Buying a lottery ticket: A lesson from CC

Parent Cafe
81

<p>For BassDad ----</p>

<p>Here is a post and link to Harvard for several years. It's easy to see the trend from 08 to 09. Similar statistics are available for most of the other top schools, so I won't bother to post them.</p>

<p>RD admits: 1,210 (09) - 1,208 (08)
RD admit rate: 6.5% (09) - 7.6% (08)
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=32814%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=32814&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you make the not so broad assumption that at least a portion of those kids have significant hooks, then the rate is probably less that 5% for the unhooked applicant.</p>

82

<p>Some comments:</p>

<p>First, I think that a lot of posters are focusing too much on 'stats'. Yes, being an Intel finalist is impressive, but that doesn't mean that the student put together a strong application That may be exactly the sort of kid who assumes he is a shoe-in for admission, and doesn't put too much effort into the essay or in securing good recs. After all, he's won Intel, he's sure to be accepted at a top school, so why bother? or perhaps the kid comes across as arrogant, submitting an application that reads like a brag sheet but fails to reveal any heart. We don't know: but we do know that there was something about that rejected finalist's applications that somehow turned off the ad coms, since we can reasonably assume that the Intel award was enough to catch their attention. </p>

<p>It is true that the process appears more <em>reasonable</em> when it is our own kids rather than someone elses, but that's because we tend to know more about the individual facts. I've done a little bit of essay review for kids on this board, and sometimes the most compelling and interesting essays come from kids who don't have particularly strong stats -- and I've seen some very bad writing from kids whose stats are impressive. The ad com sees the whole package -- except for our own kids, we don't. (And even there - we might not see it all. I wonder how many parents here have seen the recs their kids teachers filled out, including the college rec forms; the rec from the counselor; the actual transcript the counselor submitted to the schools; the school profile; etc. )</p>

<p>And we can know, or at least make a reasonable guess - at the particular desires of an admissions committee - that just takes research. Does Harvard need more students interested in becoming investment bankers? NO - Harvard already is full of them. So maybe it isn't the best strategy for a Harvard applicant to emphasize their interest in finance in their essay. Maybe that applicant should focus on whether they have something to offer the Harvard community that is in less abundant supply. That doesn't mean that the kid can't study what he wants once he gets to Harvard-- but waxing poetic over the love of mergers & acquisitions in the essay probably isn't going to close the deal. </p>

<p>As to the statement about "unhooked" applicants... the point is that the successful ones are the ones who have hooks because they create them. It's a simple enough process -- you figure out what the most unusual and interesting qualities are about the student, and you look for the schools that are the most likely to care. </p>

<p>The problem is that there is no way you can do that and also simply apply to whatever set of colleges has the most prestige for whatever areas of strength the student has. In fact, when a kid applies to 4 or more Ivies, I think that in itself is a sign that no one has put all that much thought into the application process -- the kids that have a strategic approach to college admissions have a list of schools where the common threads will produce a different sort of list. It's not just a matter of "top" schools -- it is a matter of schools that have X quality, schools that might need more students with Y quality. That list is just not going to mirror the US News rankings list.</p>

83

<p>From the link you provided it would appear that if you eliminate the early applicant pool and those with significant hooks (however that is defined) we may well be talking about a 5% or lower admission rate at Harvard, but then we are also talking about less than half of the entering class. SCEA + SCEA deferred admits for '09 accounted for 54% of all enrolled students by themselves. If we add in only another hundred enrollments to fill out sports teams and orchestras, account for legacies, URM's and so forth, only about 40% of total enrolled students meet your criteria. While this is indeed interesting information for those in that group, I think it should be noted in the statistical methodology that these results do not apply to the majority of students who actually attend Harvard.</p>

84

<p>Calmom, Really, I think that no one applicant can know all those factors that will be considered in the admissions decisions; therefore, the applicants need to make enough applications to increase their chances of admissions to schools in which they are interested in. I think that sometimes we can see the 'reasons" for admission or denial, and sometimes, we cannot. I am not advocating for shotgun admissions, but I do think that great care in choosing appropriate schools and preparing the applications does not assure admission. The student I mentioned did not apply to all of the top schools. In fact, that student visited schools and chose carefully. I am rather sure that the applications were very well done.</p>

85

<p>What I mean by all this is that although the admissions process may be rational from the inside (when seen through the admissions commitee's eyes), we on the outside never have enough information for the process to be completely rational from our perspective. Thus, more WELL-CONSIDERED AND PREPARED applications will be necessary, imho.</p>

