- Joined
- Jun 26, 2016
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 85
Anybody know why Harvard has less than 1,000 applicants each year?
They're extremely selective. They have an very small class size and it's quite expensive.Anybody know why Harvard has less than 1,000 applicants each year?
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.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.
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?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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 true. Not for OOS applicants.Harvard ranks 10th in applicants/enrollees ratio.
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.
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.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.
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 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).
Nice try, but you're (usually) going to need better stats than those averages to be considered AS AN OOS APPLICANT.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 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.@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
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.Let's just consider how many people across the nation have both a 3.8+GPA and 23+DAT...
And there's your answer.
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 srsly give up.Nice try, but you're (usually) going to need better stats than those averages to be considered AS AN OOS APPLICANT.
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.
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?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).
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.
Especially when schools like Harvard give you just as good or better of a shot?
Answer me this @DMikes:This is a flawed assumption.
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.