<p>You all have to promise that once you get your results, you have to post them online with your submission times.</p>
<p>Edit: I wanted the 500th post!</p>
<p>The girl from my school in BME had 2:34 and a likely letter....</p>
<p>It's a good way to pass our time...Sort of.. I could be studying for my AP exams but...nahhhh
Sacrifice, I'm on the same boat as you. I don't think I got in either (subpar stats)...1:54PM</p>
<p>ya help people next yr.</p>
<p>haha i think im just angry b/c if i give in to this "theory", i should be receiving a rejection message at 5pm tomorrow</p>
<p>this is ridiculous</p>
<p>oh and was accepted to nyu, carnegie mellon, georgetown, standford and bu if that helps.. my heart has been set on cornell though, which is why I hope the 2's=reject theory is wrong :(</p>
<p>just relax.this are smart people coming up with theory,one day they will invent some kind of new theory which might be helpful.</p>
<p>I hope the 1:28 timeslot means acceptance</p>
<p>"What if.....they organized all the folders of different students on a computer... and just copied the folders over. The entries are probably dated with the minute that their folder was finished, so all 12:26's belonged to the same folder, probably all of the same decision and similar schools. This dosent assume any correlation beetween groups of people in the 12:20's or 12 at all for that matter, just a correlation beetween the specific minute that your dated with and your decision. If this is done by a person, this could explain how some things are dated just 1 minute apart, yet there are 20 minute gaps on some others."</p>
<p>I'm going to agree with Sacrafice, it actually makes A LOT of sense. Because people with the exact same time have a lot in common, while if you try to organize them in a huge time frame, you start to overgeneralize.</p>
<p>BeautifulMind, Don't worry you can have the 600th post..and the 700th post.</p>
<p>accepted into georgetown and bc... keeping fingers crossed for cornell.. also hoping 2's rejection theory is wrong :P</p>
<p>i do like the exact-same-time theory.
lets try and develop that?</p>
<p>I think the 2's might have gotten in haha. Throwing that out there, sparking a little controversy =P</p>
<p>I think the individual timeslot thing makes more sense than the general timeslot thing... But then you need to go back through, recompile info, and then assess people's chances again, based on what they think, stats profiles, where they've gotten in so far, etc. to determine what each minute means. have fun.</p>
<p>...though, you know, if you do decide to do that, i think you should have a thread for talking abt theories and a thread for stats so you don't have to wade through this stuff.</p>
<p>I still think the times are in order of their admissions decision, but I think it differs depending on which school you applied to....</p>
<p>I like that my time says 2.34</p>
<p>New Theory: Maybe the only put times on people's apps who go on CC, just for them to freak out for two days to ultimately find out they didn't get in.</p>
<p>OMG I GOT IT PEOPLE. OKAY HERE IS WHAT YOU DO....</p>
<p>there are 2 approved methods for this. </p>
<p>Method 1: Grab a magic 8 ball, ask it your adminission decision, best 2 out of 3 wins it people.</p>
<p>Method 2: Buy a sack full of fortune cookies, before opening the cookie ask it your decision / college future. </p>
<p><em>note method 2 can be vague and / or completely wrong</em></p>
<p>Okay, let's take the assumption that the computer is working at a constant speed to be true. (Note: It's not necessarily true, but for the sake of this argument, just go with me here.)</p>
<p>Break up our data into quartiles on 13.25 students each (erm, yeah, just go with me) - based on our last full list, because by the time I recompile, more people will probably have posted anyway.</p>
<p>The first quartile includes only students with times 12:24 and 12:26. 25% of reported times were 1.32% of the total time range. Given a normal distribution, the probability of this happening is less than 0.0001. Irrefutably, something's up here. Either there was a rush of students submitted at this time, or (going back to the constant pacing theory), CC has a disproportionate amount of students in this time frame compared to the general population of applicants. Admits? Waitlists? I doubt that CC has a higher-than-average number of rejections. Another point to ponder is that, despite the onslaught of 12:24s and 12:26s, there's not a single 12:25.</p>
<p>The second quartile includes times from 12:26 to 1:06, a time span representing 26.32% of the time range, and containing 25% of reporting CC applicants. Given a normal distribution, the chances of this are 0.8119, ie, very good. Here, we seem to match the general applicant population. But why?</p>
<p>The third quartile has times from 1:06 to 2:04. 25% of our reported times fall within 38% of the total time range, with a .0323 chance of this under normal distribution. Here, we're abnormal again, but this time, we have fewer applicants in this time than the general population. Rejections here are unlikely, though, since several of our likely letters fall into this category.</p>
<p>The fourth quartile includes 2:22 to 2:56. (Note: No one posted between 2:04 and 2:22, so there's a jump since the quartile breaks between these values.) 25% of CCer times in 22% of the total time range. A probability of .6917, again likely. Here, we match the general population again.</p>
<p>And... I left my AP Stat textbook at school during spring break, so take this all with a grain of salt. But just to give you something to mull over. ;)</p>
<p>do u think that in at duke, northwestern, and cmu, but waitlisted at jhu will get accepted?</p>