Are stats posted on CC unrealistically discouraging???

Chance Me / Match Me!
21

<p>"My best friends goes to a well thought of public school in an upper middle class suburb of New York."</p>

<p>The 'well thought of' part is extremely important. One of our local high schools, Shaker Hts. High, is also 'well thought of', has a similar diversity profile to that of your friend's school, and has very good admissions results. They don't, to my knowledge, publish scattergrams, but they do list where students have been accepted - and it is very impressive.</p>

<p>It is of course possible for unhooked kids from more average public or parochial schools to be accepted at the elites with good (but not stellar) stats, but its simply less likely.</p>

22

<p>"I agree with you FindFishFast, browsing around here makes me feel horrible."</p>

<p>I think you may be in danger of developing ICD (ivy compulsive disorder), xiying. You will feel much better when you are in recovery. For my son, that happened when Brown went off his long list after he visited there. Nice school ... not for him, though.</p>

23

<p>I'd like to respond to items mentioned in posts #6 and #15.</p>

<p>Both suze and sybbie719 make the point that it's getting tougher and tougher to get into Ivies because of all the "hooked" candidates--athletes, URMs, legacies, and the sons and daughters of the wealthy who go to "favored schools". A valid point.</p>

<p>However, suze then argues that therefore using the AI (academic index) to figure out which (of the remaining candidates) can get into the Ivy League school is useless.</p>

<p>I don't agree. Look at the site below:</p>

<p><a href="http://63.135.109.195/hernandez/ai_calculator.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://63.135.109.195/hernandez/ai_calculator.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This website is run by the same former Dartmouth admissions counselor, Michelle Hernandez, quoted by sybbie719 in her post above. The one who is telling us how so many students are already "hooked".</p>

<p>Yet, Michelle Hernandez, on the site above writes: "Want to calculate your own Academic Index and give yourself a baseline for your chances of admission to top colleges? ...Keep in mind that not all top colleges use the AI, but since they all weigh heavily the same factors, you will still get some idea of where you stand in the general field. The AI is certainly not the final word on your admissions chances, but it’s a starting point for understanding where you stand in the competition."</p>

<p>Are we to presume that Michelle is being a hypocrite?--telling students how to get into an Ivy when she knows they can't? I don't think so. Rather as she wrote above, the non-hooked people who will get in will do so based upon certain factors--and these are the factors the AI ranks. I think she recognizes that--and I hope that others will recognize that also--and therefore understand the validity of using this measure as a baseline for beginning the rating of students' chances at Ivies. </p>

<p>P.S. I do agree with suze that the way I have used the AI up until now may be resulting in my rating people applying to Ivies a bit too generously, however. </p>

<p>oh, and to the two people who posted those Harvard stats again--thanks. After writing how I'd already seen them 50 times, I really appreciate people posting them for the 51st and 52nd times.</p>

<p><strong><em>pardon me here, while I scream</em></strong></p>

24

<p>I was thinking about one of the previous posts that seemed to think that understating chances was a pride issue. As someone attending Stanford, I can say that at least in my case this is not true. I feel guilty telling people with great stats - and oftentimes with stronger stats than I had - that it is unlikely that they will be accepted. But that is the reality of today's admissions process.</p>

<p>As far as what it takes to get in as an unhooked applicant, I think it is interesting to mention the stats of 5 students in my class these past two years accepted to one or more of HYPSM:
*4.0 UW, 1550 SAT
*3.9 UW, 1510 SAT
*4.0 UW, 1550 SAT
*4.0 UW, 1570 SAT
*3.8 UW, 1600 SAT</p>

<p>While I know this is a small sample, I feel it is indicative of what it takes to get in as an unhooked applicant. It also is indicative of how narrow the band is for those accepted. More and more top notch applicants are being denied every year; even schools like Northwestern and Cornell - previously near safeties for top applicants - are no longer a sure thing for those w/ 4.0's & 2300+ SAT's.</p>

25

<p>Forgot to add the children of the faculty and staff to the mix. </p>

<p>When you are talking 30,000/yr in tuition remission (a major perk of working for a college) at some schools going to the school where your parent's work becomes an attractive option (they just wink at spending the 12,000 for room/board fees).</p>

26

<p>stambliark41: in case you were referencing my post, i was questioning the chancing of people by their peers - for example, someone who is also applying in the same year for X university as the OP who is asking for their chances. Maybe someone said before on their chances thread that they have no chance and they're angry that someone they think w/ "similar' stats supposedly has a better chance according to the same/other people or they think they have only a very small chance and thus give this over-inflated view of admissions to ppl w/ similar stats, etc. this can't really be avoided, sadly enough, b/c the only reference point these people have is basically hearsay from very select sample sizes that often have no relevance to the OP b/c of regional/academic/background/etc. differences. that's why i think that the best way to get your chances is just to look at how applicants from your high school have fared in the last few years. It was not about ppl having pride in their own uni and thus underestimating chances of the applicants of the next class; the only reference i made there was that ppl who get into these schools also don't necessarily have a perfect idea of what admission to that school entails. heck, i have no idea why i was admitted to stanford. and on that old pm you sent me, yes i was at the OC reception and i was stuck at the table w/ the asian parents (including my mom). it sucked.</p>

<p>i personally believe academics has little to do w/ personal success in the business world, especially in becoming CEOs (not founders) of established companies. Tech companies like Google & Yahoo don't apply; im thinking stuff like Flour Daniel, Warner Bros, etc.</p>