<p>I think we are talking about two different things here. One is the practice of applying to many schools across a spectrum, including match schools and safeties, and there it may make sense to apply to a lot, especially if financial aid is important. (The more schools, the greater the chances of getting a good award -- though it helps tremendously to research the aid policies of a given school before mailing in the application).</p>
<p>The other is what is reflected in the "lottery ticket" title of the thread - applying to a large number of reach schools under the assumption that the odds of admission are increased with more schools. Obviously an application to a match or safety school is not a "lottery" ticket -- it is possible that the student might get rejected or waitlisted even there, but by definition the odds favor acceptance.</p>
<p>So the "lottery" metaphor really applies only when the admission gets so competitive that the school is turning away more highly qualified applicants than it lets in. And my point is simply that among those schools, I think it is a logical fallacy to treat it as a lottery -- because at that level of competition, I think the best strategy is to really customize the application and target it specifically to the school, or to some particular aspect of the school. </p>
<p>Because when Yale is making the final cut, I don't think they are looking at "stats" - they are looking at which student has made the best case for admission -- and that's where the student whose application reflects an interest or talent in an area that meshes well with Yale's needs is at an advantage. And at that level of competition, if you don't take a strategic approach to maximize whatever angle you've got to appeal to a particular college, then you are out. If a kid can find a niche or angle that is going to appeal equally to 6 different Ivies... fine, more power to that kid. But the reality is that it probably isn't going to happen that way. It probably requires a somewhat different approach for a given individual to close the sale with Yale than it does with Princeton - and my point is that the kid who has his heart set on Yale and has a "why Yale" essay that is very specific to to Yale, along with essays & recs that support whatever he's said - may very well have propelled himself up to the head of the line ahead of others with equivalent or better "stats". </p>
<p>Yes, some kids are so strong that they will end up getting accepted at multiple, top schools. Their applications cannot be ignored. But those kids don't need to apply to many for the sake of winning admission to one. I am talking about kids who are specifically using the tactic of applying to many reach schools as a way of increasing "chances". And I happen to think the best way to increase "chances" is probably to narrow the field, not broaden it.</p>
<p>Where I disagree with you, Calmom, is the idea of the the "best case for admission." I don't think we here on the outside can know what the best case for admission will be because that will depend on the array of other applicants. I think that taking a strategic approach is important but how does a particular applicant know what that is? For example, lets say we have a child who is a knock-out science student and good musician. That's what they are. That is what they love and have spent their time doing. Lets say that kid is Asian or Caucasian or Russian. The reality is that that kid has no unusual angle to take because there are lots of those kids out there. But that doesn't mean that HYPSM will not be taking some of those kids. That kid needs to apply to more than Harvard and Yale (assuming they are interested in the others). That kid just might be accepted to one of the schools and not the others because the essay or something else appealed to admissions folks there, but not elsewhere. I really don't agree that Yale, for example, takes the kids that make the "best case." I think they take the kids that appeal to them as a good or the best representative of a particular experience or type, etc. I am sure that there are many kids that make excellent cases for admission, but they just have too many of those types. This is where it may be a lottery for them.</p>
<p>You said, "It probably requires a somewhat different approach for a given individual to close the sale with Yale than it does with Princeton - and my point is that the kid who has his heart set on Yale and has a "why Yale" essay that is very specific to to Yale, along with essays & recs that support whatever he's said - may very well have propelled himself up to the head of the line ahead of others with equivalent or better "stats.""</p>
<p>I wish I thought that just having your heart set on a school and a "why Yale' essay that demonstrates why would be enough. I just think that is not enough. A necessary, but not sufficient condition, perhaps.</p>
<p>All I am advocating is that each kid requires a different number and array of colleges to try for. </p>
<p>Again, I will emphasize that I am not advocating that everyone apply to a gazillion schools because the think that the probabilities improve if the number of applications increase. I agree that such a approach worsens the madness and probably will not work anyway.</p>
