<p>yeah well you guys are missing the point. "The Ivies and other selective schools do not occasionally capriciously choose to accept a student with subpar qualifications just for the heck of it."</p>
<p>the POINT is most of us are NOT subpar...not meaning to sound arrogant or anything, but given that well we're on this site and at this discussion forum, and we care about applying to ivies at all in the first place, is generally a good indicator that we DO HAVE a "reasonable chance" of getting into at least one of them. but like i said before, no one is a "shoo-in" or guaranteed anything. ivies reject 2300/4.0s ALL the time. </p>
<p>the only reason we ask this question "every year" is because we've all seen those cases of kids getting into one ivy and not the other. so might as well take the shotgun approach and apply to all of them. you never know who's going to reject you and who will admit you. you may be super-qualified and yet they all might end up rejecting you. but then again, most likely at least one will take you. you can't get in if you don't apply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the only reason we ask this question "every year" is because we've all seen those cases of kids getting into one ivy and not the other. so might as well take the shotgun approach and apply to all of them. you never know who's going to reject you and who will admit you.
[/quote]
I think it's fair to say that if your qualifications are similar to one of those kids who got into some but not others, then it is logical to conclude that you might improve your chances of admission by applying to more schools. But I do think it's important to point out that the idea that you never know who's going to admit you only goes so far--it has to be plausible.</p>
<p>^^^Agree, and the part that most students don't recognize is that their marginally improved chances of applying to more colleges is negated by a decrease in the quality of their applications. Almost all selective colleges have supplements, most of which include school specific essays and short answers. Better to concentrate on fewer colleges with excellent applications than dilute the quality and shotgun the applications.</p>
<p>In D’s hs class several students applied to multiple IVIES, while she applied to just one. She was the only student that was accepted to an IVY. D applied to 8 schools – all were schools she felt would be a good fit for her. She concentrated her time and energy on those 8 applications. She was accepted to all 8 schools. </p>
<p>Your calculation assumes that applying to Cornell doesn't affect your chance at Dartmouth and vice versa. But I doubt if this assumption holds true. ;) The more schools you apply, the less time you can focus on each school. You also assumes that the two probabilities have no relationships. But again, that's not really true. Because both schools look for very similar things: strong students with great test scores and ECs..etc (some may even argue that "event Dartmouth" is just a subset of "event Cornell"; so you are stuck with 21%). So calculating the joint probability is no longer this simple. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
well mathematically (and PURELY mathematically), you have a little over 79% chance of getting into one of those schools if you apply to all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've already explained above that that is an incorrect inference.</p>
<p>I can't believe there is so much debate over something that has such a clear answer. Ivy League admissions are not random. They don't look at your application, throw a dart, see where it lands, and then decide your fate. If you're a horrible, horrible student who does coke, gets into fights, has craptastic SAT's and a 1.5 GPA, your chances are ZERO. Exaggeration of course, but my point is such:</p>
<ol>
<li>If you're not a competitive student, your chances of getting into at least one Ivy is probably pretty low.</li>
<li>If you're borderline competitive, it's probably extremely uncertain what will happen. You may get lucky, you may not. If you have eight Ivies evaluating a borderline case, you have a decent shot at one of them tipping in your favor.</li>
<li>If you're an obviously strong candidate, you'll probably land a spot in at least one Ivy unless you just got unlucky.</li>
</ol>
<p>I believe the shotgun effect is obviously effective if you're a good student with a competitive profile -- I am living proof of it! Even if you're borderline, you may have a pretty good chance. Making your profile strong is something I feel is almost formulaic. If you give it a nice presentation with worthwhile content, you'll do well. I know this is true because I approached admissions as logically as possible, analyzing all the psychology behind it, and I got into 14/15 schools.</p>
<p>I don't think we can estimate probabilities here because there are simply too many variables we'd have to extrapolate. But the "overall" probability is most definitely not purely additive, but for every unit increase in your profile quality, your chances go up by quite a bit.</p>
<p>Hell, I applied to a bunch of schools purely BECAUSE I knew that high-scoring valedictorians got rejected all the time.</p>
<p>good point sam lee. lol
and to everyone whos talking about this "additive" carp, I DID NOT ADD UP THE ADMISSIONS PERCENTAGES! GOD!
