies the troops, and that person because she’s quiet and thoughtful and sits back and really thinks about our business in depth and then comes out with something amazing. This is how I hire people – I look for different roles different ones can play. I don’t look for everyone to be 40% academic and 20% a leader (etc.). I don’t see why it’d be any different - it’s just writ on a larger scale in building a class of 2,000.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s holistic just to suggest that for some students, their academic brilliance is the defining factor, and for others, it may be some other factors. That’s a holistic approach in and of itself!</p>
<p>I do not doubt that Harvard University admissions personnel are very conscientious in their work.</p>
<p>However, I think that it’s a bit misleading to say that the admissions committees spend “up to an hour” discussing an individual applicant. The distribution of discussion time would give a much truer picture than the maximum discussion time. There must be very few applicants who are discussed for times anywhere near an hour.</p>
<p>I will grant that no Harvard-worthy student would read the article the lookingforward linked, and think, “Wow! They spent an hour discussing my application!”</p>
<p>Still, it’s worth running the numbers:</p>
<p>Harvard had about 35,000 applicants last year, of whom about 30,000 applied RD. The RD applications are generally due January 1, with decisions March 28 (or so). There are 20 admissions subcommittees. Overestimating, and allowing 12 weeks for the subcommittees to discuss applicants, that means that the subcommittees need to handle 125 applicants per week. If they devoted an hour to discussing each of the applicants, they would need to spend 125 hours a week just <em>discussing</em> the applicants, not even considering the time needed for reading the applications, let alone any follow-ups. This also does not consider the time spent on the approximately 3200 applicants who were deferred in the early action round.</p>
<p>So, Mr. Hapless S. Applicant, Harvard does indeed spend “up to an hour” discussing individual applicants in committee; but in your case, the file was dispensed with in 30 seconds flat. (S. stands for Sap.)</p>
<p>Probably the majority are quick rejects (grades too low or something obvious like that). Perhaps a much smaller number are quick admits (including “big hook” applicants). So that would leave a much smaller number of “borderline” applicants to spend “up to an hour” reviewing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? I confess I don’t understand the problem here. Yes, they’ll dismiss some kids within 30 seconds, most likely on not having academic chops, and then they’ll discuss some kids for a short time, and some for a longer time. Some will have all heads in the room nodding in vigorous agreement; some may be a “battle” and you might even have some horse trades going on. I’m not sure what you want. This is only a problem if the “instant dismissal” is based on something wrong (e.g., I dismiss out of hand all people from Wisconsin, or all people with Swedish ancestry, or all oboe players, or whatever). But I don’t know what you think it SHOULD be. This is a human process with human elements.</p>
<p>If a random (typical) applicant literally believes that s/he will receive an hour of reviewing from Harvard adcom, it might be a sign that s/he does not possess some common sense and thus does not stand a strong chance after all.</p>
<p>CAN last up to an hour. Not routinely last that long. Those would be rare kids.</p>
<p>Committees are the final round(s.) Very late in the game. The obvious no-go kids have been culled. Reading can begin in early Dec or so, depending on how the Early round went.</p>
<p>Actual reviews are brutally fast, but far more than 30 seconds. Multiple readers, to get the multiple perspectives. By the time you get to the end, there is a small proportion of compelling kids. it’s those either everyone was impressed by or some who might be wedged in, depending on how the rest look and balance (talents, geo, majors, personal perspectives, etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. The literalness on here chokes me at times.</p>
<p>Right, of course, to PCHope #548 and lookingforward, #549. I think I addressed that point in the third paragraph of #545. But I have the suspicion that the Dean intended to create an impression of how the process works.</p>
<p>With regard to Pizzagirl’s post #544 (posted while I was still typing #545): Perhaps we have been posting at cross purposes for a long time, based on different understandings of what the definition of a holistic process is. Or maybe what the definition of <em>is</em> is. :)</p>
