Photo: Harvard University

Essentially, the data set shows that a higher ‘Rating’ (this refers to the Overall rating) correlates with a better admission rate. An Overall rating of 1 is guaranteed admission, however only 10-12 students can be expected to receive this in a given admission cycle. An Overall of 2-/2/2+ roughly equates to a 74% admit rate. 3+ applicants have a 13.4% chance of admission, with a 3 rating being only 4%. Below a 3 is nearly a 0% chance, and almost half of all applicants receive a 3-. While these stats are subject to change in coming years, the overall trend is likely to be maintained. Comparing this dataset with regular decision applicants shows early action admission rates at 12.9% while regular decision is at 2.9%. Nevertheless, early action applicants tend to be stronger as well, applying early because they are more prepared on the global and national stage. 

Academic Rating (0.5% of applicants get a 1, 42.3% of applicants get a 2):

1. Summa potential. Genuine scholar; near-perfect scores and grades (in most cases) combined with unusual creativity and possible evidence of original scholarship.

2. Magna potential: Excellent student with superb grades and mid-to-high-700 scores (33+ ACT).

3. Cum laude potential: Very good student with excellent grades and mid-600 to low-700 scores (29 to 32 ACT).

4. Adequate preparation. Respectable grades and low-to-mid-600 scores (26 to 29) ACT).

5. Marginal potential. Modest grades and 500 scores (25 and below ACT).

6. Achievement or motivation marginal or worse.

Having perfect test scores and grades is not enough to garner a 1 rating on this component. Out of 42,749 applicants for the class of 2022, 8,000 had perfect GPAs, 625 had a perfect ACT, 361 had a perfect SAT, and 3,500 had the perfect SAT math. The sheer amount of paper-perfect applications in the academic area is just too many to admit into a class of under 2000 students. Elite colleges like Harvard look for future world leaders–beyond perfect test scores and GPAs– and getting a 1 in this category would likely require evidence of original research and academic contributions. In addition, an ACT of 33 or 36 would be weighted basically the same, as scores serve mainly as a “benchmark” to pass. 

Extracurricular Rating (0.3% of applicants get a 1, 23.8% of applicants get a 2):

1. Unusual strength in one or more areas. Possible national-level achievement or professional experience. A potential major contributor at Harvard. Truly unusual achievement.

2. Strong secondary school contribution in one or more areas such as class president, newspaper editor, etc. Local or regional recognition; major accomplishment(s). 

   1. "Significant school, and possibly regional accomplishments: for example, an applicant who was the student body president or captain of the debate team and the leader of multiple additional clubs."

3. Solid participation but without special distinction. (Upgrade 3+ to 2- in some cases if the e/c is particularly extensive and substantive.)

4. Little or no participation.

5. Substantial activity outside of conventional EC participation such as family commitments or term-time work (could be included with other e/c to boost the rating or left as a "5" if it is more representative of the student's commitment).

6. Special circumstances limit or prevent participation (e.g. a physical condition).

The Extracurricular rating is considered in the geographic scope of the achievement. National-level achievements seem to demonstrate more importance and impact over school participation in clubs. While it is possible to be “elite” at the school and regional/state level through multiple leadership roles and/or awards, a 1 would require much deeper impact. This section is where context is critical to evaluate a student, as many applicants may have access to opportunities others do not. Furthermore, it is important to note “one or more areas” meaning being world class in 5 different areas is likely to carry the same weight as being world class in one.

Athletic Rating (0.9% of applicants get a 1, 9.2% of applicants get a 2):

1. Unusually strong prospect for varsity sports at Harvard, desired by Harvard coaches.

2. Strong secondary school contribution in one or more areas; possible leadership role(s).

3. Active participation.

4. Little or no interest.

5. Substantial activity outside of conventional EC participation such as family commitments or term-time work (could be included with other e/c to boost the rating or left as a "5" if it is more representative of the student's commitment).

6. Physical condition prevents significant activity

A 1 in the Athletic component would be for varsity recruited athletes. This component is generally straightforward, but having a less than a 2 rating would not impact admission chances or lower the overall score.

Personal Rating (0.0% of applicants -- or below 50 total every year -- get a 1, 20.8% of applicants get a 2):

1. Outstanding

2. Very Strong

3. Generally Positive

4. Bland or somewhat negative or immature

5. Questionable personal qualities

6. Worrisome personal qualities

Certainly the most subjective section, the personal rating usually comes from the applicant’s essays and other supplemental pieces, as well as alumni interview support. The legal documents say, “those who do not interview are rarely admitted.” A 1 in this category might equate to an applicant who has overcome tremendous difficulties and showed outstanding character, but of course, settling on a rating comes under reader discretion and is variable. 

