Asian rejected from everywhere POSTMORTEM

Applying to College
101

Just had to comment on this:

Not true. And the vast majority of piano students do NOT enter or win piano competitions.

A while ago there was a great essay written by a student who was on the cross country team at his HS for four years. He came in dead last at every single cross country meet. But he never quit the team, ran each meet, went to each practice, celebrated for his teammates who excelled. His essay was wonderful…talked about commitment. And doing something to improve oneself…because while he was dead last very time, he did I orove his own running times.

He got accepted to at least one Ivy League school.,…with that essay. And he really had no other ECs.

102

@jym626, I don’t find that hard to believe. The SAT and ACT aren’t exactly hard tests (compared to various uni entrance exams around the world or certain tests from any half-decent college) and some kids are really, really smart.

103

And this. The VAST majority of acceoted students to the schools on the OP’s lists do NOT have research publications. Sorry…they don’t. Maybe for grad school…but not for undergrad.

And they haven’t won national awards either.

104

Sure some kids are really smart. But it still has a slight “eau de billy goat”.
As for the stats discussion, I find it interesting, because many misunderstand it and it hangs up many applicants who then strike out in the admissions process. FWIW, I dont consider postmodern’s 7 posts in this (thus far) 102 post thread “hijacking”. But carry on.

105

And lastly…don’t assume you didn’t get accepted because you are Asian.

106

“hijacking” is when you engage others in a discussion of interest that doesn’t pertain to OP’s question - even one post that doesn’t pertain to the OP is considered hijacking although there’s leeway when the topic is germane to the OP - however, since no one in the “statistics” discussion had any interest in the op and it became a dialogue between postmodern and others, it constitutes hijacking. In addition, as a non-math person, I can tell you this discussion is total gibberish to me :slight_smile: so I have no idea how relevant it is to any high school student. It certainly isn’t to OP, who knows math, understood this, and STILL created a bad list.
(More than being Asian, or not winning at piano, it’s the list itself that led to such a result as a near-shutout).
Note that enjoying an activity without competitive results is actually seen as a plus. It’s not about persistence, but rather about enjoyment. (Overly focus on results/prizes may actually be detrimental. In other words, you cannot read ANYTHING in the fact you played piano since age 3 but didn’t win competitions, because no one expected you to, but they did expect that if you played piano for your whole life, it was because you liked it, not because your father made you or because you thought it’d look good to adcoms.)

For math fans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYAahN1G8Y8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFjzOjsSMo

107

But the OP, despite three long missives in the 3 posts, doesn’t own or direct the thread. It can take twists and turns, and it it is supposed to help future applicants, they would benefit from understanding the fallacy in the belief that if you throw enough mud at the wall, something will stick. It doesn’t work like that.

108

And many people hae pointed out the flawed statistical logic in the OP and his dad’s calculation. In fact, a quick search of the word “statistic” pulls up 13 posts, only one of which is from the person who is being seen as hijacking the thread.
But carry on, lest we hijack the thread!!

109

@MYOS1634 and @bodangles , I am not sure why it’s a hijack when the main problem was the OP’s purported statistical driven strategic error in applications, and was in response to several specific comments the OP and others made about probability, as @jym626 so kindly points out? Only people you agree with should comment in a thread?

I will, however, respect your request and cease and desist, assuming the thread stays where you deem appropriate. That being said, the main reason I will stop is because I made the point empirically and it hasn’t been refuted.

It’s also been pointed out to me that I am somewhat recent of the turnip truck and this whole thread may be one of those threads who shall not be named. Anonymous thanks shoutout to the tip-er.

110

Actually, I don’t disagree with you regarding your analysis, except that the main problem was NOT statistical driven strategic error -that comment related to an offhand calculation by his dad. The list wasn’t created using that calculation. But that’s not what makes it hijacking - hijacking is when you turn the attention to the question YOU find interesting rather than answering the OP. Like what we’re doing now, when I’m responding. :). So, I’ll stop too.
(It’s just etiquette and you’re fairly new. The topic is of interest and does deserve its own thread, but typically this type of digression either gets totally erased or gets a thread closed.)
And you’re right about shall-not-be-named, but just in case some kids are reading… it’s worth discussing.

