<br>
<br>
<p>Okay, so if all the current objective measures are so lousy, what should we use for objective measures? Please describe a good objective measure. Or are you advocating a totally subjective admissions system where everyone gets in (or not) based on some sort of intuitive “feel” about the applicant?</p>
<p>As with many things in life, the college admission process is resource constrained and subject to human fallibility. But with that as context, I do think that Harvard works very hard to understand as much as it can about its applicants, and does not rely on any single factor as the primary criterion for admission. (As an aside, I would not want to see interviews become the primary criterion for admission any more than I would want SAT scores to fill that role. Interview reports can be useful, but there is too much variability in the interviewing and assessment skills of alumni interviewers. In addition, while its not totally unimportant, I dont think that a students ability to present well in a one-hour interview should override four or more years of accomplishments.)</p>
<p>I also do not think that Harvard students high average SAT scores demonstrate that Harvard relies primarily on these scores for its admissions decisions. Obviously, SAT scores are a factor - admission to Harvard with a combined SAT (on the old scale) of under 1200 is a rarity indeed, and in the 1200-1400 range there would need to be a very strong package on the other factors. (Im using these as rough ranges, not bright line tests.) But I think the primary line of cause and effect runs in the other direction: the kind of highly motivated, bright, accomplished students that Harvard is looking for tend also to test well on the SATs. And when they dont, there is usually some clear and identifiable explanation for why. But this is not the same as saying that getting a perfect score on the SATs shows that someone is the kind of highly motivated, bright, accomplished student that Harvard is looking for. And I continue to believe that the OPs original premise, namely that Harvard sees a huge difference between a 2160 and a 2340, is just not accurate.</p>
<p>Finally, I think that a highly motivated, bright, accomplished student can, to use coureurs words, live a fulfilling high school life, unconcerned with grades, SATs, and other pressures, without hurting his or her chances for admission to Harvard. (Not that anyone can really say that his or her chances for admission to Harvard are good given that over 90% of its applicants are rejected.) For a student like this, the grades, SAT scores and other accomplishments tend to fall into place, without the need for grooming. And in any event, admission to Harvard or no, taking that kind of path through high school is likely to produce a healthier person, and greater success in college (whether or not that college is Harvard) and beyond, than the high-pressure, highly-structured, Ivy-admission oriented path that too many high school students seem to find themselves on today.</p>
<p>I have to agree with the previous poster. Naturally, any admissions officer will have to focus on the qualitative, but the rest is tremendously important too.</p>
<p>I remember speaking to a Yale alumnus (not the same, I guess). He explained to me that, very often, two or three ECs is better than twenty, because the person with twenty usually 1) has fake ones, and 2) doesn’t care about the ECs in the first place, because it would be physically impossible to commit one’s heart and soul into twenty activities while taking the 27 APs that we high school students delve into every year.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we have to face the facts. Harvard doesn’t know its applicants; it doesn’t know their potential, their dedication, their originality, their work ethic, or anything else. In fact, Harvard has SHEETS of PAPER about over 20,000 people, and only 10% of those will get in. To ask them to “consider” the applicants carefully will be ridiculous, and that’s why so few get in with scores below 1600 (new SAT): because the admissions officers simply dump the pile of <1600 SAT scores and say, “chances are, we won’t find anything in there, so why throw away time?”. </p>
<p>I want to come back on my point about the sheet of paper. Because of the nature of admissions (the adcom will never meet the applicant, for the most part), those unworthy of admission will inevitable get in. Let’s be honest here: you can have two students with identical statistics, 2200 on his SATs, started up a volunteering campaign at his school, founded the blah blah blah club, captain of the swimming team; yet, one student can actually have some commitment to his activities. One of the applicants could have taken the SAT with no preparation, because he is that bright, while the other could have crammed himself with “educational consultants” to receive a high score. One applicant could have founded a volunteering campaign because he felt the school needed to help the community, while the other student wanted it for his applications. The adcom will NEVER KNOW the difference, because they cannot meet the applicants. That is why the admissions processes are forever doomed to be flawed, because often times, only the superfluous can be accurately compared. When ECs and letters of recommendations are so diverse and incomparable, colleges have nothing to go by but SAT scores (not to say that is all that matters, or the most significant part). It will, at the very least, be the first way in which adcoms “trim the fat” off of their applicant pool, and there’s very little we can do about it.</p>
<p>You overlook the fact that every applicant to Harvard DOES receive at least one personal interview, and that the purpose of such interviews - which take place AFTER all the “paper” is submitted is, in part, to see if there appears to be a disconnect between the applicant and the application.</p>
<p>Short of hiring an executive search firm, or a phalanx of ex-FBI agents to interview the applicant’s kindergarten teacher and little league coach, I’m not sure exactly what more you think ought to be done</p>