86

<p>Guess I am the exception here. My son applied to 4 schools - one reach, one reach/match, one match and one safety. He was waitlisted at his reach and admitted to the others. He chose his schools carefully, visited and put together a nice application with strong references and a good essay. I told him he could apply to up to 6 and had to really convince me if he was going to apply to more. Prestige was not in his equation, although 2 of his schools have been mentioned as elites that have huge increases in applications. The other 2 are in the top 50. He chose each school for specific things he wanted and was able to convey that to the admissions committee. </p>

<p>The biggest problem as I see it is that kids are all applying to the top 10-20 schools on US News BECAUSE they are seen as top schools, not necessarily because the school has what they are looking for. I think it is completely crazy and we didn't play the game. </p>

<p>My older son applied to 6 schools - 5 safeties and 1 match. He got accepted to all, had merit money from all and is attending a school that he loves. He is challenged and is getting a great education. And we didn't spend the entire spring of his senior year getting ulcers.</p>

87

<p>The focus on the top 10-20 schools, regardless of fit, is a major problem. It's sad that a fair number of students who survive the admissions rat race and are admitted to these schools would have actually been better off elsewhere.</p>

88

<p>Obiwan, what is sadder is there are kids who really wanted to go to one of these schools and got waitlisted or denied. I was looking at the threads of a school that my son was waitlisted at and it amazed me at some of the questions the kids that were accepted were asking. It was obvious that they had not visited and just picked the school out of a book, obviously due to the ranking. It is frustrating because my son was very qualified, showed tremendous interest and will not be able to attend. Obviously, interest doesn't mean much</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
I do think that great care in choosing appropriate schools and preparing the applications does not assure admission.

[/quote]
Maybe not, but it sure increases the odds. </p>

<p>It's not just a matter of picking schools that will be a good "fit". Too much of a "fit" can be a negative -- again because Harvard already has enough students who want to be investment bankers. </p>

<p>A year ago I was here posting looking for the names of schools with mediocre dance departments open to nonmajors. Why? Because my daughter is a really good dancer with a lot of training who doesn't want to major in dance -- I figured that there are thousands of excellent dancers applying to schools with the top dance programs, but that she would be a real asset to the schools whose dance departments could use some improvement - in the same way a pretty good but not amazing athlete might target D-3 schools rather than D-1. (It happens that she now has gotten into a LAC with a really excellent dance department -- more power to her -- but she focused more on a unique academic characteristic and interest in her essays)</p>

<p>My daughter applied to and was rejected from Brown, as I expected -- my research had told me that her academic "hook" didn't mean much to them. She would have probably had better chances at Yale -- because her intended major or focus is something that Yale clearly wants more of, and Brown doesn't need. I'm not saying that she would have gotten into Yale -- she didn't apply so we'll never know -- I'm just saying that she did have something to offer them that we know from their own publications that they want. My d. liked Brown because of their open curriculum and pass/fail option -- but that really isn't a very convincing thing to tell a school that is probably looking for students who are very highly motivated and self directed, not more kids who would like to dabble around.</p>

90

<p>Quote: "In fact, when a kid applies to 4 or more Ivies, I think that in itself is a sign that no one has put all that much thought into the application process" --
Calmom, I think this type of generalization way overstates your case. Many of the ivies share much more in common than their USNews rank. In fact, had my son not gotten in EA, he would probably have applied to 5, and I can assure you that he/we put enormous amounts of thought into crafting his list and his application strategy.</p>

<p>Your daughter deserves nothing but congratulations for her great results, but please be careful not to now use her experience as the only primer for how to approach the application process.</p>

91

<p>It's not good strategizing, Donemom. It's not aiming for "fit" and it's not aiming for a spectrum of schools with varying levels of admissibility, so as to increase the likelihood of having a good array of choices when April rolls around. </p>

<p>Increasing the number of schools one applies to in a given category does NOT increase "odds" of admission. That is a logical fallacy based on the "lottery" concept that all applications are the same. They aren't. It isn't a randomized process. Some applicants are better than others, and the ones that are better stand a better chance wherever they go. It isn't a zero-sum game where an applicant's chances are measure by the sum of their "stats". For every Intel finalist that Harvard rejects, they are probably taking in someone with lower stats and less impressive accomplishments who has intrigued them in some other way.</p>

92

<p>Once they have dumped the obvious rejects, I think the Adcoms just throw the apps all up in the air, and depending upon where they land, admit or reject.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
If we add in only another hundred enrollments to fill out sports teams and orchestras, account for legacies, URM's and so forth, only about 40% of total enrolled students meet your criteria.

