biochemist wrote:
I think this is a very shallow analysis. Truth is...no matter if you have an 800 GMAT and a 4.0, you don't know what goes on behind the walls of admissions. Moreover, the element of luck integrated in this process is also the 'building of a class.' How do you know there weren't more interesting people who applied this year with your same background? You don't. And the whole..."you would have probably gotten into H/S/W" is bogus too. I know plenty of people with so called "stellar" backgrounds that didn't get into H/S. Why? Who knows? No point in speculating or coming up with absurd theories either. It's a waste of energy. I can think of 1000 reasons to ding someone with a 770 and 4.0 if they aren't a good fit or lack something else...point is, no one knows. My $0.02
Biochemist, I think you're reading too much into my comment. As you could tell from the number of times I used the word 'probably', it isn't an analysis, it is speculation. Yield isn't the ONLY reason people get rejected, it is one of many. As I said earlier, admissions decisions are never a completely objective process, and there are always 'hidden variables' that only adcoms are aware of. Some stellar profiles get dinged, some get in. My point is simply that many of those dinged seem very deserving to me, and I simply wanted to put that fact out there.
I'm a scientist (presumably you are too?) so I can fully appreciate your skepticism at anything that isn't completely backed up by data. It's how I roll too, wouldn't have it any other way.