<p>:)
CS = Crap shoot in the rest of this post...</p>
<p>When I first started on CC a couple of years back, I often saw the expression
bandied about..."don't take it personally, honey admissions is a CS" or
apply to X colleges because "admissions is a CS".... etc...</p>
<p>After continuing through my Junior and senior years at my public HS
and religiously lurking on the threads on CC I started developing a
ninja-sense. The odeysius like certainity that I would be the master
of my destiny began to take root in my CC-fixated mind.</p>
<p>After being admitted EA to Caltech (with merit aid) and to MIT EA, getting
approved early for admissions to Stanford, getting invited to be an
A.B. Duke finalist and finding out yesterday that I got admitted to
Princeton....I am beginning to suspect the CS thing is another
pre-packaged guilt free trip for teens who did not decide to be more
active in the direction their current circumstances may be taking them...?</p>
<p>I come from a family that would be labelled the under-class (no, my
financial circumstances were not even visible to the adcoms making
their decisions) and study in a public HS. My SAT books came from
the local library. In a nutshell, I am not privileged.</p>
<p>The only real advantage I have had has been my brutal honesty in
understanding that admissions is not a CS and making concious
hard decisions on effecting change within me.</p>
<p>You can do it too, but first you must take the real hard step of
understanding that you hold the keys to your life not anyone else.</p>
<p>hardly a politically correct thing to say around here, arwen. all i can say is that it’s not ENTIRELY a crapshoot. no rational person can say that ISEF winners like you do all the hard work that don’t matter in the end. in this world, hard work mostly counts. crapshoots do the rest. there will always be crapshoots.</p>
<p>You could’ve just said, “admitted EA to Caltech (with merit aid) and to MIT EA, getting approved early for admissions to Stanford, getting invited to be an
A.B. Duke finalist and finding out yesterday that I got admitted to
Princeton.” No need for the rest.</p>
<p>Yes, admissions are still a crap shoot. While you were successful, many were not as fortunate as you, even when everyone thought they would get in. Since they didn’t, it’s pretty unpredictable–thus, crap shoot.</p>
<p>Yes, I still believe it is a crap shoot. While it’s not ENTIRELY luck, there is definitely some play of it. Some people are just less fortunate (an adcom of a certain region might be a bit more harsh, etc.), but it doesn’t make them any less qualified applicants. There are a lot of factors outside of our control (i.e. the strength of the other applicants, how your essay will be perceived, etc.), which makes admissions such a crap shoot. </p>
<p>Um I guess it is in some ways, but if a college wants a diverse student body(like not just race, but personalities, personal experiences, etc.) then they’ll have to look beyond SATs, GPAs, etc. to some extent.</p>
<p>Yes, there is still an arbitrary element to US university admissions despite your success in the process.</p>
<p>Of course everyone is responsible for their own success or failure: that’s a vacuous observation, and irrelevant to refuting the “admissions is a crapshoot” claim. My circumstances, for instance, do not allow me to participate in extra-curricular research or college courses, though I would like to. In the case of MIT and other schools, sometimes you’re just not the right mixture of achievements and cultural or ethnic background; the reality of the “building a class” model is that those that seem unoriginal or overrepresented are at a disadvantage. Sometimes, you’re simply born into a large peer group, which puts you in an even more competitive environment. You also ignore learning and social disabilities, which affect performance on standardised tests. The “power of the will” you advocate can only go so far in improving upon one’s lot.</p>
<p>You’re right in that there are a great many variables under your direct control as an applicant, but the “admissions is a crapshoot” argument turns on the fact that there are also unknown quantities. Your point - that we often don’t take advantage of our opportunities - is valid, but only applies to one side of the admissions process.</p>
<p>I worked my butt off the last four years. I haven’t gone out in ages. I’ve put all my effort into achieving things that I believe are worthwhile, yet seemingly no matter hard I tried, I still didn’t get into my reach. I don’t know if this adds any to the CS argument, but that’s my bleak outlook on the admissions process anyway.</p>
<p>It’s like the rejection tells you that you’re not good enough, when internally you know that you’re just as you should be.</p>
<p>I got into MIT, Duke early, WashU early/research scholars, Northwestern University, Johns Hopkins BME, Princeton, Cornell, UPenn, and waitlisted at Harvard, and I still think it is a crapshoot, at least at some schools. I’m very happy with the way things turned out and am very fortunate, but I can definitely say it was a crapshoot at places like Harvard and Yale, probably Princeton too. Harvard was seven percent this year out of 27,000 applicants. Just by math you can see it is not possible for them to admit ALL the awesome students and therefore people get screwed and that is why it is a crapshoot.</p>
<p>What does “getting approved early for admissions to Stanford” mean? Stanford is a SCEA program so it must be some other category people might be interested in.</p>
<p>… no matter hard I tried, I still didn’t get into my reach …</p>
<p>If your reach is truly a statistical reach for you, and you properly realize it is a reach, then you don’t expect to be admitted, so it’s not a surprise, and you shouldn’t be (very) disappointed.</p>
<p>Admittance is a bit like being at the right place at the right time, in that you have to be one of the kinds of students that the school wants when your name comes up, but at the same time, the schools aren’t rolling dice; they know exactly what they want, and discuss each viable candidate over and over, and then admit the ones they want the most in order to arrive at the mix they want.</p>
<p>I still think admissions is a CS. Obviously, applicants can do their best to try to get admitted, and this clearly will benefit them. However, some decisions just come as a surprise. I was accepted to Princeton, but rejected from UC Berkeley. I wasn’t completely surprised at the second, but shocked at the first.</p>
<p>I know my stats are preeeeeeeeeeetty low for some of the schools I was accepted to, and I knew they were when I applied. I tried to present myself in way that might make them overlook my stats… and apparently they did.</p>
<p>Do I think I played a large role in my acceptances? Definitely.
Do I think I was incredibly lucky? Yes, I’m honestly baffled and shocked at my results.</p>
<p>It’s a crap shoot if you’re applying to realistic reach schools. Arwen, I’m sure you’re incredibly intelligent, but at times, it seems like you need that extra boost of luck to get you in.</p>
<p>Oh, I didn’t mean reach in that way. I fit into the middle 50% range arguably well. I call it a reach based on the fact that admissions are rigorous at a school that only accepts <20% of applicants. I just believed - and the realist in me tried to squash out any sliver of it - that I had a chance.</p>
<p>Wow, this thread is turning out overwhelmingly in favor of CS…but
I hope it has helped some of you go back and at least revive the
gnawing feeling inside you that something as important as your
UG admittance is not CS…</p>
<p>ScoMathMo:), thank you, It’s Odysseus- my mistake.</p>