<p>I agree with your conclusion, but the point was not that soccer is like undergaduate admissions; rather, the point was simply that what looks non-random from the inside may look random from the outside. In fact, I have no doubt that it often looks random from the inside, too. Although I have never been involved in undergraduate admissions, I have years of experience with graduate admissions and promotion and tenure decisions. Despite being in a room with people I have known for years, people who have voted on similar cases in the past, I occasionally find myself asking, What just happened? So, I am certain that some members of undergraduate admissions committees are surprised by many decisions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forgive me for the tangent, but the word is actually shoo-in. This is what some linguists call an eggcorn. It occurs when one uses a word that sounds the same as the desired word (a homophone), or nearly so. For example, many of us use free reign in place of the correct free rein or baited breath in place of the correct bated breath. My favorite showed up on a blog recently. The poster referred to some young prima donnas as pre-Madonnas.</p>
<p>And it is entirely possible for luck to be a major element in something, even if that “something” is not technically or purely “random.”</p>
<p>Maybe there is an element of pure randomness in the process at some point. I don’t know obviously. Maybe at some point it doesn’t matter at all what’s in the application, they start throwing darts or drawing straws to make the decision. It seems like some people find comfort in that. To me that would be incredibly annoying to find out. </p>
<p>But as far as strategy, it doesn’t matter if it’s random or not. IMO, to the extent the proclivity of any adcom is opaque to the applicant, this </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>is just as compelling a reason to submit multiple applications as any true randomness in the process.</p>
<p>Quote: is just as compelling a reason to submit multiple applications as any true randomness in the process. </p>
<p>This was exactly my point. The best stratey is to send many applications even if, from the adcom’s perspective, the oucome is not randon. This is because by doing so, one gets a "random sample of adcoms so to speak.</p>
<p>Now regarding my previous “harmful to students” comment, perhpaps it was to strong. My point is that nowadays with the CommonApp many other students are sending a large number of applications. This is causing a decline in acceptance rates. Therefore, the best strategy for an individual applicant is to “join the competition” and send many applications as well.</p>
<p>Thos arguments in favor that more applications do not increase chances are unhelpful to applicants. Once again, more applications may not increase your chance to get admitted to a particular college, but it does increase the chance you will be admitted to at least one college.</p>
<p>"Thos arguments in favor that more applications do not increase chances are unhelpful to applicants. Once again, more applications may not increase your chance to get admitted to a particular college, but it does increase the chance you will be admitted to at least one college. "</p>
<p>That is not true for the C+ student who chooses, naively, to apply to the top 50 colleges, based on this false supposition… He will be rejected by all . What matters is where you apply, and whether you are have the qualifications for acceptance, not how many applications you send out.</p>
<p>^^And it is not true of <1800 unhooked candidates who apply to top 15 colleges. Unless that application is struck by lightning, more applications will only guarantee more rejections.</p>
<p>Applying to more colleges only works IFF that applicant is competitive to begin with. A 4.0/2300+ applying all Ivy is likely to get a bite (or two). But a 3.0/1900 will earn 8 rejections.</p>