<p>I took (ahem) MIT’s description of its process as a typical instance of a holistic process. There is a screen to determine whether the applicant has the academic qualifications needed to succeed at MIT. But the admissions decision very clearly rests on what the applicant “brings to the table” beyond that. In general, the applicant gets no additional boost from exceptionally strong academics beyond the qualification level. MIT does identify a relatively small fraction of its applicants as academic “stars.” I think this is based on external recognition through Intel, Siemens, IWO (I = International, W = Whatever, O = Olympiad), publication, or possibly some other accomplishment. However, they accept only about half of the students they have designated as “stars.” The most recent version of the MIT admissions web site that I have read made it quite clear that there was no level of accomplishment that would suffice to get a student into MIT. This led to joke posts such as, “What if I have won the Nobel Prize? Nobel Prize enuf?”</p>
<p>The local GCs gave everyone the impression that “holistic” meant that there was no level of intellectual attainment–no matter how rarefied–that would suffice for admission in itself.</p>
<p>lookingforward knows the definition of “holistic” operationally, at the university that she reads for. I have the impression that lookingforward thinks that something besides brilliance is needed. That would also be my interpretation of post #542.</p>
<p>I think there are good arguments for making many admissions decisions, even the great majority, on a holistic basis, as I have understood the term. I don’t think it would be best to make 100% on that basis, unless PG’s broader understanding of the term “holistic” is the one that’s operational.</p>
<p>As the process was described, Harvard has two levels of committees, the sub-committees that deal with all applications and the committee that makes the final decisions. Do you think that there are applications that are culled without any discussion by the sub-committees?</p>
<p>Can get addl boost from academics but we’re talking about kid after kid after kid with high stats and rigor. And, since they are kids, after all, some who are primo achievers in one way or another, have neglected other arenas. This isn’t puppy kicking; it’s choices made versus not. Choices reflect maturity, vision, perspective- and judgment. Which takes us right back to PCHope’s comment.</p>
<p>Having read all of the intervening responses, I still wonder whether the Dean at Harvard was trying to plant an impression of admissions based on very rare events. Or perhaps he was quoted out of a larger context. Maybe he did give information about the distribution of discussion times, and it was edited out . . in which case, I wonder whether the column editor was trying to plant the impression.</p>
<p>Problem is, I can be literal, too- most especially when I interpret something differently than someone else does. So, I found “distinguishing excellence” not couched as, “in and of itself.” </p>
<p>But yes, this is a community, not a cinderblock lab. How much space is there- or should there be- for that 24/7 outlier? Quant, you do have me wondering. But for now, these are communities, it is their strengths as communities that perpetuate the institution, on many levels. </p>
<p>As the economy evolves, this may change.</p>
<p>555: admissions-speak, marketing-speak. Not to put it down, but it came across as a carefully cultivated answer. What I liked was the explanation of the non-stats factors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There probably isn’t a “typical” holistic admissions process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is more of a feature of very selective schools than an inherent feature of a holistic admissions process. It is entirely possible that there exists some level of academic achievement that, in absence of glaring “defects”, will get an applicant admitted to some moderately selective holistic admissions schools (e.g. UCSC, which uses a Berkeley-like process).</p>
<p>lookingforward, I think that your definition of “holistic” is fairly close to mine, and not quite so close to the one articulated by PG recently. (Of course, I may have misunderstood one or both posts.)</p>
<p>ucbalumnus is right (as far as I know) that there is a level of achievement that suffices for admission to Berkeley. So Berkeley’s process is also holistic, but they don’t absolutely require the “extras” that other top schools are looking for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly, I think this is at the root of the hand-wringing among those who don’t trust “holistic” processes in admissions. All the effort their kids have made in their applications–heck, all the effort they have made throughout high school, and that the parents have made going back to playing Mozart to them in the womb–is for naught if they get no more than half a minute of attention from those in power at the elite institutions they have spent 18 years preparing to enter. It’s just “not fair.” I am starting to get it now.</p>
<p>I think that the applicant who was discussed for close to an hour probably got the fairest decision that was humanly possible, within the constraints of the information that could be contained in the application. I think that the applicants who were discussed for five minutes or less probably got the fairest decision that was procedurally possible. My issue is a bit different from your point, I think, sally305. </p>
<p>The time spent on applications is not it–the subliminal impression left by the Harvard Dean or by the column editor just stood out to me, and I remarked on it.</p>