> After meeting a few of the admissions officiers, I have a lot of empathy and respect for them. They were all kind, considerate and very patient folks. I'd im

> After meeting a few of the admissions officiers, I have a lot of empathy and respect for them. They were all kind, considerate and very patient folks. I'd imagine that the admissions officers, many of them alumni of Harvard or other elite schools, are bright and thoughtful. But I always wondered how they deal with donor admits. "Mmmm, I'm doubtful about this Jared Kushner fellow, but the Development Office has his application marked as a must-admit. Oh well?" > The difference between say a 1400 (95%) student and 1600 (99.9826%)is small and honestly (my view) meaningless. If you mean the difference is meaningless (or at least small) when SAT score is figured into the holistic appraisal of the applicant, then I might agree. But I think there's a substantial difference in SAT-taking skill between a 1600 and a 1400. A 1600 means nearly 100% correct answers throughout the test. Someone scoring 1600 knew all the necessary vocabulary, understood the reading passages, and could handle all the math. Someone with a 1400 still could deserve admission, but for excellence in other areas.