[/quote]
Your numbers are way too low. Harvard fields more NCAA teams than any other school, period.</p>

94

<p>Shennie, good post. We did the same.</p>

95

<p>Maybe we are talking at each other here. I think there is no one right answer. For some kids more applications will be better than for other kids.</p>

<p>I think that a number of top schools can be a "fit' for an applicant and that applying to all of the ones that applicant desires is okay. I think that the concept of 'fit' should not mean how the applicant will be perceived by the school, but how well that school matches the applicant's desires. Of course, being a good fit may make admission harder because there will be lots of other applicants similar to the applicant. In that case, the applicant does their best to demonstrate what is unique and leave it at that. </p>

<p>Then there is the process of looking at probabilites -- the safety, match, reach stuff. In that process the applicant may have to make compromises other than just "prestige" value, such as location, size, etc. Maybe that is where the idea comes in of what an applicant has to offer that might be a hook. I just wouldn't winnow out applications to good fit schools just because you think you don't have a hook at that school. </p>

<p>Personally, I know of some kids who were admitted to schools where the probabilities weren't good (because they did fit the mold for that school, not because of stats) and had no special hook. They got in and they wouldn't have gotten in if they had cut out those schools at the beginning.</p>

<p>If the complaint here is that there are too many kids giving very little thought to where they apply, I agree with people that more is not better. On the other hand, if the idea here is that kids should not apply to more than X schools, then I disagree with that as a blanket statement. I think that depends on the individual circumstances. And I still think that predictions should be made very cautiously because we on the outside are not privy to the basis of the decisions for each individual applicant in each year to each school.</p>

96

<p>Well, if I add in even more hooked students, the total that meets your criteria falls below 40%. I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt by erring on the low side. Also I presume at least some of the hooked students were included in the SCEA pool.</p>

97

<p>Calmom: I didn't say that the 5 ivies were the ONLY schools to which he would have applied. There were several other matches and safeties on his list. And how can you comment about fit when you know nothing about my son? If I looked at your childl's list, knowing nothing about her, I would see schools with many different attributes and not understand the link that makes them good fits for her. Blanket statements made in ignorance may sound authoritative, but really are of little use.</p>

98

<p>atlantamom: I don't necessarily think that we should limit kids to a certain number of schools, but the process just keeps ramping up. I feel like there the whole thing has become an admissions "arms race". The more schools that kids apply to, the more lower the admissions numbers go. The lower the admissions numbers go, the more kids think it is harder to get into college so they send in more applications. Ultimately, though, each kid can only attend one school. By encouraging kids to apply to 10 or more schools we are only feeding the problem. With good research and reasonable expectations, 6 schools should be plenty, maybe 8 if there are some problem areas. </p>

<p>So kids apply to lots of schools because they could be happy at any number of them. That's right - kids can be happy at lots of schools, but again, they will only attend one. I think with a lot of knowledge and thought this process could be a lot less stressful on everyone. I do not believe that applying to an ever increasing number of schools is going to solve anything.</p>

99

<p>For some kids, six is not enough. For example, the Intel Finalist I mentioned did apply to only 6. Accepted at 3, 2 of which were safeties. Now, this kid will be happy I am sure at one of these 3; however, he needed to apply to more of the top schools, imo, because he may of been admitted to one of them. He was selective in his applications, applying to only 3 of the very top schools. Rejected at all 3. I know of other students who applied to more of the very top schools (in which they were very interested for reasons other than prestige) and were admitted to only one of them. If the INTEL kid had applied to a few more of the very top (assuming he was actually interested in them), he may have done better. And the reason is that we on the outside don't know how a particular applicant will look to any one school. Mind you, this kid had the stats etc to be admitted to any top school, but there were probably too many like him at the 3 schools he did choose to apply to.</p>

<p>In my personal case, my son would have applied to 10 schools. He actually applied to 2 with rolling admissions and one ED. If he had been waitlisted or rejected there, he would have had 7 more schools. We visited every one of these schools except the rolling admissions schools. We put a lot of effort and money (trips) into the selection of these schools. Some schools were on the list because the chances of admission were higher and were schools he would have been okay with, but were not his dream schools. He did not use a shotgun approach at all. Very specific reasons for every one of these 10 schools. Only one of these schools was the "perfect" school, in his opinion. He applied ED to that one and luckily was accepted there. He was lucky to be able to apply ED because financial aid was not a consideration.</p>