<p>Certainly, admissions is an inexact science. But as one who has interviewed hundreds of applicants, and followed up to see who gets in and who doesn’t, I’d say that the Harvard Admissions Office, at least, does an extraordinary job of picking good. people. Bear in mind that there is no single standard against which to measure candidates, and that when “diversity” is an institutional goal, it is impossible to include every 1600 math major, every student council president, every valedictorian, every resident of Ohio, etc.</p>
<p>While I agree with the OP on the perils of admissions predictions based on applicants’ SAT scores, what I’ve observed in the past couple of yrs. is that that score is open to a great deal of qualification, including by HYP. There are several “checks” against that score: content of teacher recs, components of the h.s. program (on & off campus), type & quality of academic awards, & definitely The Interview. (That is not even touching the extracurricular stuff yet, which may play in, depending on the nature & level of that, as well.)</p>
<p>None of the “elite” admits in my D’s class last yr. even broke 1500 (old SAT). Yet the U’s were astute enough to observe, correctly, the intellectual aptitude of these very advanced, curious, focused, articulate, & well-read students. It came across in a combination of submitted materials & interviews. The schools in questions were HYPSM.</p>
<p>I believe that the Interview actually matters significantly. This summer some tipsy Harvard College student whose parent works at the Adcom office told us that the interview was actually important because you can prep for everything else (even rich enough kids can get their essays done very well for them that they seem sincere). He said that that’s virtually the only way for the college to examine your character and personality.</p>
<p>The previous poster speaks the truth.</p>
<p>Harvard has, for many years, striven to have every applicant interviewed for this very purpose. Both Yale and Princeton are now striving to offer interviews in a higher fraction of cases than earlier, and I believe the new regime at Stanford is poised to alter their prior policy of no interviews.</p>
<p>To be fair, however, if you are going to interview SOME applicants, you should really strive to interview ALL applicants, so that the process is not distorted in favor of those whose access to an interviewer is more convenient.</p>
<p>In addition to the other factors previously mentioned, there is a real concern about the distorting effect of the “candidate packagers” (and I won’t mention any names here.)</p>
<p>A skilled interviewer can often sense if the person before him matches, or doesn’t match, the contents of the package.</p>
<p>In addition, in some cases, admissions offices are prepared to consult the applicant’s score on the new writing section of the SAT, when presented with an essay that seems (shall we say) professional in quality, to see if it is, or is not, likely that this candidate produced it.</p>
<p>Yes, the inverview I believe is extremely important as a weeding out process - to see if the application matches the actual student. However, it will also negatively represent shy people or people with not such great social skills but who are geniuses of some sort or who may contribute significantly to society. At the same time, any kind of admission standard will be flawed (that is why they are all considered together as a package) and one could argue that people with worse social skills might do worse out in the world anyway. Furthermore, people who are capable, driven, and intelligent will do well no matter what college they go to, so they should not make it their life goal to get into HYPSM or wherever else. </p>
<p>also, somebody said
"…I think that a highly motivated, bright, accomplished student can, to use coureurs words, live a fulfilling high school life, unconcerned with grades, SATs, and other pressures, without hurting his or her chances for admission to Harvard… For a student like this, the grades, SAT scores and other accomplishments tend to fall into place, without the need for grooming. "</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more with this. In fact, I (as well as most of my friends in college) didn’t even think about college until junior year. I would like to think that I had a fulfilling childhood and high school experience - I spent much of my summer at the beach, not at national conferences. I enjoyed the activities I did and wasn’t afraid to try new ones or drop ones I didn’t like, because I wasn’t obsessed with having consistent EC’s. In fact, I didn’t even know the term “ECs” until recently. It is true that I took some classes during the summer in summer programs, but it was classes I was extremely interested in. Nobody in my family had any idea how the admissions process worked until junior/senior year because I was the first to go to an American university. I didn’t even think about applying to HYPSM until SATs came back…I was extremely lucky/successful in the admissions process, but I am not the only one. In fact, most of my peers here (at Yale) had the same experience- they were NOT the obsessive students you hear about with private counselors or manufactured ECs - they had a pretty healthy life - sometimes I think that admissions can actually distinguish between the two types of people, given the people I’ve met here seem fairly laid-back and naturally intelligent/driven.</p>
<p>"…I think that a highly motivated, bright, accomplished student can, to use Coureurs words, live a fulfilling high school life, unconcerned with grades, SATs, and other pressures, without hurting his or her chances for admission to Harvard… For a student like this, the grades, SAT scores and other accomplishments tend to fall into place, without the need for grooming. "</p>
