<p>That I agree with! Even low stat kids get admitted to the elite schools. Everyone that applies has some chance albeit a tiny one. Obviously the high stat kids have margin better chance. But it’s like buying 100 lottery tickets vs 1. Yes your odds increased but not by much.</p>
<p>My elder sister received mail from every Ivy League and prestigious international school there is out there, and she only got into the school that she received the least mail from: Brown. She received countless emails and letters from Yale, but didn’t get in. It just goes to show that the advertisement for the schools don’t mean much; they just want you to apply to get a) your application fee and b) an increase in selectivity, as many of you have mentioned. </p>
<p>The problem is, doesn’t it cost more money to pay for the printing of these brochures, the stamps, letters, and people to create and send emails, and actually review the application sent in than it does to get the application fee?</p>
<p>Nope it’s not about “hurting”. All I am trying to say is this. It is really a miracle that a student with weaker profile gets in. It happens to 5 out of 200 maybe.
I was saying about interview thing. I personally don’t like MIT , but there are reasons. But I’m very aware to put my personal feeling aside.
An MIT interviewer said about judging an applicant according to opportunities in MIT forum. It could be 100% true. I’m saying other thing. An interviewer will represent that student according to their website. It is really hard to do this abroad and in many places of US.</p>
<p>Whole thing is this. Technological advances made an incredible impact. Just take a look at application numbers from 2000 and 2012. There were at least 50% increase in app numbers. This make sense. More people are getting encouraged to apply.</p>
<p>Here is my input about how does selectivity plays a role in ranking.</p>
<p>When a university gets nearly 35000 apps, it is really possible that there are at least 10000 students who can be successful at that university. At that time, university selects the most interesting class. By doing that, the university gets little international reputation. In this case 5% is a huge plus. Because it will open opportunity for it to get more qualified people as faculty like noble prize winners. Increase of prestige. Just take a look at chances threads. 80% of those students are worried and padded their resume. But they will apply because of a name, ivy.</p>
<p>Surely the selectivity works in favor of university. Not by much, but by a significant amount. </p>
<p>And I am saying this from a high schooler’s viewpoint. Who doesn’t want to attend a college from 1-10?</p>
<p>About sympathy thing, I can get into 10 out of 10 I am applying. Or not in a single one because of need. It’s not about that. At least I am giving my effort about which I believe in. That’s what matters. Only thing that surprizes me is this. A MIT, Harvard college graduate judging a student by his number of international award when that very student has 4 nationals and 14 regionals. I was dissapointed with their attitude.</p>
<p>And for amount needed for application, it is so much. An application costs about 100 USD at top university. I guess it’s a huge amount.</p>
<p>
This, I don’t agree with. I have interviewed applicants who, objectively, did not have a snowball’s chance. That doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the dozens of truly remarkable, absolutely first-rate young people I’ve interviewed who didn’t get in.</p>
<p>
Then your assertion that HYP et al. only send these things to “get your application fee” doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny, does it?</p>