Why so few applicants to Harvard?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

thegoatest

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
116
Reaction score
85
Anybody know why Harvard has less than 1,000 applicants each year?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The applicant pool is self-selecting.

Also, I'm not a fan of Harvard's research-based curriculum so I didn't think it was worth sending in an application.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
The applicant pool is self-selecting.

Also, I'm not a fan of Harvard's research-based curriculum so I didn't think it was worth sending in an application.
By self-selecting, what do you mean? Their numbers honestly don't look that competitive... it's a 1/8 chance to land an interview there. That seems far less competitive than many other schools. And every student is OOS.
 
By self-selecting, what do you mean? Their numbers honestly don't look that competitive... it's a 1/8 chance to land an interview there. That seems far less competitive than many other schools. And every student is OOS.

Self-selecting as people with higher stats tend to apply there. When an applicant has very competitive DAT scores and a high GPA, they'll feel more comfortable applying with a pool of other applicants with similar stats. People who have lower stats refrain because of the average matriculant's GPA/DAT are much higher and they feel like they don't have much of a chance of admission.

Research-based schools tend to be good for people who wish to specialize.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Self-selecting as people with higher stats tend to apply there, and people who have lower stats refrain because of the average matriculant stats may dissuade them.

Research-based schools tend to be good for people who wish to specialize.
Thanks for the explanation. I noticed you're at VCU, can you tell me a little about it? Is it good for research/specializing? Strengths, weaknesses?
 
Thanks for the explanation. I noticed you're at VCU, can you tell me a little about it? Is it good for research/specializing? Strengths, weaknesses?

Yeah, it is good for people who wish to specialize since there are ample research opportunities and about 50% of the class continues on to a residency. They have quite a few specialties so it is easier to gather letters of recommendations for a particular specialty. The dental school has been around for a little over 120 years, so it's quite established and has some notable faculty.
 
Last edited:
It's expensive going there and they are super selective with who they want to accept. Plus, it doesn't help you need a 3.8+ and 23AA+ to be competetive academically :(
 
By self-selecting, what do you mean? Their numbers honestly don't look that competitive... it's a 1/8 chance to land an interview there. That seems far less competitive than many other schools. And every student is OOS.

1/8 chance is far less competitive? That's literally a 12.5 chance just to snag an interview. Many other schools have a 25% chance and that is double that amount and are still considered competitive.
 
Chances are you go into research or academia if you attend Harvard.
 
1/8 chance is far less competitive? That's literally a 12.5 chance just to snag an interview. Many other schools have a 25% chance and that is double that amount and are still considered competitive.

The only way that every single Harvard applicant has the same 12.5% chance of interview is if interviews are handed out randomly to Harvard's applicants without looking at GPA/DAT/etc.

The fact is that someone with a GPA <3.00 and DAT <18 will have a much lower chance of interview (way lower than 12.5%) than someone with a 4.0 GPA and 30 DAT (way higher than 12.5% interview chance). I'm using extreme examples here but I think it's helpful in demonstrating the point I'm making.

So while it may seem that there are fewer applicants to compete against (therefore raising the ratio of interviewees:applicants), the small applicant pool doesn't necessarily increase one's chances since the applicant pool is extremely self-selecting and generally the cream of the crop.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
1/8 chance is far less competitive? That's literally a 12.5 chance just to snag an interview. Many other schools have a 25% chance and that is double that amount and are still considered competitive.
There are TONS of schools with less than a 1/8 chance to snag an interview as an OOS applicant. Tons. The way I see it, if you have stats in the right ballpark, then it's actually easier to get into Harvard as an OOS applicant than many other schools. All of Harvard's students are OOS, whereas other schools interview less than 4-5% of OOS applicants.
 
Last edited:
There are TONS of schools with less than a 1/8 chance to snag an interview as an OOS applicant. Tons. The way I see it, if you have stats in the right ballpark, then it's actually easier to get into Harvard as an OOS applicant than many other schools. All of Harvard's students are OOS, whereas other schools interview less then 4-5% of OOS applicants.
Didn't realize you were talking about OOS my bad. However you can't really compare private schools to public schools. Public schools are bound by a commitment that they can only take 10% OOS.
 
Didn't realize you were talking about OOS my bad. However you can't really compare private schools to public schools. Public schools are bound by a commitment that they can only take 10% OOS.
Not all public schools have that commitment, and not all private schools are OOS friendly either (i.e. UOP)... But yes, you have a good point. I guess I'm just wondering why more OOS applicants don't give Harvard a shot. It doesn't seem any more competitive than the next school as an OOS applicant.
 
Not all public schools have that commitment, and not all private schools are OOS friendly either (i.e. UOP)... But yes, you have a good point. I guess I'm just wondering why more OOS applicants don't give Harvard a shot. It doesn't seem any more competitive than the next school as an OOS applicant.

