<p>another one from accepting you?
Personally, I really reaally want to go to Harvard. Am I ivy material? I don't know, but I'm sure doing the best I can and that's all I am capable of doing. I figured I could apply to many ivys- cornell, u of penn, princeton, yale, and harvard- but then I began to think. I'm pretty sure for examply, I can get into cornell. But I don't really want to go there. So when harvard or another one of my fav ivys are reviewing my app will they reject me because they figure another school will take me? Or does it completely not really on that
* same question for other tier 1 schools (if accepeted there does ivy feel it is ok to reject you)</p>
<p>Don't apply to Tufts ;)</p>
<p>Kidding. Ivies usually don't, atleast as far as I know. But do demonstrate your passion well for each one.</p>
<p>incognito123 - please stop perpetuating the tufts syndrome rumor. S got into two Ivys as well as Tufts and ended up choosing to go there.</p>
<p>With the exception of ED admits, Ivies do not share info about students who applied to them. Harvard know that it's most applicants' first choice, and it doesn't factor into admissions decisions students' interest in Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So when harvard or another one of my fav ivys are reviewing my app will they reject me because they figure another school will take me?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You've got to be kidding.</p>
<p>No way. I've worked with many seniors who were accepted by multiple Ivies, even the Triple Crown of PYH.</p>
<p>^ Wow, I had no idea there was actually had a name for it. Top ten signs your obsessive about college admissions...</p>
<p>Well each college has its own expectations and standards. I know people who have been rejected from Duke, Dartmouth, UPenn, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, and have been accepted to Harvard. It all depends on your essays (the only thing that truly sets people apart). What turns Yale adcoms off, could be the very thing Harvard adcoms love.</p>
<p>haha. So in effect colleges dont have the time or the concern to check on individual cases with each college. If they want you they will accept you.</p>
<p>^im sure its quite rare but it does highlight the subjectiveness of the admissions process in many colleges.</p>
<p>i wonder if anyone's ever been rejected by _____ (insert objectively worst school in the country) but accepted by harvard.</p>
<p>my friend was rejected by penn (double legacy), deferred from yale ea, waitlisted and eventually rejected from the the rests of the ivies she applied to, didn't get into brandeis..... and is now at harvard.</p>
<p>To illustrate the point that Brandybeer made, my DD was accepted to HYPS two years ago, but was wait listed and eventually rejected at Brown.</p>
<p>Whoever applies to ivies just because they're ivies without knowing ANYTHING about them is stupid. The same thing goes for people who apply to 4 or more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One would need more information to see whether his case is consistent with the rumor: does he have ties to the school or its geographic area, were financials better at Tufts, and so on. Plenty of schools have incentives to do something other than admit the academically strongest candidates, and schools as selective as Princeton appear to have practiced yield management over the years.</p>
<p>
You've got to be kidding.
</p>
<p>Surely you remember those amazing graphs in the draft version of the paper on Revealed Preferences ranking of colleges, showing some of the very top schools apparently rejecting students who were considered likely to attend higher-ranked competitors?</p>
<p>That doesn't appear to be what the OP is asking about.</p>
<p>re: tokenadult's comment,</p>
<p>The OP posted two questions, which are clearly distinct (their premises contradict each other). </p>
<p>You quoted the second question and my comments refer to that.</p>
<p>Yes, that's the paper. It's a favorite of Harvard's pro bono PR front. </p>
<p>The Revealed Preferences study is deeply flawed as far as ranking is concerned, the biggest flaw being the nondisclosure of data.</p>
<p>The one data disclosure that was made in the paper, however, was spectacular: the graphs of admissions rates at four schools as a function of SAT. It matched up perfectly with the expected results of strategic admissions (rejecting overqualified candidates below the very top range). If the article had disclosed more about the number of samples, it would have helped judge how much those graphs were "revealing the preferences" of the admissions offices.</p>
<p>That graph is on p.8, for those of you following along.</p>
<p>And siserune - I'm no Byerly, am I? Good lord, I hope not.</p>
<p>I think you're safe. To gain membership in the Revealed Preferences fan club one would have to introduce the paper (as a ranking) gratuitously, not just comment on some other mention of it, and to do so in multiple threads. It is also important to use the term "cross-admit data" as though one has seen a large amount of it, and to cite hypothetical calculations in the paper as real observations ("Harvard beats Columbia 78 percent of the time!").</p>