<p>Yes, for the middle-class applicant. However, what about the poor kid? How about the student who strives to do well in his/her classes but has to work a 25hr/wk job to help support their family? Not all of us have the luxury to sit down and start reading “Pride and Prejudice” while we are sunbathing and then return to our $300,000 home (average price of a middle-class home). I guess what I am trying to say is that for people who don’t have extra time to relax once in a while, the few hours they get a day to study (after work and ECs) needs to be crammed to it’s maximum potential. Therefore, I think it is unfair to generalize and argue that for “Motivated students,” “accomplishments tend to fall into place.”</p>
<p>I can also argue a fallacy in the argument that an “intelligent, driven student” will succeed despite any college they go to. While this generally may be correct, look at our Supreme Court. There are around 6 Harvard Law School graduates and the rest from near-equal (cough Stanford cough) institutions. Look at our president: Harvard/Yale grad. And I won’t even mention senators. </p>
<p>Let’s look at this realistically. Generally, people who attend Ivy League/Top Tier institutions tend to do better than their counterparts who went to less prestigious institutions, even by a slight margin. Now images of other accomplished individuals may be flashing in front of you, however, in holistic terms, this is true. </p>
<p>I truth is that many us do have to attend National Conferences and raise the money to go to them instead of having fun with our friends. Many of us do not have the luxury to excessively socialize and “enjoy our youth.” We live in a capitalist society that motivates hard work. Through hard work we can build character and be successful in life. If we dont work, then we will remain poor and keep draining government money.</p>
<p>- sometimes I think that admissions can actually distinguish between the two types of people, given the people I’ve met here seem fairly laid-back and naturally intelligent/driven.</p>
<p>I wholeheartedly hope this is true. That it isnt another PR sham to attract select poor students and full pay minorities.</p>
<p>…getting back on track here, I’m not sure of the comment about Y and P offering “interviews in a higher fraction of cases than earlier.” I thought it had been standard that, like H, they have offered interviews to every applicant, as well – at least anyone in the ballpark of being seriously considered. No?</p>
<p>Byerly, how does Harvard treat unusual circumstances in a person’s life, such as divorce, violence, etc.)? Some people have other things going on in their lives besides school and these things can have a major impact on their lives.</p>
<p>If there is a reason to do so, and it comes to their attention, the Admissions office will certainly take family circumstances into account. On occasion, such circumstances may come to the attention of the interviewer, who might make reference to them in his/her report.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen, the students who gain access to the elite colleges are pretty much one of kind – highly motivated and grade conscious from freshman year, deliberate resume builders, and especially, kids who are carefully groomed and prodded by hyper involved parents. (If you don’t believe it, check out the parent boards on CC) Many of these are kids who eagerly take SAT prep classes, engage college counselors to help craft their essays, and who are concerned throughout their early teen years with packaging themselves to appeal to admissions officers.</p>
<p>I suppose you could make the case that these are the kids who are best primed for professional success–tomorrow’s best and brightest, the future leaders and so on. But I think you could also argue that a lot of others – kids who take risks, who have other interests in their teen years, who are put off by a hyperfocus on achievement and don’t want to “play the game,” – might make for a more interest and diverse student population, one that isn’t quite so cookie cutter. But as it stands now, a more free-spirited, creative, out of the box student really doesn’t stand much of a chance for ivy admission. </p>
<p>What’s more, I think there’s a burnout issue to worry about as well. You’ve got all these motivated kids, striving and plotting and ultimately grasping the ivy grail who at some point are going to get to college and realize it’s not the nirvana they had thought they were striving for.</p>
<p>All that said, I’m not sure what other criteria (other than stats, GPA, ECs) the Ivy League schools can use to assess applicants. I just don’t think it’s great that only one type of student has any chance of getting in.</p>
<p>and that describes Liz Murray? Groomed and tons of parental support? I think not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And just what exactly have you seen? What has been your opportunity to observe the young people who have actually been admitted to Harvard in recent years? </p>
<p>There was mention of the Parents Forum of CC in the post to which I am replying, and about all I can say to that is that I must have read a very different subset of threads in that forum from the other poster here, if that is how the other poster summarizes the discussions on the Parent Forum. What I read about there is a lot of parents who cheerfully support their children pursuing THEIR (the children’s) passions, along with some parents who have a lot of anxiety about all the things they (the parents) haven’t done to prepare for competitive college admission. But only a small minority of the Parents Forum parents have children at Harvard or at any other Ivy League college.</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting there aren’t exceptions, but I think I’m making a valid point. I am actually in a professional position to see close up who does/doesn’t get into Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>Asking a genuine informational question, which I hope you will be kind enough to answer, what kind of specific examples did you have in mind when you wrote of “kids who take risks” as being a kind of kids who would be less likely to get into Harvard? What kind of risks? </p>