It's that gpa average. I was tempted not to apply because I'm about .2 lower than what they are looking for. I did anyways and haven't heard anything.
 
By self-selecting, what do you mean? Their numbers honestly don't look that competitive... it's a 1/8 chance to land an interview there. That seems far less competitive than many other schools. And every student is OOS.


You can't use these applicant/enrollee ratios for... well... anything.

Saying there's a 1/8 chance to land an interview there is ridiculous. Those stats are skewed relative to the people applying there. Their numbers don't look that competitive? If you apply to Harvard with a 17 DAT and 3.0 GPA you don't have a 1/8 chance. You have 0 chance. If you apply to Harvard with a 20 AA and a 3.5 GPA, do you have a chance? Sure. But far less than if you applied elsewhere.

Why do you think "lower-tier" schools have so many more applicants? Just thinking about this should answer your question.

Besides, not everybody has the luxury of spending X-hundred dollars to see if they have a chance to interview. And if they're fortunate enough to, they would spend X-hundred dollars flying and staying there. And eventually, if they're fortunate enough to, spend X-hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend there. Capital efficiency, my friend!
 
You can't use these applicant/enrollee ratios for... well... anything.

Saying there's a 1/8 chance to land an interview there is ridiculous. Those stats are skewed relative to the people applying there. Their numbers don't look that competitive? If you apply to Harvard with a 17 DAT and 3.0 GPA you don't have a 1/8 chance. You have 0 chance. If you apply to Harvard with a 20 AA and a 3.5 GPA, do you have a chance? Sure. But far less than if you applied elsewhere.

Why do you think "lower-tier" schools have so many more applicants? Just thinking about this should answer your question.

Besides, not everybody has the luxury of spending X-hundred dollars to see if they have a chance to interview. And if they're fortunate enough to, they would spend X-hundred dollars flying and staying there. And eventually, if they're fortunate enough to, spend X-hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend there. Capital efficiency, my friend!
I think all of what you said has been clarified already in previous responses, and I agree with you on some of it. At the same time though, from the perspective of an OOS applicant, I don't think Harvard is very competitive. Look at UOP for example, they only interviewed 59 OOS applicants out of a couple thousand. Harvard interviewed 100/800. So I do disagree with you when you say the applicant/enrollee ratios are useless. I realize the GPA/DAT stats might steer applicants away, but why don't they steer OOS applicants away from schools like UOP or UW etc etc??? You would need just as high of a GPA/DAT to get into those schools (as an OOS applicant) as you would Harvard. And the price of application (and in many cases, attendance too) is really no different to Harvard than any other school. Am I saying Harvard is easy to get into? No. I just don't think it's any harder than the next decent school when it comes to OOS applications.
 
I think all of what you said has been clarified already in previous responses, and I agree with you on some of it. At the same time though, from the perspective of an OOS applicant, I don't think Harvard is very competitive. Look at UOP for example, they only interviewed 59 OOS applicants out of a couple thousand. Harvard interviewed 100/800. So I do disagree with you when you say the applicant/enrollee ratios are useless. I realize the GPA/DAT stats might steer applicants away, but why don't they steer OOS applicants away from schools like UOP or UW etc etc??? You would need just as high of a GPA/DAT to get into those schools (as an OOS applicant) as you would Harvard. And the price of application (and in many cases, attendance too) is really no different to Harvard than any other school. Am I saying Harvard is easy to get into? No. I just don't think it's any harder than the next decent school when it comes to OOS applications.

I realize it was, but you did not address @Incis0r's post, so i felt the need to reiterate their stance. There are many, many, many reasons beyond stats why an applicant may elect to apply to one school and not the other. As others mentioned, Harvard is research-oriented. UOP is an entirely special case due to the "uniqueness" of their 3 year program. UW states that they accept 85-90% in state and the other 10-15 from WICHE states.

I think you're being far too generic in your analysis of the difficulty of matriculating into specific dental schools.
 
I realize it was, but you did not address @Incis0r's post, so i felt the need to reiterate their stance. There are many, many, many reasons beyond stats why an applicant may elect to apply to one school and not the other. As others mentioned, Harvard is research-oriented. UOP is an entirely special case due to the "uniqueness" of their 3 year program. UW states that they accept 85-90% in state and the other 10-15 from WICHE states.