<p>I am concerned about the idea of finding niches or angles to appeal to admissions officers, unless that discovery is of something genuine, something already there. I want my children to be themselves, to pursue their interests and passions, not to mold themselves into someone they think will appeal to an admissions officer. If they turn out to be people who have many contemporaries with whom they are similar, so be it. Then, they may have to increase the number of applications because the chances are less for them than for a more exotic applicant.</p>
<p>I think we are talking at cross-purposes, so I really don't want to continue the discussion if no one is going to gain from it. If you can't see how a student who is a "knock-out science student and good musician" can build up the way those talents are presented and increase likelihood of admission with a strategic, targetted approach -- then I just don't think you are going to get the point I'm trying to make. It is not at all about applicants molding "themselves into someone they think will appeal to an admissions officer" - in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is about recognizing that (a) "fit" is a two way street - the college needs to want the applicant as much as the applicant wants the college, and (2) blowing one's own horn. </p>
<p>I personally think that the kids who stress over test scores with multiple retakes, or taking multiple AP courses in subjects they aren't really interested in are the ones who are trying to "mold themselves" to meet others' expectations. The kid who goes off on a tangent pursuing their own passions often ends up with the more appealing application package.</p>
<p>But I'm not advocating anything unusual. All I did was read a couple of books by people who are in the business of helping kids get into their top choice colleges, and attend a great workshop by another admissions counselor - and follow the advice we were given. My goal was to try to figure out what those counselors do for their clients... and then try to provide my daughter with the benefit of the same information.</p>
<p>Atlantamom: I couldn't agree more with your well articulated points. For the schools under discussion, I think the "WHY you want to go there" essay is of lesser importance (tho of course, one should give it a lot of thought and care anyway). It's for the same reason that demonstrated interest is something they don't really care about (when you visit HYP, they don't even take your name...it's not relevant to their decison making process). It's all about whether your combination of academics and ec's makes you someone they think will add an important dimension to their class. So, the way to boost your chances is to highlight your passions (a musician sends in a tape, a scientist sends in his abstract, an actress/dancer can send in a video.) And not just to the admissions office, but perhaps to the orchestra leader or other relevant faculty. Because all these schools need those kinds of kids in their class...it's just whether or not your kid happens to best represent that particular asset.</p>
<p>If you read the forums from the HYPMS schools, you'll see so many kids who were flat out rejected by several, and then accepted by one of the very most selective. So, if the goal is obtain admission to one of those schools, you probably have to cast a wider net.</p>
<p>Calmom, I know what you are saying isn't unusual. I think you are right to some extent. I still stick to my "belief" that for some students more applications are needed than for other students, which depends on who they are and what they are striving for. </p>
<p>I am sure that you never steered your daughter in any direction for the purpose of enhancing her admissions chances, but there are parents and kids who do. I agree that academically obsessed kids and parents can be just as "guilty' of trying to mold themselves to what they believe will enhance their admissions chances, without regard to their "real" passions and interests. I also agree with you that packaging yourself in your application is part of what you need to do -- best if what you package is some aspect of you that you are highlighting, for example.</p>
<p>I just think that for some schools for some people a well-done application is not enough and the number of the applications has to rise by necessity. </p>
<p>We may just have to agree to disagree on the number of applications. In general we agree on the importance of looking carefully at schools, compiling a well-considered list and thoughtfully preparing the applications. We agree that a shotgun approach does no one any good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
More hooks means lower chances for unhooked RD kids. That is exactly what I said, unhooked RD kids have less than 5% chance on average and need to apply to more schools. I'm not sure what your point is anymore.</p>
<p>My point is that the more hooked kids there are, the fewer students there are at Harvard to which your 5% number applies. The smaller that pool gets, the less representative of the school it becomes. I estimated that we may be talking about 40% or so of the student body and you seem to be saying that it is probably a good bit less than that.</p>
<blockquote>
<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.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree that high-end admissions aren't random. I make that point regularly on CC when I see posters embracing the crapshoot/lottery ticket metaphors too literally. But, assuming you have stats good enough to put you solidly in the running at HYPSMC, you can indeed increase your odds of getting into ONE of them by applying to them all. You are putting yourself in front of more commitees in the hope of hitting the one that is looking for a student like you. There are trends of course, but admission or denial at one does not predict admission or denial at the other five.</p>
