<p>Based on #80, I think you are really going to like the following post, lookingforward! :)</p>
<p>It seems to me that there is a sort of Laffer curve of effort put forth in the application as a function of the odds of admission. If a student has 0.00001% odds of admission, it’s probably not worth putting a lot of effort into the application. In fact, in the case of anything with such low odds, the “thing” would have to be qualitatively different from and distinctly better than any substitute. I don’t think that Harvard is so different from any other reasonable choice to justify much effort if the odds are 0.00001%.</p>
<p>On the other end of the spectrum (not at Harvard, but at a state university, for example, where GPA and standardized test scores have a strong influence on admissions), if a student has a 99.99999% chance of admission, the likelihood that the student will put his/her best effort into coming up with a fantastic essay are fairly low–barring considerations for special scholarships or something else of that sort.</p>
<p>Somewhere in the middle, the applicant truly puts best effort into the application, and it has a reasonable chance of being worthwhile. For me (though I am long past the application point), 5% odds would not be enough to make it worthwhile. Personally, I would guess that I would give my best effort if the odds were about 50-60%.</p>
<p>There are exceptions to this, of course, when the effort is directed at something of lasting value–for example, I put my best efforts into my publications, even though they have distinctly better than 60% odds of acceptance. I also put quite a lot of effort into grant applications, even though the raw odds of success are about 20-25%, and I can’t claim that my personal odds are much higher than that.</p>
<p>I think it’s ridiculous to tell a kid who is valedictorian of his/her class at Boston Latin that (s)he only has a 5% chance of being admitted to Harvard, especially if that kid also has impressive ECs. Is the kid guaranteed to get into Harvard? No. I’d wager a lot though that the acceptance rate for Boston Latin vals over the last 10 years is nearly 100%. According to wikipedia, on average, 25 Boston Latin grads go on to Harvard each year. </p>
<p>I’ve chosen Boston Latin intentionally because Harvard is very upfront about the boost given to graduates of Boston public high schools. The valedictorian of the best public high school in Boston who has strong ECs is PROBABLY going to be admitted. Insisting that the val should be told he only has a 5% chance of getting into Harvard is absurd.</p>
<p>It isn’t the same as being a legacy–especially if your parents haven’t donated $.</p>
<p>Even at our somewhat better than average, but not Scarsdale level suburban high school the valedictorians have historically gotten in at far better averages than 5%. Back in 2007 when my oldest graduated I thought his chances of getting into Harvard were about 50/50 when the over all admissions rate was 1 in 10. (He got in, but was rejected by MIT his first choice which I thought he had about a 1 in 4 chance of getting into.) A 50% chance of acceptance is still a 50% chance of rejection. Some kids do have a better chance than the overall odds, that doesn’t mean their acceptance is guaranteed by any means.</p>
<p>Of course stronger applicants have a greater than 5% chance and weaker applicants have a less than 5% chance (Harvard actually had a 6% admit rate in 2013… the only ones that were lower are Stanford and Curtis Institute of Music). Some colleges publish admit rate stats for different groups, such as Stanford and Brown, both of which show very different admit rates for applicants with different stats. For example, according to [Admission</a> Facts | Undergraduate Admission](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University) , Brown had a 24% admit rate for valedictorians (1643 valedictorians applied), but only a 3% admit rate for applicants not in the top 10% of their class. Similarly they had a 29% admit rate for applicants with a perfect ACT, but only a 3% admit rate for applicants that score <26. All of these cases are quite different from their overall acceptance rate of 9%. If you divided up further into valedictorians who also had excellent SAT scores + excellent ECs + challenging courses +…, then you’d get much higher rates.</p>
<p>What’s the point, though? What’s the point of patting yourself on the back that you have a 20% chance since you’re a valedictorian vs the 5% chance of the huddled masses? Either way, the odds are high you’ll be disappointed.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s purely a question of patting yourself on the back, Pizzagirl. Your family might not operate according to the Laffer curve of effort that I mentioned in post #81. However, I think that some people need a better than 1 in 20 chance to bring forth their best efforts–in generally, I fall into that group.</p>
<p>sally305, my point was I don’t think it’s arrogant for a student whose chances of admission to Harvard are really much better than 5% to think that his/her chances are substantially better than that.</p>
<p>jonri mentioned above that on average 25 Boston Latin graduates go to Harvard each year. So suppose that someone is an absolute stand-out at Boston Latin, in terms of all of the qualities that Harvard seeks. I would not regard it as charming modesty if the student thought that he/she had 5% odds, exactly like the entire pool. Nor do I think that the student should not apply to Harvard.</p>
<p>In a lot of professions, realistic appraisals of the probabilities of uncertain events are very important. I can’t think of a good reason to believe that 95% odds are only 5% odds.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl cannot or will not grasp the basic idea of making decisions based on expected outcomes and their probabilities, but she likes to criticize others (“patting yourself on the back”). It costs time and money to apply, and it hurts to be rejected. A student may think it is worth applying if he has a 20% chance of admission but not if he has a 3% chance.</p>
<p>Then THAT is what the student has to weigh before going through the effort–does he/she have the time and money to commit to the application process for X schools? Does he/she have a backup plan in place in case the outcome is a rejection? How much will the rejection hurt? I have honestly never seen anyone on this site say “I don’t know if I should waste the time or application fee.” I’ve see a few fragile kids say “I will kill myself if I don’t get in,” but who knows if that’s hyperbole or the expression of a real problem. Mostly it’s “I’ll never know if I don’t apply, so I am going for it.”</p>
