<p>The many rejections that people received from Harvard and similar schools despite having gotten acceptance predictions from students responding to their chances posts provides more evidence of why I maintain that chances posts are a waste of time.</p>
<p>Some have said that asking for chances is a great way of alleviating the stress of applying to college. I continue to say that chances posts can raise false hopes, making rejection even more painful.</p>
<p>Far better to do one's best when applying to colleges like Harvard while keeping in mind that most people -- no matter how outstanding -- will be rejected. Better to anticipate a rejection and then perhaps get a wonderful surprise April 1 than to anticipate acceptance and then get a rejection.</p>
<p>It reflects a lack of critical thinking skills to rely on uninformed strangers for chances predictions. Obviously, the only people who may be able to really predict one's chances are admissions officers, and they don't provide such predictions.</p>
<p>I also continue to think that the the more chances posts and silly questions (i.e. "Should I put a title on my essay?", "My essay has a typo. Does that mean I'll be rejected?" posts that a student makes here , the lower the student's chances of admission to a top college. Why? Top colleges look for students who can think for themselves, not students who need reassurance before making trivial decisions.</p>
<p>I agree with you Northstarmom, in fact, I went out of my way to post this same opinion in many a chance thread. However, I myself have been wait-listed. So much for your theory.</p>
<p>The main reason behind the popularity of chance threads is not a lack of a critical thinking or a need for alleviation of stress. Furthermore, “chancers”, except for the occasional, badly misinformed ones, prevalently do not provide anyone with false hopes for colleges like Harvard.</p>
<p>Legacy admit rate is now about 30%. Qualifications of legacy admits are on average as good as or better than qualifications of non-legacy admits, and there are some amazing legacies being rejected these days. As ForHarvard, he/she showed up as a ■■■■■ a couple of days ago - posting on the RD decisions thread that he/she had been waitlisted (with a phony set of stats), then that he/she had been accepted (with a different phony set of stats), then said that he/she was a junior in high school. Still not clear to me what motivates ■■■■■■.</p>
<p>From what I gathered, you’re considered a legacy only if you are a direct descendant of a Harvard College alumnus. Other schools define legacies differently, though.</p>
<p>i find chance threads helpful. in fact, i find it less helpful when people just say you have just a good chance as everyone else or that the acceptance rate = your chance because they “don’t want to raise your hopes.” instead of doing that, when i posted mine, i got feedback on specific parts of my application, strengths, weaknesses, etc. and it helped me…they didn’t necessarily give a “percentage chance,” but just another perspective on my application.</p>
<p>Harvard College counts as legacies only the children of Harvard College graduates. Only parentage counts. It’s just a tipping factor. </p>
<p>Legacy does not include those whose parents who attended other schools at Harvard besides the College, siblings who attend(ed) at any school at Harvard, direct antecedents who attend(ed) any school at Harvard, or any relatives who taught at any school at Harvard (children of current faculty may get special consideration but are not legacies).</p>
<p>The admissions office of Harvard College has no policy on siblings. </p>
<p>I remember many classmates who had siblings who were attending or had attended Harvard, but I also remember as many or more classmates who had siblings who were attending or had attended other colleges. </p>
<p>Granted, you sometimes see families in which all the siblings are admitted to Harvard, and those cases may be especially salient because people remark upon them, but I wouldn’t necessarily infer from those cases that there is an unspoken sibling preference, for there’s a very strong argument that some families (by nature and nurture) simply produce academically stellar students. Gifts and talents can run in families, and siblings are exposed to the parents’ work ethics, moral teachings, etc. I would think that siblings who are admitted to Harvard are each admitted on his or her own merits.</p>
<p>It’s a truism that if Harvard had a sibling preference, it could fill its freshman class many times over with just siblings. Clearly, Harvard is not going to constrain its admissions in such a way that does not serve its goal of putting together the best freshman class possible.</p>
<p>I agree with serendipityyy, to a certain extent, at least. No one can say definitely that you will or will not get into top schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, etc. (on second thought I should have just typed out HYPSM XP) but chances threads do give you feedback on your strengths/weaknesses. They let you see how your classload, extra curriculars, rank, etc. compare to other people and in the eyes of other posters. For younger posters who haven’t applied to college, they realize what they need to work on. Some posters come on here without a clue what they need to do to be competitive at top schools and posting their own stats helps others give them advice (IE, “Try and raise your GPA, retake the SAT IIs”, etc.)</p>
<p>Northstarmom, I agree with you in that it’s impossible to “predict” results and those who are looking for that are wasting their time. But chances threads CAN be a valuable tool, and I personally appreciate all the feedback that goes to me and other posters.</p>
<p>The whole point of ■■■■■■■■ is to make people believe that X got into Harvard with a “weak” set of stats. This makes the competition less competitive by watering down the perceieved notion of the Harvard stantard.</p>