<p>My own D is a good example. She knew she wanted to study science -- and preferably at a high-end school. She had top grades, so after all her test scores were in I told her that her stats were good enough to get her into a top school, but I couldn't begin to predict which one. Therefore, if she wanted one top-end school, she better apply to a lot of them. So she built a list of 2 safeties, 3 matches, and all 6 HYPSMC reaches. Final score for the reaches: 3-1-2. </p>
<p>The same basic application got her accepted Harvard, Stanford, and MIT but rejected at Yale and waitlisted at Princeton and Caltech. She did not pursue the waitlists. But if she had believed that applying to more of them wouldn't increase her odds of admission, she might well have applied only to her first choice reach: Yale. In which case she'd be attending a UC today. But since she blanketed the top science schools with applications, she is attending her second choice school, Harvard, and loving it.</p>
<p>the thing that gets me with college admissions, which i was just discussing with a friend the other day, is how people are accepted.</p>
<p>for example, the people i was discussing it with all had straight a's in high school.. and their SAT's were 1420, 1500, and 1380. They all were students of York like myself. The 1380 is graduating next semester, but the 1500 and the 1420 dropped out after two years. We were just commenting on how the SAT measures what you already know, not what you can learn and things like that.. like all of the students who got a 900 on the SAT who didn't get to go to a college may of gone and done great and really "blossomed" as a students.. yet the ones with 1500's go and drop out to pursue other interests... even though they still were getting a's in college.</p>
<p>I just think the whole thing is really interesting. </p>
<p>(my friends decided to stop going to college so they could work full time jobs and tour with their band. We'll see how it pays off in the long run.)</p>
<p>fendergirl, I think you hit the nail on the head. In fact you hit a couple of nails on their heads.</p>
<p>Colleges are well aware that the kids with great SATs and HS grades are not necessarily going to continue that pattern in college. Some change and lose interest as soon as they get to college. Some complete college with great grades and then just fade away. Fortunately, the failures are not extremely common, but I do think this explains why colleges look for something else. Sometimes we call these hooks, or passions, or strong EC's. I think the colleges that can afford to be very selective are looking for a level of maturity, balance and commitment which is sustainable. Even the Ivies don't want just very gifted overachievers. They want not just some racial and cultural diversity but diversity of interests and personalities and backgrounds. These are qualities which are usually subjective and hard to assess. No wonder the whole process can seem like a lottery. It must seem totally unfair and random to those kids with perfect stats who are not accepted. Sometimes the most important question on the application is What would you bring to our school? Prior academic successes, successes in school activities and a stated passion for learning may not be enough.</p>
<p>Unfortunately I disagree. I have seen a good number of high stat, EC, class rank kids not get in to any of thier top choices recently while also getting rejected by all of thier other "reaches".</p>
<p>I also look at the math a bit differently. According to the College Board 20594 students scored in the top 1% of the SATs (1480+) in the 2004 cycle. If you only count the Ivy's and Stanford and MIT that represents about 14,000 students each year. Not all of the 20,000 attend these schools, many NMF attend thier state school or other school that provides merit aid (Florida, UA, UT, USC). Yet many do not get in to those schools even with the 10-12 applications.</p>
<p>Note that this math leaves out many other schools that are quite competitive, i.e. Duke, ND, Northwestern, Georgetown, UChicago, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc.</p>
<p>To me it is important to show interest in each and every one of your schools. For many students it is still a lottery ticket based upon what I have witnessed over the last 3+ years. A reread of the andison thread illustrates this way more than I can express in this short post.</p>
<p>Eagle, my friend with the 1500 gave up a full ride to another school to come to my school with only limited scholarship money just because he liked the school better. Then he wound up dropping out. (And is now paying back lots of money in student loans for a degree he didn't even finish.)</p>
<p>I'm just saying, i really think colleges need to look at more than just the numbers because with just his numbers he'd be great to get into plenty of colleges... yet he chose to do something else.. yet the kid near here who hasn't been able to get into any of the college he wants to is working at a local factory. (Which I think he should at least be going to a community college and then transfer, but thats just me). I'm just saying, that kid here probably would of had much more success at my school than my friend from there did who ended up dropping out.. Yet on paper they are complete oppisates.</p>