<p>It’s also a bit disingenuous to suggest that kids who have spent their whole high school years grooming themselves for elite-school admissions–working their butts off in class and outside of school too–are suddenly going to decide it may not be “worth it” based on the stats of the class from the previous year.</p>
<p>Yes, that’s the point - it hurts to be rejected. So don’t go after 5% acceptance rate schools unless you are fully prepared that there is a 95% chance you won’t get in. </p>
<p>Don’t pretend your chances are higher just to entice you to “give your best effort.” That’s called lying to oneself.</p>
<p>“A student may think it is worth applying if he has a 20% chance of admission but not if he has a 3% chance.”</p>
<p>Cool! So do all the applicants to H all believe they have 20% chances? Well, a bunch of them are sure going to be disappointed. Believing doesn’t make it so. </p>
<p>And so - don’t apply to H then. Is that some great loss? I’m sure Harvard will go on just fine.</p>
<p>The point of having an as objective as possible assessment of one’s chance of getting in a highly selective school is so one can determine the right strategies of approaching the whole application process. Suppose based on <em>school specific</em> historical data, a student’s chance of getting in Harvard is an average 5%, but because of a particular EC and based on the holistic nature of the application review process, there might be reasons to believe the student still “has a shot” then he should apply to H, but his focus should be on finding enough less selective schools and work hard on them. On the other hand, if a student has top grades in one of the best high schools in the country with track records of consistently sending graduates to top colleges and made to the US Olympic teams for two academic subjects (an actual case by the way), his chance of getting in Harvard is perhaps 80%+ and his chance of getting in one of the tipsy-top schools is essentially 100%, then his focus should be on making the few applications as strong as possible with probably only a couple of “backups”. Obviously, most people would fall in somewhere in between, but knowing the odds other than a generic 5% would still help.</p>
<p>By the way, to almost everyone’s surprise, the student in the above example ended up being waitlisted in Harvard. He was admitted to YPSM though.</p>
<p>But when you say “best high schools” - that’s what really sticks in my craw. That people believe that their high schools are so special that H “owes” them x number of spots. Really, it doesn’t occur to some people that elite colleges continually want to diversify the set of schools they pull from – not just the same old boarding schools, private schools and mega-affluent publics? That’s the arrogance that is off-putting to me - that because H admitted x kids from your school in the past, they ought to do the same in the future. It says - I’m arrogant enough to not consider or be cognizant about the applicants from the small town in Mississippi or the inner city of Detroit or whatever - by golly, 5 kids got in H last year so is better plan on 5 kids this year. Really? Look outside yourself for once.</p>
<p>Chances are more complicated than that. That’s why we can say, the kid who put forth a better effort (in all the myriad ways that is defined,) improves his chances. He does NOT guarantee any better than the next kid, the other 28,000+ who will be denied. There are no guarantees. He simply positions himself better to move forward through the rounds. That’s all. In the end, elements beyond one’s control take over. In the end. But you don’t get to the final round (so to say) because you threw your hat into the ring, any hat, whatever hat. Or because someone told you, “you won’t know if you don’t try” or the CA allows x number of applications.</p>
<p>If you look at this as win/lose, it’s too simple, too flat. If all you qualify is did he get the admit. Or, will he. Instead, one point is simply to position yourself to get further toward the goal. Because, in the end, you want to be one of the 3x at the final table. Not simply one of the 30k+ who applied. </p>
<p>So, I can see PG’s point, clearly. And, the other side. It’s how you perceive this, maybe one’s philosophy. If you see yourself as one of 100 at the tournament, it’s 1/100 chance of winning. If you evaluate your particular skills, perhaps you see yourself as one of the top 20. No guarantee you will be one of the three medalists.</p>
<p>Of course, the problem is, kids and families generally don’t see it as more than stats and how you were perceived in your high school.</p>
<p>(Q, if there is a name for this sort of thinking, you’d have to tell me.)</p>
<p>PizzaGirl, we should both “look outside ourselves”. that’s partly why we are here right? We have different experiences and different perspectives. In a sense we all live in our own bubbles.</p>
<p>Some selective schools offer Early Action (EA) but require you not to apply to any other schools early. I think there is some advantage to applying EA, as discussed in the book “The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite” (2004). An applicant can think about where
applying EA gives him the biggest boost and how much he values an acceptance at each school. The book presents some simulated decisions. Since “boost” is defined as the acceptance probability EA minus the acceptance probability regular decision, one obviously needs to estimate these probabilities. If Harvard is a real long shot, you don’t want to waste your EA on it, but if you have a bigger shot at Harvard, applying EA there could make sense.</p>
<p>So that takes us back, I think, to Q’s original question. You can look at the boost. But do you know what makes some kids admits and some denials? What the qualitative boosts are, can they be identified?</p>
This makes sense from a logical game theory perspective, but most SCEA posts I’ve seen on this site have a different point of view. I get the impression most would rather use the SCEA boost on the slight chance of getting into their dream school, rather than risk missing out on acceptance to their dream school by using SCEA on a 3rd choice where the boost is more likely to make a difference in the admissions decision. </p>
<p>In general, many people seem to put a lot of effort into hope for a highly improbably event. For example, most people who buy lottery tickets know that the tickets usually have a negative expected value (often as high as a 50% house edge), and they are more likely to die in a car accident on the way to buy tickets than win the multi-million dollar jackpot, yet that doesn’t stop millions from expending time and effort into getting tickets and various rituals/superstitions that they believe will increase their chance of winning since they know they have a shot, no matter how improbable that shot is.</p>
that’s partly why we are here right? We have different experiences and different perspectives. In a sense we all live in our own bubbles.</p>