I think you're being far too generic in your analysis of the difficulty of matriculating into specific dental schools.
That's why my Original Post was stated as a question... And while everybody has shared some excellent insight (including you and Incisor), I don't think my original question has been sufficiently addressed. Why do thousands upon thousands of OOS applicants roll their dice on schools that are just as much or more competitive than Harvard to get into (remember, I'm referring to OOS)? To get into schools like UW or Oregon or UOP or even VCU, just to name a few, you would probably need a 3.8+ GPA and 22+ DAT score to be competitive for an interview/acceptance as an OOS applicant. Which is the same as Harvard... So all I am wondering is why so many people try for other schools OOS and why so few people try for Harvard. Either way they are both pricy and risky applications. Yet for some reason people steer away from Harvard and steer toward other schools that are just as difficult to gain acceptance to. (Another example would be the obvious UCLA... the chances of getting into UCLA as an OOS applicant are basically zero, yet for whatever reason tons of OOS applicants still apply there. Obviously it's a good school. But so is Harvard. So in essence I'm just surprised more people don't try for Harvard, and so many people try for other near-impossible acceptances).
 
2013:

UW GPA: 3.7 DAT: 21
UOP GPA: 3.4 DAT: 21
VCU GPA: 3.5 DAT: 20
Oregon GPA: 3.6 DAT: 20

Harvard GPA: 3.8 DAT: 23

Unless the stats have change significantly since 2013, your assumptions are incorrect.


I obviously cannot give a definite answer as to why fewer people choose to apply to Harvard. We can only offer numerous, valid ideas. Personally, I did not apply to Harvard (or any Ivy for that matter) because it didn't make financial sense, even though my GPA and DAT would be very competitive.
 
That's why my Original Post was stated as a question... And while everybody has shared some excellent insight (including you and Incisor), I don't think my original question has been sufficiently addressed. Why do thousands upon thousands of OOS applicants roll their dice on schools that are just as much or more competitive than Harvard to get into (remember, I'm referring to OOS)? To get into schools like UW or Oregon or UOP or even VCU, just to name a few, you would probably need a 3.8+ GPA and 22+ DAT score to be competitive for an interview/acceptance as an OOS applicant. Which is the same as Harvard... So all I am wondering is why so many people try for other schools OOS and why so few people try for Harvard. Either way they are both pricy and risky applications. Yet for some reason people steer away from Harvard and steer toward other schools that are just as difficult to gain acceptance to. (Another example would be the obvious UCLA... the chances of getting into UCLA as an OOS applicant are basically zero, yet for whatever reason tons of OOS applicants still apply there. Obviously it's a good school. But so is Harvard. So in essence I'm just surprised more people don't try for Harvard, and so many people try for other near-impossible acceptances).

I think the Harvard name just sounds intimidating to most people which stops them from applying. Yes, other schools may have more competitive stats, but usually people have to do some research to truly recognize that. Harvard is more of a household name with a glamorized sort of prestige.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
2013:

UW GPA: 3.7 DAT: 21
UOP GPA: 3.4 DAT: 21
VCU GPA: 3.5 DAT: 20
Oregon GPA: 3.6 DAT: 20

Harvard GPA: 3.8 DAT: 23

Unless the stats have change significantly since 2013, your assumptions are incorrect.


I obviously cannot give a definite answer as to why fewer people choose to apply to Harvard. We can only offer numerous, valid ideas. Personally, I did not apply to Harvard (or any Ivy for that matter) because it didn't make financial sense, even though my GPA and DAT would be very competitive.
Nice try, but you're (usually) going to need better stats than those averages to be considered AS AN OOS APPLICANT.
 
Let's just consider how many people across the nation have both a 3.8+GPA and 23+DAT...

And there's your answer.
 
@thegoatest , I don't think UoP distinguishes between in-state and out-of-state. The only reason why there seem to be more interviews for IS applicants is that UoP looks out for its undergrads ("The Dugoni Family"), which tends to be made of CA residents since UoP undergrad. is in CA.

But I am certain that, since they are a private institution, they do not care about state of residency.

As far as why I didn't apply to Harvard:
1) Research-based curriculum (heavy emphasis on research; I think a project is practically mandatory)
2) I know students at Harvard and they report not touching a handpiece until year 3. That's not a good fit for me.
3) Cost
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
@thegoatest , I don't think UoP distinguishes between in-state and out-of-state. The only reason why there seem to be more interviews for IS applicants is that UoP looks out for its undergrads ("The Dugoni Family"), which tends to be made of CA residents since UoP undergrad. is in CA.

But I am certain that, since they are a private institution, they do not care about state of residency.

As far as why I didn't apply to Harvard:
1) Research-based curriculum (heavy emphasis on research; I think a project is practically mandatory)
2) I know students at Harvard and they report not touching a handpiece until year 3. That's not a good fit for me.
3) Cost
That's a fair answer, but UoP definitely distinguishes between in-state and out-of-state. It's very very clear they do by looking through the ADEA stats.
 
Let's just consider how many people across the nation have both a 3.8+GPA and 23+DAT...