<p>The subset of college admittees I follow most closely are young people who participate in certain kinds of nationally rated ECs. I acknowledge that they are probably NOT representative even of the other young people who are admitted to the same schools, but I don’t think I would characterize the young people I know who get into the Ivy League, in the context I know them in, as young people who don’t take risks.</p>
<p>Admissions seems to be an attempt to fit many shapes of peg into one hole, shape unknown to the applicant. To keep applications up, colleges have to make applicants feel that there are rational reasons for their being accepted or excluded. Eureka! A set of admissions policies and guidelines. The college can discuss these points with potential applicants, put them on web sites to make everyone believe it’s a completely reasonable process, and defend their decisions according to their own (rationalized) guidelines. It’s marketing - inherently disingenuous (like politics). </p>
<p>There is a solid core of “truth” that paradoxically allows colleges to get away with plausible deniability for their own BS - a definite commonality in what selective colleges want, much like the ‘perennial philosophy’ common to most religions. The “irreducible core” seems to consist of the applicant demonstrating intelligence and initiative (course selection, grades, test scores, reaching beyond high school offerings), that they would add to the life of the college (ECs, etc.), and character (no axe murderers, thank you). </p>
<p>Other than this “irreducible core of truth,” the remaining elements that affect admissions decisions are based on the college’s past practices/present priorities for athletes, legacies, minorities, etc., the class makeup they would like to develop, and the ever-changing current imperatives, whatever they happen to be (e.g. Harvard may be feeling pressure to make a good show of encouraging and admitting young women who want to major in science).</p>
<p>Because applicants have no knowledge of, or control over, the non-common-core factors against which they will be considered, they have to concentrate on the core - accumulate sterling credentials and polish their apps as best they can. It is all that they can do - to burnish the elements that are in their control and play the game skillfully. If that means SAT prep courses, tons of APs, and developing ‘meaningful’ ECs, then that is the path that ambitious applicants should take to maximize (but not guarantee) their chances of success.</p>
<p>I can’t see any macro-trends that are likely to change this state of affairs, other than a disaster scenario that causes the number of applicants to drop drastically - bird flu pandemic, asteroid impact, World War III, that sort of thing.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to put the critics of the admissions process into a room with 22,000+ applications from generally highly qualified applicants for 1,650 spots and see if they could do a better job. Within the constraints they face, I think the adcoms tend to do pretty well.</p>
<p>Re mchs’s post, his/her description of “students who gain access to the elite colleges” certainly doesn’t describe my son, nor does it describe my son’s friends at Harvard. I’m sure there are some “packaged” applicants who get in to Harvard, but my sense is that the admissions committees at elite schools (really any schools) view packaging as a negative, not a positive. And they are quite enthusiastic about students who “take risks” - assuming the risks evidence accomplishment and a true interest in the pursuit of learning.</p>
<p>At a school that rejects over 90% of its applicants, people are always going to be able to claim that they know someone who got in whom they view as less worthy than someone who was rejected. The irony is that this complaint comes up most often, on cc anyway, when someone with lesser stats is admitted over someone with more impressive stats. Yet the OP’s premise is that elite colleges are too stat conscious. Just goes to show that you can’t please everyone.</p>
<p>Has anyone examined the company that sponsors this Board? IGAP stands for Ivy Guaranteed Admission:</p>
<p>Senior $4,000 </p>
<p>Junior/Senior $5,000 </p>
<p>Transfer $3,000 </p>
<p>HYP $10,000 </p>
<p>IGAP $15,000 </p>
<p>Theater/Musical
Theater $4,500 </p>
<p>Have you noticed that they request that you post your SAT, GPA and your ‘hook’ to get in. Someone suggested in one of the boards that financial would be more helpful … wellllll, maybe for the applicants but NOT FOR OUR SPONSORS.</p>
<p>They are combing these boards to improve the information they sell to those who are desperate and can afford to attempt to buy their way into an Ivy.</p>
<p>I could barely afford the used SAT study books I bought with my summer job check. Taking the SAT twice was a financial hardship for my family.</p>
<p>I turned in my financial aid application with my ED application to Columbia. </p>
<p>I think it was very apparent that I did not have a purchased essay. What I did have was four years of hard work. I think my passion for my education and my extra-curriculars was evidenced by my teacher’s recommendations and my counselor’s complete faith in me.</p>
<p>I was two points short of being a National Merit Semi Finalist in my state. I am certain if I had taken the course I would have made it.</p>
<p>But I have what no one can buy … the respect of my teachers and a true and genuine passion for learning.</p>
<p>I got into Columbia early decision and you know what? I am going there to learn and to become whatever I become. No one chose me for where I will be when I graduate. They chose me because I have so much to give to the university environment. The ideal is that I will continue that gift after I graduate and I have every intention of doing just that.</p>
<p>I am NOT posting my scores on these boards so that College Confidential can use me to allow someone to buy their way into and Ivy for $15,000.oo</p>