<p>So I was wondering, if reach schools are like 15% chance of getting admitted, and there are a lot of them around, why don't we just apply to like 8 reach schools instead of 2 matches?</p>
<p>Matches are like 50% chance right... so 4 reach schools is on average about 60% chance per admittance... (actually 52.2% chance of getting admitted to at least 1 of the 4, assuming they are independent. And reach schools are independent of each other... it's not like admissions officers of those schools talk to each other.)</p>
<p>And the advantage of doing this is obviously, we get into better schools! Getting into 1 reach school out of 8 is better than getting into 1 match school out of 2, if we like the 8 reach schools better.</p>
<p>Admissions decisions are not made on a random basis. So, your probability of admission is likely either much higher or much lower than the admissions rate. Unless you can accurately estimate your personal probability of admission, all your calculations mean precisely nothing.</p>
<p>In any case, I wouldn’t be happy with a 52% chance.</p>
<p>This is hypothetical. I was wondering about the reasoning behind applying to reaches, matches, and safeties if reaches are considered better schools.</p>
Are you for real? Look, let’s just say that your odds are ~1%. If you apply to eight reaches, you still have less than an 8% chance of being admitted to one. The increased probability from a higher number of schools in no way validates the idea that one should apply to only reaches.
First of all, I don’t accept the premise that reaches are by necessity better schools. Even if I did, the reasoning is painfully clear: the large negative impacts of being rejected everywhere easily outweigh the minor inconvenience of applying to a safety or two.</p>
<p>I guess this comes a bit circular. If some reaches aren’t considered better schools, there’s no reason to apply to them in the first place since matches are easier.</p>
<p>Also, I thought “reaches” and “matches” are classified by personal probabilities…shouldn’t they by definition be about 15% for reaches and 50% for matches?</p>
That’s my reasoning. I don’t have any major reaches.
The ideal reach/match classification system will depend on your tolerance for risk. Once again, how are you going to determine your personal probability? The primary flaw in your reasoning throughout this thread is the assumption that this can be easily quantified.</p>
<p>BTW, safeties are actually more important than matches (or reaches, for that matter) and they should be guarantees.</p>
<p>XRCatD, you obviously have never taken a course in probability, since your “math” shows that you do not understand the basic concepts. And that’s before even getting into the fact that the admission rate at a particular school does not necessarily have anything to do with your individual chances!</p>
<p>If colleges chose students randomly your point might have some merit. But, colleges do not choose students randomly and so your analysis is faulty.</p>
<p>Colleges choose students independent of one another. So applying to two schools where you have a 50% chance of getting in does not mean you’ll get into one of them.</p>
<p>^ Bad response to a bad post. The OP is wrong, but he did understand that selections are independent. Your scenario would yield a probability of 75% for being admitted to at least one.</p>
<p>OP: That would work if the 15% chance was based completely on luck. Also, these are NOT independent events. If you get into Harvard, your chances of getting into Yale and Princeton are much higher than if you didn’t. Getting into college is not a random event.</p>
<p>^ You are wrong. The probability of not being admitted is 99%. Therefore, the probability of getting into zero of the eight schools is 0.99^8 or 0.923. That leaves a bit under 8% odds of getting into at least one.</p>