And there's your answer.
The way I see it though, is that you will need a 3.8+ GPA and 22+ DAT to be considered at many other schools as an OOS applicant.
 
That's a fair answer, but UoP definitely distinguishes between in-state and out-of-state. It's very very clear they do by looking through the ADEA stats.

I don't think you're understanding my point. Admissions Officers at UoP do NOT have a preference for CA residents over OOS residents. It is a private institution.

You are right that they interview more people from in-state than out-of-state, but that is NOT a consequence of state residency. Instead, it is a consequence of the fact that UoP Dental prefers its own undergrads (the vast majority of whom happen to be from CA).
 
Nice try, but you're (usually) going to need better stats than those averages to be considered AS AN OOS APPLICANT.
I srsly give up.


Private schools don't make an IS/OOS distinction, BTW.

The way I see it though, is that you will need a 3.8+ GPA and 22+ DAT to be considered at many other schools as an OOS applicant.

Restating this over, and over, doesn't make you any more "correct."
 
I don't think you're understanding my point. Admissions Officers at UoP do NOT have a preference for CA residents over OOS residents. It is a private institution.

You are right that they interview more people from in-state than out-of-state, but that is NOT a consequence of state residency. Instead, it is a consequence of the fact that UoP Dental prefers its own undergrads (the vast majority of whom happen to be from CA).
I just re-read your previous statement and admit I misunderstood. I see your point. But my question is, if they only interview 59 out of a couple thousand OOS applicants, then why on earth do so many OOS applicants continue to apply there (and other schools too)? Especially when schools like Harvard give you just as good or better of a shot?
 
The way I see it though, is that you will need a 3.8+ GPA and 22+ DAT to be considered at many other schools as an OOS applicant.

When certain D.schools only accept 10 or so OOS per cycle, they can afford to be that selective. Nothing we can do about it really.
 
This is a flawed assumption.
Answer me this @DMikes:
If UoP interviews 59/1370 OOS applicants each year, do you honestly think those FOUR PERCENT of OOS applicants had worse than a 3.8+ GPA and 22+ DAT?

Ok next question, if UW interviews 48/792 OOS applicants each year, do you think those SIX percent of OOS applicants had worse than a 3.8+ GPA/22+ DAT?

Same question goes for Oregon who only interviewed 56/1148 OOS applicants. You think those 56 applicants barely met that school's average GPA/DAT? Or do you think they had more competitive scores?

OH AND GET THIS. Nearly FIVE HUNDRED OOS Applicants applied to UT-Houston, only ONE of which landed an interview. You think that ONE person had worse stats than Harvard? It's possible. But you are missing my point. WHY ON EARTH would FIVE HUNDRED people apply to a school that gives less than a 1% chance of acceptance? Isn't that more competitive than Harvard? You tell me.

You're stuck on this whole idea that you need a 3.87 GPA and 23 DAT in order to be competitive at Harvard. Which may be correct. But I think you need a similar GPA/DAT score in order to be among the SIX PERCENT or less that land an OOS interview elsewhere.
 
The reason I posed this question in the first place is because I have a 4.0 GPA and a 24 AA, and I'm trying to be smart about where I roll my dice as an OOS applicant. If only 12/669 OOS applicants land an interview at UCLA, isn't it smarter for me to apply to Harvard where 108/804 OOS applicants landed an interview? Even though I have Harvard stats, it would be silly of me to apply at UCLA where my chances are lower. Same goes for UOP, UW, and many other schools. So why do so many OOS applicants apply to those schools and not Harvard? No need to be hostile, it's an honest inquiry.
 
The reason I posed this question in the first place is because I have a 4.0 GPA and a 24 AA, and I'm trying to be smart about where I roll my dice as an OOS applicant. If only 12/669 OOS applicants land an interview at UCLA, isn't it smarter for me to apply to Harvard where 108/804 OOS applicants landed an interview? Even though I have Harvard stats, it would be silly of me to apply at UCLA where my chances are lower. Same goes for UOP, UW, and many other schools. So why do so many OOS applicants apply to those schools and not Harvard? No need to be hostile, it's an honest inquiry.

Okay, but again, you should consider how many of those OOS applicants have a 3.8+GPA and 23+DAT. Even though there were 1148 OOS applicants at Oregon, I highly doubt even 100 of them meet the aforementioned criteria. So with your 4.0GPA/24DAT, you probably have a 56/100 or better chance of getting interviewed (assuming that stats are the be-all end-all, but it isn't).

You seem very informed about these admission statistics. Just use your common sense and apply to wherever you feel you have the best chance. Good luck.
 
You never know where you'll end up! Even if the statistics are against you (or look that way), it's worth applying.
 
Top