111

No need to repeat the definition of hijacking. It is well known (oh-- you were responding to postmodern, who is a newbie here) . Just dont really agree that this thread was hijacked (though we are doing a mighty fine job!)

112

@rejectedlion2016
You are PLAYING YOURSELF if you think you do not deserve to go to ANY of those schools. From your resume and accomplishments I can see that you DEFINITELY PUT IN THE EFFORT. YOU HAVE ALL THE SKILL IN THE WORLD but you sell yourself short. You blame yourself, you criticize and doubt yourself, when IT IS CLEARLY NOT YOU WHO IS LACKING ANYTHING.

113

@Postmodern: Sorry, but as others have pointed out, your math/statistics is wrong. Argue/deny this all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact.

That is, the events – being accepted to each of multiple colleges – are not independent. (And @cmfl11 is wrong about this as well, at least what he says in comment #77.)

Some of the definitions you posted are simplifications that get things wrong (or they’re just outright wrong to begin with). The problem is they focus on causation rather than correlation. Sure, if one event causes another, they’re dependent. But if, for example, there is some event (say, A) that causes two other events (say, B and C), B and C are not independent, even though one does not cause the other.

Here’s a definition you posted earlier, and I believe this one is correct:

Note that it doesn’t talk about things in terms of causation, rather it mentions just the occurrence of A affecting the probability of B.

Think about this: Someone gets denied at a school with a middle 50 ACT range of 15-20. Do you think they’re going to get in to a school with a middle 50 ACT of 32-35? My guess is you’ll pretty confidently say no (if you’re being honest). But how can that be, if they’re independent events?

The example you gave with Yale and Harvard isn’t quite so straightforward, but I think that’s more because those percentages are so low to begin with. Still, I’d think that if someone got in to one of those, the likelihood of them getting in to the other is higher. Again, how can that be, if they’re independent?

114

To get back on track. I did not realize until pointed out by @MiddleburyDad2 that University of Waterloo still had openings as do a number of other sub 100 schools. While I do not know much about UW, it may be worth researching as I once heard that they hold more patents than Stanford (no idea if it is myth, my kids are not applying to Canada so personally do not care). I would not discount some of the listed schools.However, going someplace where you are valued is always a good thing too.

I also know nothing about statistics but I think it was a combination of OP being unlucky and not applying to schools ranked 15-30 as others have pointed out. A few weeks ago I was so struck by the number of people getting into multiple top 10s that I started a thread on it. It does seem like lightening either strikes twice or not at all.

Also, as pointed out, while OP may believe his essays and recommendations were superior, there may have been a red flag that he missed, a reason to have as many experienced people as possible read your essays. Did you highlight your Chemistry research enough? Maybe not but I do not think also listing your other interests was the problem, but that you did not have the research stand out and relate to why you want the particular major. This goes more to not crafting as well an application as he could have (no idea if that is true since did not see it obviously) rather than in terms of deciding not to include tutoring (which I think would have been a mistake assuming it was an important EC to you).

I agree with @Thumper1 that there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing piano because you enjoy it and being committed to it even if you will never play for anyone but yourself. Getting city/state awards is great, I know more than one person at an ivy even a HYP who has never won anything other than NMSF and their school debate award. Colleges want to know who you are and not just what you have won (although winning Intel is always a good idea but not necessary). They do not want to see you doing piano for a year, then drums, then videography for a year, that is a dillitante. Playing piano for 12 years shows dedication and commitment, whether or not you get recognition. Being vice captain of a varsity sport or two certainly shows dedication (no one cares what position you had unless you are being recruited so it is just a regular EC).

As for the father’s comment about the entry level job, I acutally think that shows a rather competitive mindset rather than an intellectual one (no offense to OP’s dad). This may have been what came through on OP’s application and hurt him. Again, this is a shot in the dark. The way I look at it, OP was not applying for a job as a pianist or even to Julliard so who cares if he won national awards in piano unless he was applying to the school’s band or music department or was trying to fill some other slot. Also, there are unusual things you can do with an EC such as piano that have nothing to do with awards, such as volunteering to play at the local geriatric facility, maybe headlining their “dance” if they have such a thing (maybe I watched Cocoon one time too many!)