School Support (Teacher/Guidance Counselor Recommendation)

1. Strikingly unusual support. “The best ever,” “one of the best in x years,” truly over the top.

2. Very strong support. “One of the best” or “the best this year.”

3. Above average positive support.

4. Somewhat neutral or slightly negative.

5. Negative or worrisome report.

6. Neither the transcript nor prose is in the folder

This largely matches what is on the Common App teacher recommendation form. Students who stand out in comparison to their classmates, and receive many “Top few” would likely receive a 1. 

Candidates who excel in one particular component have the following respective admissions rates– for an Academic rating of 1: 68% admission rate, Extracurricular rating of 1: 48% admission rate, Personal rating of 1: 66% admission rate, and Athletic rating of 1: 88% admission rate. Multi-Dimensional (or "well-rounded") candidates with three ratings of 2 and one rating of 3 or 4 have an 43% admission rate. Applicants with four ratings of 2 get a 68% admission rate. Weaker candidates with no ratings of 1 or 2 would have a 0.1% admission rate. Therefore, the information uncovered by the lawsuit, as analyzed by Prepscholar, suggests it seems more beneficial to focus on developing one or two areas to gain possible world-class achievement and therefore have a better chance at receiving admission. 

The competitiveness of “prestigious” college admissions is rising exponentially as the focus is not merely on perfect test scores, but genuine world-class impact in both scholarly and personal ways. While the reading process may seem daunting, colleges practice giving each applicant a “holistic” read in which their achievements are considered relative to the opportunities they had available. For example, applicants would not be disadvantaged if they took no AP classes due to their high schools not offering these courses. However, self-studying for APs and taking them outside of school can prove to be beneficial in showing one’s intellectual vitality and help an individual stand out amongst the vast pool. Nevertheless, the path to Harvard or any other prestigious universities is not the same for everyone, and high ratings in particular components manifest in different and unique ways for each application. 

One Maggie Walker Dragon that was accepted into one of the most prestigious schools in the nation is Abhay Duggirala (‘22). Duggirala applied to University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth University, and finally Harvard in the early rounds of the cycle. When he was accepted to Harvard, Duggirala withdrew his other applications. “I thought [Harvard] fit me in terms of what I want to do in future, and I thought it would be a really strong opportunity to further my education.” But the big question is: how did he get here?

Duggirala participates in multiple extracurriculars at MLWGS, which he classifies into the categories of “community” and “economics and other interests.” In the community sector, he is co-president of the Consolidated Community Club and co-founded the local nonprofit organization SPEAK, helping students bolster their weaknesses and highlight their strengths in public speaking. For the “other” category, he is a member of Money Matters at Maggie Walker, as well as a four-year member and now co-president of Model UN. On top of this, Duggirala has participated in the National Economics Challenge and interns with the Federal Reserve. He considers all of these experiences which increased student engagement in the community to have been very valuable in his college application process, as they effectively show his interests and depth in which he nourished them.

Duggirala claims he never felt pressured by his parents to apply to these top prestigious schools, and that they were “pretty chill about the whole process.” However, outside pressure from peers played a factor in his application experience. When telling peers about his application to Harvard, Duggirala says, “People would be like, ‘oh you're [going to] get in easily’ and you know it's not that one-dimensional; you know there is some difficulty getting into the school.”

Furthermore, Duggirala adds that the rigorous environment of Maggie Walker prepared him for the intense college application process. “I think it was very helpful. I know it's sort of a double edged sword, but for me it really helped me out,” Duggirala mentions. “Being in an environment with peers who are working hard and peers who, in some ways, are smarter than you and better than you… that's extremely valuable.” 

The application process is always a stressful time for students, and Duggirala attributes this to the “uncertainty in the air.” Assuring future college applicants, though, Duggirala mentions that “even if things don't go your way, ultimately it's a process that does kind of help you. It allows you to express yourself better, express who you are, and express your narrative as a person.”

For Duggirala’s application specifically, he thinks his multiple extracurriculars put him over the top. Additionally, he made sure to be himself throughout his application, especially the essay portion. He adds, “There's sort of a narrative behind what I was talking about and what I was doing, and I think that kind of helped me stand out.”

“I don't think you should necessarily think about the exact step by step path to Harvard or to any high level competitive school,” Duggirala states. He finds the most important part of the college application process is the emphasis on you and your interests. “I think you need to focus on what's going to work best for you because there's never a linear path to getting into these schools,” he continues. “It's really just about following what's true to you, following things that you enjoy, and trying to keep up your grades and what not on the side. If you're doing something that is not true to you …you're gonna be stuck in a place where…you're not doing things that you like,” he adds.

Like Duggirala said, the process of getting into a prestigious school is never linear. There is never a set game plan or specific list of rules one should follow throughout their high school years. The long, winding path is different for everybody and every college looks for different things in an “ideal” student. However, while perfect SAT scores and an above 4.0 GPA are common topics when talking about a perfect college candidate, being unique through pursuing one's interests is one factor every college looks for. Take it from Duggirala: “Follow what you like, [and] have fun with it.”