<p>I really don't know whether more than 10 schools makes sense, but do know from personal experience that 10 does. I just want the basic principles to be applied, not some magic number of schools.</p>

100

<p>I think that given the crapshoot element of the process, and the number of inexplicable rejection stories I've heard at our school this year, I want to agree strongly with AtlantaMom. I think that it makes a great deal of sense to apply to a large number of schools since admissions outcomes seem to have become increasingly unpredictable.</p>

<p>My kid had what we considered a very balanced list. There was one absolute safety that she really didn't want to attend, four schools in the safety to match range all of which I felt could have served her very well in every way, one school that was somewhere between a match and a reach because of its reputation for erratic admissions practices, and six schools which are reaches for everyone but where we thought it was reasonable for her to apply given her grades, scores, and very strong, academically-related EC. She's at a grade-deflated prep that traditionally sends maybe a quarter to a of its class to Ivies plus SM, and it is common for those kids to have some A minuses and even B pluses. We had access to excellent statistics as to how kids in her gpa category had fared in admissions various schools over the years, which helped us formulate the list.</p>

<p>The schools on the list did not all look alike in terms of size; core versus open curriculum; or setting. After visiting a number of schools, we concluded that there is no one true way for my kid, and that in general, many people who could be happy academically and socially at Cal could also be happy socially and academically at a small women's college. I don't think it's fair to conclude that a student who applies to several Ivies that are quite dissimilar in a number of important ways has not considered fit.</p>

<p>Ultimately D was accepted into all of the safety-matches and the match/reach, but into only one of the clear reaches, the rest of which were distributed between rejections and wait lists. The school where she was accepted is an HYPSM and statistically speaking is harder to get into than a couple of her wait list schools. Go figure. Throw into the mix the fact that D had in one case worked with and in another met extensively with faculty in her area at a couple of the reaches who offered to write strong letters on her behalf. (This included the school where she applied early, where she was deferred and ultimately rejected.) At the school that accepted her, there had been no such faculty involvement. </p>

<p>Had we limited D to six applications, she would certainly be attending an excellent school, but she would likely have whittled down the reaches to the schools where she already knew and liked the faculty she'd be working with for the next four years, and who supported her application -- and she would have ended up at one of her matches.</p>

<p>And I must say that if her gpa had not been above a 4., which let us feel safe with several of her colleges given her school's history with them, and given what I know now about the many outstanding students (merit finalists, original research, competition winners) who have not seen the anticipated outcomes this year, it would have been smart to add more matches -- maybe a lot more. </p>

<p>Finally, I don't think it's fair to assume that if a student with stellar grades/scores/EC's has a disappointing outcome, it must be because he's dull or he didn't put time into his application or he thought he could rest on his laurels and didn't take an active role in the process or he was somehow flawed. We're all looking to make sense of this process. We try to help our kids pick a reasonable list of schools and encourage them to present themselves to admissions committees in the best light. We go into this knowing that athletes and students who are economically disadvantaged or URM's will receive a boost, as will students whose parents can and will donate huge sums, but that none of these hooks is a shoe in. But we still end up sitting around shaking our heads, unable to comprehend how some kids who are clearly so excellent end up, for want of a better term, shafted while unhooked kids who don't seem to meet the same criteria of excellence fare better. It makes a whole lot more sense if we let ourselves believe that the kid who appears to have been shafted actually has something wrong with him whereas the kid who seems to have fared better for no apparent reason has some hidden, alluring strength that the ad com somehow ferretted out.</p>

<p>The problem is, at least IMHO, that this belief has no particular connection to reality. When I think about a couple of kids from our school who were flat out rejected at the HYPSM where my D was accepted, my jaw drops. I mean, if her application had such compelling, hidden alluring strengths that it trumped those kids' academic perfection (and no, they weren't dull, smelly, or bizarre), then why didn't it propell her through the gates of her other five reaches, especially where faculty wanted her? And to my mind, the element of randomness and unpredictability is such that students should hedge their bets, which means a lot of applications in the slight to high reach range, in addition to clear safety schools. I know that D is wonderful, but I'm thinking that maybe acceptances and rejections of kids who meet the hard number criteria of the low-acceptance-rate colleges where they apply may have more to do with luck than wonderfulness.</p>