As @Iwannabe_Brown pointed out, the idea that you have to improve and publish or perish is a graduate school concept, maybe not even then. It has nothing to do with what is expected of a 17 year old! Professors consider research a plus because they do not want you stumbling around their lab ruining their experiments the first time you walk in as student. They do not expect you to have been published in the Lancet.

I have no idea if being Asian hurt you, I doubt it helped but I would think your geographic diversity should have helped.

Best wishes at UArk if that is where you decide to attend.

115

Well I have been called out, so I feel compelled to return.

So, all those math focused websites and their definitions are wrong? Can you link to some “right” ones?

Waitaminit, are the definitions right or wrong? Because they all say the same thing.

…right…

OK, I now realize that I, specifically, am having that thing done to me that your not supposed to say.

Did you even bother to look at the links? They are independent because the outcome of one does not affect the outcome of the other.

You have 10 decks of cards. The odds of you pulling Ace of spades in one try from each deck is 1:52. (1.92%) Independent events. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-cards-odds-probability/ .

You have one deck of cards. 1:52 chance. You pull one card, 9 hearts. 1:51. and so on. Dependent events, which also can have probability, but STILL CAN BE STATISTICALLY PREDICTED.

And despite all this typing, still no citations, and still no reasoning as to why ANY formula of probability can be applied. Please note, I am not saying it is easily predictable. I think the people arguing against this have been too confused by the threads which (accurately) point out that you can’t predict the odds, not that the math doesn’t apply.

I am GENUINELY done now. Good night all.

116

You solved all math/science problems perfectly in school all those years, as your grades and scores indicate but at the end you made a fatal mistake in solving one probility problem, which cost you acceptance to those schools: The way you calculated your chances to be accepted in at least one of those “lottery” schools was principally WRONG!

117

I’m a bit puzzled by people who are saying the way I calculated my chances of being accepted to one of these schools was wrong. Regrettably it seems those posters did not read that section of my original post closely enough - this was a back-of-the-envelope calculation done by my dad a week ago, not what I based my list on. That doesn’t even make sense - do you seriously think I would have put together a list under the assumption that I had a 60% chance of being rejected everywhere??

The physical scenario it corresponds to - betting on a different application at random at every school - is admittedly unrealistic but the point of this quick-and-dirty calculation was to show that my results should not have been unexpected.

118

You don’t need any statistical formula to tell you that applying to all elite/top 10ish schools (except for your safety) would, unfortunately, have a high risk of the outcome you experienced.

119

While we are at it, let me throw some more fire to this stat war. :slight_smile:

@Postmodern, your original definition of independence is not wrong, but your interpretation is questionable. I won’t ask you to take a stat class :), but there is indeed a concept of correlation in statistics. As @PurpleTitan and @csdad2 pointed out, if A affects both B and C, then B and C are correlated even if there is no causal relationship between B and C.

Here is an exercise for you. Let’s say you meet a Harvard applicant who you don’t know anything about. You can bet 20:1 that he won’t be accepted and be even (assumes 5% overall acceptance rate). Now if he then tells you that he also applied to Yale and has got in. Are you still willing to bet 20:1 that he’s not accepted by Harvard?

I do believe 30% of the students with perfect SAT/ACT gets into top 10 schools. But using that number in the math as @hzhao2004 did and you are trying to defend is totally wrong.

120

@Postmodern: You’d be better off thinking about the concepts and analysis I stated and the examples I gave, rather than just firing back smartass comments. Your analysis is incorrect and your examples are irrelevant. And you can’t trust every website out there – some of them do have incorrect information, even ones that claim to be education-focused.

This is not a correct definition of statistical independence. Contrast it with the earlier definition I quoted in my most recent comment:

It’s got nothing to do with outcomes. It’s got to do with occurrence and probability. Do you not see the difference?

As to predictability, I think the main problem there is the lack of relevant data. But that’s a whole 'nuther question.

Are you saying that that calculation was not wrong, or that you did not use the result to decide on your application strategy? The latter may be true, but in fact the calculation was wrong. It is only valid if the admission decisions are independent, which they are not. It’s kind of interesting you made that mistake, because later in the thread you posted a nice intuitive explanation of independence.

This stuff gets hard and unintuitive very quickly – and I don’t claim to understand all that much of it – but it is valuable to understand (so it may be a bit of a hijacking, but it’s relevant and useful).