<p>Um . . . kids who were rejected still spent a lot of time on applications. And some kids who spent no time on them got in. </p>
<p>My daughter visited and interviewed at every college she applied to, and wrote individualized thank you notes expressing her interest. She's an excellent writer, perhaps one of the best in her class, and her guidance counselor told her that her essays were excellent. Still, no reach schools - not even with legacies in two Ivies. </p>
<p>She'll be going to a top LAC, so she's not upset with how things worked out. Other kids, however, who spent the same amount of time on their applications, find themselves choosing between safeties.</p>
</i>
<p>My D applied to 15 last year, accepted to 15. All were top 20 on anybody's list. She was also deferred EA at her first choice. Had she not been deferred, her list would have been shorter. In retrospect, there are 3 schools she says she probably shouldn't/wouldn't apply to now. At the time, she would have gladly accepted a place at any of them, and cried at turning down many of them. She could give you a 30 minute lecture on the individual characteristics of any of the schools that attracted her, key professors in fields that interested her, strong departments, etc. All of that was reflected in her personal statement at each school, and that is most likely what ultimately won her admission. </p>
<p>On the other hand, she could have just as likely gone 0 for 15. When Rice came in ID, it was a tremendous load off of her shoulders that she would have at least one place to go. Lumping all kids into the "prestige race" is unfair. Many just want a shot at competing with the best. </p>
<p>A look through the boards at the top schools, including Ivies, should be a sobering experience right now. The number of Intel and Seimens kids waitlisted and rejected is staggering. The number of 2400's that didn't get their top choice is also shocking. A number of top kids got into one of 5 or 6 top schools they applied to. Quite often it wasn't their first choice. What if that is the one they didn't apply to?</p>
<p>Quote: "a New England kid who wants to get into a New England elite school will have a much harder time than someone from Nebraska. That is what makes this process a lottery".</p>
<p>I think your statement proves the opposite. It's not really a lottery because the issue of geographic diversity is a known and hopefully well understood factor. Just like ethnicity, and certain desireable attributes like playing an unusual instrument at a high level, or the leg-up offered by ED admissions, all these things weigh (tho of course never assure) the likelihood of a certain outcome. And when you see the number of kids who get into multiple elite colleges, the lottery analogy doesn't quite fit. It just seems like a lottery, because no one knows the particular desires of an admissions committee as they craft a particular class.</p>
<p>Another quote:
"The number of Intel and Seimens kids waitlisted and rejected is staggering. The number of 2400's that didn't get their top choice is also shocking."</p>
<p>First of all, while some of these kids may not have gotten into their very top choice, I have not seen one (that is, if you mean finalists--there are hundreds of semifinalists) that didn't get into phenomenal schools. But if you mean they didn't SPECIFICALLY get into Harvard, or Yale, or Princeton---well, that's another story. But I haven't read about a single one that isn't accepted at some super-elite, whether it be Cal Tech, MIT, Stanford, or Swathmore. It is unrealistic to think that Harvard would take every Intel finalist, or that perfect SAT's is a guarantee for a particular school. But the kind of accomplishments you reference almost always lead to an array of truly superb choices.</p>
<p>Calmom, I think you are right to some extent and wrong to some extent. Many kids at my son's high school did not apply to a large number of schools and did put a lot of thought and effort into where they were applying....yet, many of those with stellar stats were rejected at their top schools. Quite frankly, I think these kids should have spread their net more widely. I can't give as much detail as I would like to give you because my name here is known now by my son's friends who are CC'ers, but I will tell you that the college selection process did produce a few surprising results here. Sometimes, when our personal results are good, we tend to perceive "reason" to exist. Your results were good and look reasonable. In our personal case, the same is true. When I look around me, however, I see some less-than-reasonable results. I say this after factoring in all the information about how colleges are selecting classes made up of variety of students. Truly, some kids who should be accepted to certain schools ARE NOT, and some that should NOT have been accepted to certain schools, ARE -- kids without the ec's that should have been required by those schools. </p>
<p>Bottom line, kids need to apply to more schools now than in the past. No way around it. 20? Probably not, but certainly more than 6, as used to be the recommendation. I think the system is not sufficiently predictable and one must cast the net wider.</p>
<p>Exactly, Donemom. This is where the randomness seems to occur - when the number of qualified applicants exceeds the number of spots by a large margin.</p>
<p>Others are correct in saying that it's not entirely random since applicants can judge the difference between a far reach and a slight reach. Students generally know where they fit, stats-wise, into the pool of admits. Still, especially at the most prestigious schools, the intangibles count for a lot. Although it looks random from the outside, the adcoms know why they've accepted their admits.</p>
<p>This element of whim isn't knew. I've been doing alumni interviews for an Ivy for years, and I can rarely predict with certainty who will be accepted and who will not. Some of the most impressive candidates in terms of ECs, maturity, and thirst for knowledge get rejected while some of the blander, less enthusiastic ones get accepted. Sometimes I'm right, and sometimes I'm shocked. The difference recently is that the odds for individual applicants are getting worse as the size of the applicant pool increases.</p>
<p>I personally know of one INTEL finalist who did not get into HYPSM, in spite of excellent scores, grades, awards, and sports. (For anyone here reading this who knows who I am, this kid does not go to my son's high school).</p>
<p>And I think likely the kids who did not get into their reach schools are not as likely to "broadcast" that on a message board as the ones who did get into their top scores. For every parent/child is on here telling of their great results, there are likely more who just aren't saying anything.</p>
<p>The match/reach schools that my son chose were ones that kids he knows (with similar or slightly lower situations) got into just last year. Most of the schools he applied to had increases in apps ranging from 10% to 40% so results are very different this year. </p>
