> if Harvard judged candidates based on SAT scores, scholastic achievement, and other seemingly-objective-and-reasonably-sensible metrics I think this type of

> if Harvard judged candidates based on SAT scores, scholastic achievement, and other seemingly-objective-and-reasonably-sensible metrics I think this type of statement represents the main problem that folks who run down the “Asians at Harvard” rabbit hole. People assume that Harvard admissions is all just based on who is the biggest brainiac based on grades and SATs, and that’s simply not the case at Harvard or any other elite school. Decent article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/21/dockets-ratings-tips-how-harvard-admissions-selects-student/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/21/dockets-... High SAT and high grades gets you merely a 2 (1 being best) in one of four categories (academic, athletic, extracurricular, and personal/leadership). If you get a 2 in three of four categories, it still only gets you a 40% chance of admission. That said, getting a 1 in any category gives the applicant a bump to anywhere between 48% and 88% chance of admission. Note that only about 100 people per year get a 1 on academic, and that still only gives them a 68% chance of admission if that’s their only 1. Standards are sky high. To anyone who has high scores and great grades in a rigorous curriculum and wants to apply to an elite school, I advise them to differentiate themselves in ways other than academics — it’s a much easier path to acceptance. In my opinion, these non-academic selection criteria is one of the things that makes top schools amazing places. Specifically: - Great grades and great SAT scores (750+ in Math and Verbal) are a baseline for being considered. - The more of the following list below an applicant can check off, the more likely they are to get admitted. If they have several high quality checks, the requirements for grades and scores can actually decrease to a surprisingly low level: (rough order of importance... non-exhaustive list) 1. Recruited athlete. 2. Diversity candidate (race). 3. Notable academic achievement (e.g., publish a paper). 4. Demonstrate leadership via some verifiable and substantial project. 5. Be a skilled-but-not-recruited athlete (esp. in non-varsity sports), entertainer, or person of interest (e.g., children of famous or powerful people). Accolades or championships help. 6. Create a substantial and successful business or non-profit. 7. Diversity candidate (geographical). 8. Have an incredible personal narrative (e.g., Malala) — this might be more important... it’s hard to tell. 9. Be the child of an alum. 10. Be the child of a substantial donor (also hard to rate in importance... it really only comes into play if they aren’t admitted normally). 11. School/department applied to (depends on university). It boggles my mind when someone (Asian or otherwise) points to great grades and great SAT scores and gripes about not getting into an elite school. Elite schools explicitly state that they are looking for well-rounded applicants or “multidimensional excellence”. Why is that person/applicant surprised when they only focused on one dimension and did that in a non-exceptional way (compared to other applicants)? Anyway, this is a topic I know quite a bit about. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions.