Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"BWAHAHAHA! YOu do know all those little red dots are "denieds"? "
Which has what to do about the green and blue dots?
I count maybe 10-15 "outlier" green and blue dots. You do know that harvard received 35,000 applications this year and only 2,100 acceptances were mailed out 6.2% of applications, and the 865 come from EA.
Think about it: if you were Harvard and you got 35K applicants, wouldn't you choose the top ones? If you were sitting there looking at all of those, wouldn't the first thing you would do is cut them down to a manageable size of maybe 6000? rejecting 29,000 on the first cut? What do you think top 10 schools are doing?
They probably could fill the class with applicants with 3.9+ GPA and 2300+ SAT, but there plainly aren't doing that. Who are they making exceptions for? HOOKS - mainly UREM, some athletes, some legacy, some handicapped and other exceptional cases.
I'm gonna guess legacies and certain types of athletes. Harvard has a "Z List" where they put certain legacies who aren't quite up to snuff, for entry the following year. Pretty sure that Harvard has a gazillion URMS with near-perfect stats, so getting URMs isn't a question of lowering standards. Getting legacies sometimes is.
There are probably only 250 AA kids each year with sat scores above 1500. Hardly a gazillion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"BWAHAHAHA! YOu do know all those little red dots are "denieds"? "
Which has what to do about the green and blue dots?
I count maybe 10-15 "outlier" green and blue dots. You do know that harvard received 35,000 applications this year and only 2,100 acceptances were mailed out 6.2% of applications, and the 865 come from EA.
Think about it: if you were Harvard and you got 35K applicants, wouldn't you choose the top ones? If you were sitting there looking at all of those, wouldn't the first thing you would do is cut them down to a manageable size of maybe 6000? rejecting 29,000 on the first cut? What do you think top 10 schools are doing?
They probably could fill the class with applicants with 3.9+ GPA and 2300+ SAT, but there plainly aren't doing that. Who are they making exceptions for? HOOKS - mainly UREM, some athletes, some legacy, some handicapped and other exceptional cases.
I'm gonna guess legacies and certain types of athletes. Harvard has a "Z List" where they put certain legacies who aren't quite up to snuff, for entry the following year. Pretty sure that Harvard has a gazillion URMS with near-perfect stats, so getting URMs isn't a question of lowering standards. Getting legacies sometimes is.
Anonymous wrote:Here is more complete Harvard information:
http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html
As noted recruited athletes have an average SAT score that is 137 points less than the overall average.
Harvard stop reporting average UREM scores years ago, but at last report the average was about 100 points less than the overall average.
These two categories alone cannot account for the many "non perfect" scores,
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"BWAHAHAHA! YOu do know all those little red dots are "denieds"? "
Which has what to do about the green and blue dots?
I count maybe 10-15 "outlier" green and blue dots. You do know that harvard received 35,000 applications this year and only 2,100 acceptances were mailed out 6.2% of applications, and the 865 come from EA.
Think about it: if you were Harvard and you got 35K applicants, wouldn't you choose the top ones? If you were sitting there looking at all of those, wouldn't the first thing you would do is cut them down to a manageable size of maybe 6000? rejecting 29,000 on the first cut? What do you think top 10 schools are doing?
They probably could fill the class with applicants with 3.9+ GPA and 2300+ SAT, but there plainly aren't doing that. Who are they making exceptions for? HOOKS - mainly UREM, some athletes, some legacy, some handicapped and other exceptional cases.
I'm gonna guess legacies and certain types of athletes. Harvard has a "Z List" where they put certain legacies who aren't quite up to snuff, for entry the following year. Pretty sure that Harvard has a gazillion URMS with near-perfect stats, so getting URMs isn't a question of lowering standards. Getting legacies sometimes is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"BWAHAHAHA! YOu do know all those little red dots are "denieds"? "
Which has what to do about the green and blue dots?
I count maybe 10-15 "outlier" green and blue dots. You do know that harvard received 35,000 applications this year and only 2,100 acceptances were mailed out 6.2% of applications, and the 865 come from EA.
Think about it: if you were Harvard and you got 35K applicants, wouldn't you choose the top ones? If you were sitting there looking at all of those, wouldn't the first thing you would do is cut them down to a manageable size of maybe 6000? rejecting 29,000 on the first cut? What do you think top 10 schools are doing?
They probably could fill the class with applicants with 3.9+ GPA and 2300+ SAT, but there plainly aren't doing that. Who are they making exceptions for? HOOKS - mainly UREM, some athletes, some legacy, some handicapped and other exceptional cases.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"BWAHAHAHA! YOu do know all those little red dots are "denieds"? "
Which has what to do about the green and blue dots?
I count maybe 10-15 "outlier" green and blue dots. You do know that harvard received 35,000 applications this year and only 2,100 acceptances were mailed out 6.2% of applications, and the 865 come from EA.
Think about it: if you were Harvard and you got 35K applicants, wouldn't you choose the top ones? If you were sitting there looking at all of those, wouldn't the first thing you would do is cut them down to a manageable size of maybe 6000? rejecting 29,000 on the first cut? What do you think top 10 schools are doing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"BWAHAHAHA! YOu do know all those little red dots are "denieds"? "
Which has what to do about the green and blue dots?
I count maybe 10-15 "outlier" green and blue dots. You do know that harvard received 35,000 applications this year and only 2,100 acceptances were mailed out 6.2% of applications, and the 865 come from EA.
Think about it: if you were Harvard and you got 35K applicants, wouldn't you choose the top ones? If you were sitting there looking at all of those, wouldn't the first thing you would do is cut them down to a manageable size of maybe 6000? rejecting 29,000 on the first cut? What do you think top 10 schools are doing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"BWAHAHAHA! YOu do know all those little red dots are "denieds"? "
Which has what to do about the green and blue dots?
I count maybe 10-15 "outlier" green and blue dots. You do know that harvard received 35,000 applications this year and only 2,100 acceptances were mailed out 6.2% of applications, and the 865 come from EA.
Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know of an actual example of a kid that got into one of these schools without near perfect SAT or GPA, besides sports stars? Please provide specific examples, if so. I am so tired of sitting through tours and hearing this and then seeing their GPA/ SAT ranges.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"BWAHAHAHA! YOu do know all those little red dots are "denieds"? "
Which has what to do about the green and blue dots?
I count maybe 10-15 "outlier" green and blue dots. You do know that harvard received 35,000 applications this year and only 2,100 acceptances were mailed out 6.2% of applications, and the 865 come from EA.