<p>To say there is no luck in admissions is insanity. I dont care who you are or what you’ve done. If you get into a school like Yale, you could have easily been rejected for someone just as qualified or more qualified. I got in and I dont know why. I was qualified, like 70% of the applicants are, then i got lucky.</p>
<p>Your lucky in the sense that you fit into what Yale was looking for, not lucky in the sense of complete randomness.</p>
<p>
I agree. Out of 20,000 applicants, there aren’t 20,000 niches. Everyone is qualified, and there are many of the same types of people. There aren’t 2,000 outstanding, 100% different people to fill a class. I watched a video of the dean of Harvard. If I remember correctly, he said 500 are academically outstanding (national award winners, etc), 500 are musically/athletically outstanding, and the majority, 1000, are well-rounded-good-at-everything types.</p>
<p>lol ‘pontificate’? perhaps you were searching for delineate, or expound, or explicate, or any other scholarly word that would allow you to flex your breadth of SAT vocab. Unless of course, pompous was what you were going for.</p>
<p>
I saw that Harvard dean vid too. Actually he said that out of 2100 acceptances, about 300 are to extremely outstanding people (international award/ national award winners/all out geniuses) and 300 are to legacies, sons/daughters of politicians, sons/daughters of donaters, celebs, people with connections. </p>
<p>And yea, I agree, there is a certain degree of “luck” involved, with the idea that this “luck” is caused not by complete randomness, but by other confounding variables that we can’t control (who’s reading your essay, their personality, etc. etc. etc.) </p>
<p>My question still remains unanswered, though: </p>
<p>For a person in a stereotypical “niche” such as an asian good at math/science, how can he/she appear more unique/special to the admissions committee and distinguish himself/herself, to attract more attention and increase the chances of being accepted?</p>
<p>tomjonesistheman, i’m not sure its possible to standout if your one of those classic stereotypes, like asain math wiz. Not that you cant get in, but you have to beat out the other people who have the same niche as you do.</p>
<p>^The thing is, what if I DO have interests in other ec’s? I’m an active leader (part of student government for 2 years, attend regular district meetings), and runner (for cross country and track, varsity). But mostly, I seem like a strong math/science student (I do math/science competitions, qualify for stuff, prez of clubs, summer programs, research, etc.) </p>
<p>I think the problem is: how can I incorporate my other ec’s that I’m dedicated to, to distinguish myself? Is it simply drawing connections between those ec’s, and my love for math? (or something like that) ?
Is it talking about it specific situations that led me to a greater understanding of both?</p>
<p>@tomjonesistheman: I think you’re overthinking this idea of “focus” and “passion” in EC’s. Honestly, look at the admit threads for the top colleges, and you’ll see plenty of admits who have a seemingly scattered variety of interests. What you can do to distinguish yourself is to write strong essays that draw upon who you really are, and chances are, if a school accepts you, they like the person you are. I’ve noticed on CC that posters who seem to have a personality, even in these trivial forum posts we read, tend to be ones posting stories of their acceptances. It’s clich</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simple, I got a 680 on the Math 2, which if anyone is familiar with the curve is horrendous. Which wasn’t that surprising since I took the class over the material the prior year and only prepped for like a week. It actually reinforces the concept that there is not luck bc the test scores obviously matter. For Yale they didn’t require the SATs or SAT 2s only the ACT so I sent only the ACT.</p>
<p>Obviously the advice should be taken with a grain of salt, but this was the advice that I followed based on advice on CC and it certainly helped me. So I figure at least one person might benefit. If you don’t want the advice then don’t take it, but I am sure that at least one person might marginally benefit.</p>
<p>Dbate, did you not send your SAT II scores to Princeton or Harvard either?</p>
<p>Yea, I think the best response, to summarize this thread, is: </p>
<p>
[quote]
What you can do to distinguish yourself is to write strong essays that draw upon who you really are, and chances are, if a school accepts you, they like the person you are. I’ve noticed on CC that posters who seem to have a personality, even in these trivial forum posts we read, tend to be ones posting stories of their acceptances. It’s clich</p>
<p>It probably depends on every case and differs every year, there will always be exceptions to every little rule, advice, and etc, so…seriously, just live your HS life, apply, present yourself well, and see what happens…</p>
<p>No I sent the scores to Princeton and harvard.</p>
<p>lol Dbate I was actually the same way with one bad SAT2 score. I had a solid ACT (34) a decent SAT (2180) and 2 decent SAT2’s s(780 770) with 1 horrible one (660, physics). I didn’t send the SAT/SAT2’s to Yale or Stanford: accepted. I sent them to Harvard (waitlist) and Princeton (rejection).</p>
<p>One of my friends had 3 really good SAT II scores (all in the 700s). He was accepted to Yale, wait listed at Harvard, and rejected from Princeton (the three SAT II’s were sent to all these colleges). I don’t think one blip in SAT II scores would have been the ultimate cause for your rejection at Princeton and wait list at Harvard. It could be, but there may have been other factors as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you can do to distinguish yourself is to write strong essays that draw upon who you really are, and chances are, if a school accepts you, they like the person you are. I’ve noticed on CC that posters who seem to have a personality, even in these trivial forum posts we read, tend to be ones posting stories of their acceptances. It’s clich</p>
<p>Haha, I do what I can. I hope people will listen to what is being reiterated.</p>
<p>I think this is a good thread. First, I agree that there isn’t really “luck” or “randomness” involved, I do think that there is a high degree of unpredictability for many applicants. I think that Dbate essentially has it right that this unpredictability comes from many applicants being in the same “niche” or category. Let’s face it: if you are a URM with very high grades and scores, and some good ECs, you face substantially less unpredictability than a white or Asian applicant with very high grades and scores and good but typical school-based ECs.
It’s my observation after reading a lot of accepted/rejected threads at some of the top schools that if you really want to strategize to increase your admissibility to those schools, the best thing you can do (aside from getting top grades and scores) is to pursue your principle extracurricular interests as far as you can, and especially pursue them outside of your high school. Using your summers to do this can be effective.
Also: the unpredictability also means that you have to use wise strategy in making your list of schools, with reach, match, and safety schools, and if you are looking at very selective reach schools, apply to enough of them to reduce the unpredictability a bit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To add to this, I would just like to make an example. Since I’m strong in math/science, I’ve tried to pursue these interests as far as I can. This includes: being president of numerous math/science clubs, starting/doing well in competitions, taking colleges classes, doing research, and participating in summer programs (either for classes or for research).</p>