<p>This is a really basic formula I worked out that might be interesting to some of you guys that like things mathematically written out. </p>
<p>y=( (100)*(1-( (1-.z)^(1/x) ) ) </p>
<p>x=the number of schools that you are applying to (works best if they are your reach schools and are all nearly equally competitive)
y=the required % chance of admission you need (at each school separately) in order to achieve a z% chance of being admitted to one or more of the schools you applied to</p>
<p>For example, if you desired a 90% chance of being admitted to one of your reach schools, you would plug in: y=( (100)*(1- (.10^ (1/x) ) ). From the table feature of your graphing calculator you can see that if you apply to 3 reaches, then you'll need an average acceptance rate at each school of 47%. If you apply to 5 schools, you'll need an average acceptance rate of only 32%.</p>
<p>These numbers are meaningless. Impossible to reduce this down to any formula, particularly when you consider the size of samples and the nature of the admission process. Also you can’t simply label a university as a reach and add it into a variable. kthx.</p>
<p>I realize that the formula would only be useful for very roughly estimating appropriate goals, but I don’t think it’s meaningless. It does a good job of conveying the effects of applying to different numbers of reach schools.</p>
<p>I think it could actually be a good tool to show people who have low chances of getting into top schools that applying to a dozen reach schoools doesn’t guarantee them an acceptance at all.</p>
<p>Thanks for the comment, hahalolk. It might also help encourage qualified applicants to consider applying to 4 or 5 reaches instead of fixating on just one dream school if they can see how the percentages work out.</p>
<p>No. The numbers are complete and utter nonsense. Every applicant realizes that if they apply to more reaches, they have a greater chance of getting into one. Can be much more frankly portrayed in a logistic function.</p>
<p>Suggesting that applying to a certain number of reaches with a certain average admission rate can guarantee a certain chance of admission is absolutely absurd. You also assume that the applicant has an equal footing at each reach school, which is never accurate.</p>
<p>I may have worded by first post badly. What I meant by average acceptance rate was not the acceptance rate of the school but instead the chance of acceptance for the individual. Clearly, some outstanding applicants have a much higher than 7% chance of admission to Harvard. Likewise, I don’t think it is impossible to estimate one’s own chance of admission to a given school based on objective stats and ECs. </p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by guaranteeing a certain chance of admission. If there is around a 70% chance of something happening, it is not guaranteed that it will happen, but it is not unreasonable to ballpark the figure to between 60% and 80% (in most cases). </p>
<p>To reiterate, I’m not saying this is anywhere close to exact, but I believe it is useful for establishing goals based on your approximate required % chance of admission.</p>
This might be somewhat true if you are applying to an average school (where they crunch numbers to decide if you get in). If you are applying to an elite school, this is totally unreasonable. Admission is far too subjective. </p>
<p>Even still, you are taking a shot in the dark at with your reach admission chance and using it to estimate the chance of getting into any of your reaches. It’s not even ballpark at that point. It’s practically based on your opinion of yourself and your confidence.</p>
<p>I recognize that admissions to the most selective colleges is very unpredictable. The formula I posted is much more useful if you start by plugging in z (what % chance of getting into at least one of your reaches) to find x (what chance for admission you need at each school in order to achieve z). Using the formula, someone who wants a 90% chance of getting into Harvard, Yale, or both requires a 68% chance of admission at each school. This part is not based at all on opinion; it’s just derived from finding the odds of not getting into either one (.32*.32=.10) and subtracting from one.</p>
<p>Given how low the admissions rate is for the average student applying to Harvard and Yale, the person using the formula would realize that unless they have really amazing stats and a couple of hooks, they should not count on getting into Harvard or Yale. </p>
<p>I understand that the formula is of little practical value to someone who wants to estimate their chances of getting into one of their reaches, but that doesn’t mean that it is “absolutely absurd.”</p>
<p>I think there was a misunderstanding (probably had something to do with my misleading title). The formula isn’t meant to estimate your chance of admission to a reach school but to tell you what chance for admission you need in order to have a given chance of getting into one or more of your reaches. That part is just really basic statistics. I was thinking that that information might help people establish a goal for their stats and ECs.</p>
<p>But anyone’s given “chance of admission” at a given school is quite impossible to objectively quantify or estimate in a meaningful way. Garbage in, garbage out.</p>
<p>^Yes, there is a rough relationship between the number of schools you apply to and the chance of you getting in to one of them, for schools of a given selectivity. I’m glad you agree that the numbers are of little practical value.</p>
<p>The formula is useless because this relationship is something first graders understand. If you do not understand this concept, you should not be admitted into any college. It is literally childhood statistics.</p>
<p>I want a really rare Pokemon card. Would it be better to buy 2 packs or cards or 8 packs of cards? 8, duh. If I buy 20 packs of cards, will I definitely get the card? No, they could all not have them. But the more, the better chance.</p>
<p>I don’t really want the rare card anymore. Should I just buy 2 packs or 8? There’s no reason to buy 8 since I don’t want it really bad. I probably won’t get it though.</p>
<p>Oh look, a formula that will give me some useless numbers that will confirm this relationship!</p>
<p>You’re right. The math involved is extremely basic and I’ve been saying so the whole time. I thought someone might find it interesting to see the graph and the table of values using their graphing calc and I figured posting the formula would save them a little bit of time. Sorry for posting?</p>