I multiplied the REJECTION percentages from all 11 schools together and subtracted it from 100!!
AND I KNOW THIS DOES NOT REFLECT THE TRUE PROBABILITY OF GETTING INTO A TOP TIER SCHOOLS GOD I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO POST!</p>
<p>omg...did nobody listen to what i said...
OBVIOUSLY you don't have a 79% chance....
I just think its interesting to think that if admissions WERE completely random...then you'd have a 79% chance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I multiplied the REJECTION percentages from all 11 schools together and subtracted it from 100!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is actually a pretty good approximation if your scores, grades and ECs are at the median of all 11 schools. I have argued this point with Token before. In other words, if you are in the mid range of these schools and apply to all of them, you chance of getting into one is approximately the probability calculated above. There was a similar calculation done by Tzan (I forgot the name) last year.</p>
<p>There isn't any one median for all eight Ivy League colleges, so no one applicant can have a median level of numerical qualifications for all eight. (Moreover, the median applicant probably has a LOWER than base admission rate chance of getting in, because most rejections come from the bottom of the applicant pool.)</p>
<p>You're so smart, how'd ya get so smart? I mean I've never heard of this idea before. And if, hypothetically, all admissions were random...that's so interesting, you smart cookie you. Oh, I was just mocking you, btw (I thought maybe I'd miss it). But now that you're typing in capital letters, I'll take you seriously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know someone who applied to all ivies, got into two, and crossed them off immediately because of things that could've been taken into consideration before (like rumors at Cornell).
<p>
[quote]
There isn't any one median for all eight Ivy League colleges, so no one applicant can have a median level of numerical qualifications for all eight.
[/quote]
Token, you can find one if you want. Also the median I am talking about is the median for admitted students (as shown on CB), not all appicants.</p>
<p>let me expand a little on what i said earlier:
as you probably already know: P(D or C) = P(D) + P(C) - P(D & C)
what is P(D&C)? It's not P(D) * P(C) because they are not independent.</p>
<p>think of it this way, if someone told you they got into dartmouth already, what's the probability of him/her getting into cornell? if they were independent, the fact that he/she got into dartmouth shouldn't matter but we all know it matters. chances are he/she is gonna be in for cornell too.</p>
<p>so P(D&C) should be represented by P(C) * P(D given C) or P(D) * P(C given D). let's look at P(D) * P(C given D). if we assume that anyone that gets into dartmouth get into cornell also. than P(C given D) is 1.0.</p>
<p>therefore, put that back into original equation: P(D or C) = P(D) + P(C) - P(D)<em>1.0 = P(C). that means you are stuck with the chance of cornell even after applying to both. of course, not everyone that gets into dartmouth is gonna get into cornell but the point if they are *very</em> dependent and there's huge amount of overlap. </p>
<p>also, as i point out already, as you apply for more schools, your focus on each school is less so your individual P(C), P(D) or whatever would get smaller. </p>
<p>this is why casting a wide net as much as possible isn't necessarily as good a strategy as one may think. :D</p>
<p>Professor101,
the method of multiplying all the rejection percentages assume independence and it's not true as explained above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also the median I am talking about is the median for admitted students (as shown on CB), not all appicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You need to reread the explanation of what is shown in Common Data Set sources like the College Board descriptions of each college and rethink this. Hint: Common Data Set information is not based on admitted students, but something else.</p>
<p>dude....chill...srsly yeah i know. w/e. i said IF ADMISSIONS WERE PURE LUCK...which means that they WOULD be independent...obviously nobody should base their admissions strategies on a calculation that some high school student did...but yeah in reality SamLees argument holds true...but in reality OFFICERS DON'T RAFFLE OFF ADMISSIONS FOR HARVARD...SO CHILL. I WAS JUST PUTTING A THOUGHT OUT THERE.</p>
<p>But the fact remains that if some prestigehungry asian (sorry you know its true) had his mind set on ivies only, applying to all of them would increase his chances of admission at at least one of them. Because 0% of those who don't apply to harvard get into harvard.</p>
<p>Sam,
The truth is probably between your analysis and independent event analysis.
If that is the case, then applying more school still increases one's chance. If you look at a lot of the statistical studies, many times they just confirm common sense.</p>