<p>So many kids think "oh i have a 5.9 gpa, oh i got a 1600 on my sat, this and that".. but at the same time, i'd much rather pick the person to go to my college who shows they have some heart and willingness to learn... the kid who spends their summers working in the field they want to go into, someone who i'm sure will be a great addition to my college... even if their SAT and high school gpa were less than par. I just think when you get rejected at a school you shouldn't look at it like i can't eblieve i didn't get in with these stats and this and that.. maybe the other people just had a tiny bit more passion... but at the same time it doesn't always work like that either. (the whole i got accepted because my parents went here and i really have no desire to go but i'm going to apply because they want me too, but little betty up the street had better grades, was more involved in things, and was a better fit for the school than i was etc got rejected because her parents never went to college, really makes me sick)</p>
<p>I know it is not just about stats . . . it is just that I have seen too many students over the last couple of years not get in to one of thier top few choices. To me it points in the direction of the crap shoot perspective, not the "it is a rational process" perspective.</p>
<p>fendergirl, I think that colleges DO look at more than just stats, and I think that is what accounts for my daughter's acceptance at 4 reach colleges with her weak test scores. What she had going for her were 2 very different types activities that clearly demonstrate independence & persistence -- one was her pursuit of an art and the other was her pursuit of language study & study abroad. Her essay,activity sheet and recs made it clear that she is the type of person who takes initiative and she is not a quitter. </p>
<p>Since I also have a son who had test scores more than 200 points above his sister's, but like your friends also dropped out of college midway through -- I definitely see your point. My son had no idea what he wanted to major in when he started college, and essentially he just drifted along taking a variety of courses... but 2 years down the line, he still had no clue. </p>
<p>So my guess is that edad is right -- when colleges see evidence of a strong passion, reflected clearly in all aspects of the application, then they are going to see: "this kid is going to work hard and follow through". They will still admit kids like my son, thinking "this kid is really smart" -- but when it comes to choosing between two candidates when one must go, the kid with the demonstrated evidence of dedication & accomplishment probably will get the nod even if stats are somewhat weaker. </p>
<p>Even so, in a very competitive process, no results are entirely predictable. But that does not make it a lottery. Olympic figure skating is also unpredictable and uses judging criteria that are subjective and not always fair -- and there often are some big surprises along the way -- but it certainly isn't a random process. </p>
<p>I was helped a lot in understanding the process by attending a workshop where we all had to pretend to be ad coms who would review applications an dthen select only one out of four fictional students. I attended the workshop twice, and the student profiles were the same each time but I think the ultimate vote was different -- but it certainly was eye opening, both in terms of understanding what ad coms are looking for in a much more profound way, and in appreciating the pressure they are under to make quick decisions. (They do tend to read through the packages very quickly looking for key points, so too much verbiage can really get in the way). Also, even though the pretend outcome was different, each time it came down to the same two candidates, with one being the strongest academically, the other being the weakest academically but with the most interesting profile and most interesting essay -- so we could see how those two disparate considerations probably compete all the way through the process.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately I disagree. I have seen a good number of high stat, EC, class rank kids not get in to any of thier top choices recently while also getting rejected by all of thier other "reaches".<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm not saying that it is impossible for a high-stat kid to fail to get into HYPMS. In fact we see that happen every year. What I'm saying is that any given high stat kid will have a far greater chance of getting into <em>one</em> of the HYPMS schools if s/he applies to all five of them than if s/he applies to only one. </p>
<p>Swing at more pitches = greater chance of hitting a homerun. Seems obvious to me.</p>
<p>^^ Right, but we are talking about as Eagle says "... high stat, EC, class rank kids....". Or to continue the analogy, we are not talking about minor leaguers here, but players who already have a pretty good major league swing.</p>
<p>Coureur: you daughter's experience mirrors my D's: she applied to three ivies (the other's didn't have the type of program she was looking for), in addition to three matches and two safeties. Result: accepted at all matches and safeties, but among the ivies, accepted at one, waitlisted at another (didn't pursue), rejected by the third. And the applications to those ivies were were put together with great care and specificity to each school.</p>