<p>My son applied to 7 schools and was sent "free fee vouchers" from 4 of those schools. That is another thing that is increasing the number of applications. He probably had another 5 or so of these from schools he was not interested in. So the schools themselves are fueling this and creating the lottery.</p>
<p>The issues with applying to 12+ schools begin way before senior year. My D did not limit her search to any geographic area. As such we had to visit schools all over the country beginning in her sophomore year. She is a stellar student who was told "the world is your oyster". We were told from her GC that she was an excellent candidate to any top tier school. We must have visited 20 schools over 2 1/2 years. Some were good fits, some were not. </p>
<p>Being a wise consumer, I knew that her chances at any 1 school (or 8 schools) was not great. Any top tier school was a good match (so we were told) and yet in reality, because of sheer numbers, these schools were truly reaches. There, however, was a gap between the matches and the safeties. The safeties were easy-easy admits. Therefore, yes, in order to insure acceptances at any match school, there had to be multiple applications in play. In fact, she ended up applying to 17 schools (12 match/reach, 2 UCs - I made her, and 3 safeties). We had visited all but 3 of these schools (2 match/reach, 1 safety). </p>
<p>Fast forward to last week, only 1 acceptance from the match/reach school, acceptance from all 3 safeties. And the acceptance came from a school we hadn't visited! If we had limited her applications, she wouldn't have applied to that match/reach school because we hadn't had time to visit. That would truly have been terrible!</p>
<p>Yes, we're lucky. We can afford to see schools all over the country and we can afford the fees associated with college apps, SAT fees, PROFILE fees, etc. </p>
<p>Lessons learned....a top tier school is a big reach for anyone. GCs should be more realistic and more blunt with students and parents. Prepare your student for rejection (but how to do this without killing their spirit?). </p>
<p>P.S. I went to Cal 25 years ago. It was my safety. There is no way they'd accept me today. Yes, my D was rejected there too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, while some of these kids may not have gotten into their very top choice, I have not seen one (that is, if you mean finalists--there are hundreds of semifinalists) that didn't get into phenomenal schools. But if you mean they didn't SPECIFICALLY get into Harvard, or Yale, or Princeton---well, that's another story. But I haven't read about a single one that isn't accepted at some super-elite, whether it be Cal Tech, MIT, Stanford, or Swathmore. It is unrealistic to think that Harvard would take every Intel finalist, or that perfect SAT's is a guarantee for a particular school. But the kind of accomplishments you reference almost always lead to an array of truly superb choices.
[/quote]
My point exactly, that's why they have to apply to a fairly large number of schools to be assured that one will find them a fit in their particular class.</p>
<p>While the math is straightforward, the interpretation may not be as clear. First, it would be hard to find that many schools with an acceptance rate as low as 5%. A few schools offering free tuition come close to that number, but they are different enough from one another that it would be a rare person indeed who would want to apply to more than a couple of them. Second, you have tacitly assumed statistical independence of the outcomes, probably not the best model in this case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sometimes, when our personal results are good, we tend to perceive "reason" to exist. Your results were good and look reasonable. In our personal case, the same is true. When I look around me, however, I see some less-than-reasonable results.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>atlantmom~</p>
<p>Beautifully stated, and IMHO right on target!</p>
<p>
[quote]
While the math is straightforward, the interpretation may not be as clear. First, it would be hard to find that many schools with an acceptance rate as low as 5%.
[/quote]
Most of the top schools are pretty close to 5% for RD for an unhooked kid.</p>
<p>After doing very hard work, most kids want to compete with best of the best. Thus competition is relentless for admission in elite colleges. Now if a student is looking for financial aid, it becomes even tougher to get admission in elite colleges. After all why any person or institution wants to give you money when they can have same qualified person who is a paying customer. Thus for the financial needy kids bar is raised higher depending on ethnic, geographic and other factors. In addition a student has no idea on how many kids with similar ethnic, interest, stats and financial background applied. Thus competition gets even tougher. Elite colleges are looking characteristics which kids have no idea as they are building communities. Thus kids who need financial aid has to work harder before they can sell themselves to colleges. Most of the institution requires that a student bring something different in return before they give you money. For this reason many kids apply to many more colleges than they would have applied to few colleges because no one is sure who will get in where. I agree with colleges that this is there money and they have upper hand in selecting kids whom they want. Thus the number of places where kids will apply will keep on increasing. The most beneficiary will be elite colleges with resources. The colleges which will not be in this rat race will loose more.
This is the survival of the fittest. It may look bad but it is reality.</p>
<p>"Elite colleges are looking characteristics which kids have no idea as they are building communities."</p>
<p>"This is the survival of the fittest. It may look bad but it is reality."</p>
<p>Newparent, these two statements are contrary to each other (I assume you are referring to students, not the colleges themselves). Many of our "fittest" kids are passed over because of your first statement, and it has nothing to do with them not being worthy of a place but rather, as InterestedDad would say, for institutional needs.</p>
<p>I am referring to the assumptions that digmedia was only talking about 1) RD applicants and 2) unhooked applicants. He may have had that in mind all along, but it was not clear to me. I would like to see both a consistent definition of the term "unhooked" and your trivial proof if it relies on verifiable, published numbers rather than anecdotal evidence. HYPSM would be a good start, but since digmedia was talking about up to 20 schools, we will need 15 more. </p>
<p>Note that I am not arguing for or against the need to apply to many schools, rather I am chiding the imprecise and potentially misleading use of mathematics to support either viewpoint. Statistical arguments that are not precisely defined and that do not accurately model reality prove nothing.</p>
<p>It is for college that college have to surivie and that is why they have to attrcat the best kid deifned by the college. Thus this whole thing makes them more attractive and thus it a rat race.</p>