<p>For those of you unfamiliar with the tool, parchment gives what it calls an Admissions Prediction based on your stats (transcript and test scores) which is the percentage of students admitted with comparable stats. In hindsight we put too much stock in these numbers and were left disappointed with the end results. Below is a list of Admissions predictions made by parchment for us for the schools we applied to, ordered by USNWR rankings for the schools along with the actual results. I also think the end numbers were even higher when the final semester grades were included but we never looked.</p>
<p>% actual result
== =========
9 rejected
25 rejected
34 rejected
70 wait list
94 wait list
97 wait list and he was a legacy applicant!
94 wait list
100 accepted
99 accepted
100 accepted
100 accepted</p>
<p>If everyone who used it went back and put in their results, it might be an itty bitty bit more accurate. I found it slightly useful to ballpark the selectivity of the schools my son was interested in. And I did go back and put his results in, maybe it will help someone else. </p>
<p>Remember it’s prediction is solely depending on scores and GPA, while the real admission is not. If your EC and/or essays are a bit below average, that may happen. For my D, it is quite accurate. She was rejected by the school with 20% chance, but accepted by all 6 schools with 50-100% chance. Nevertheless, no one should take these predictions too seriously as there are many factors may affect your admission decisions.</p>
<p>For those of you who found it fairly accurate, I’m curious about your financial need. My theory from this is that financial need hit us with the wait list schools where the parchment number suggested a reasonably easy admit. With this being our second child in school our EFC was significantly lower than when the first applied. All but the highest ranked of the wait list schools were privates so they would have been on the hook to shell out aid. I can’t prove it and no one in admissions would ever admit it but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.</p>
<p>I realize a lot of other factors weigh in but other than recruited athletes and famous families I don’t think my son’s EC’s, LOR’s, and essays would have been a negative pull as they were well reviewed and strong, speaking as an objective dad ;-)</p>
<p>I don’t think Parchment consider the need factor and all schools my D applied are need blinded and most do not meet need anyway. The one that is at 50% has need fully met. If a school is not need blind (i.e. need-sensitive), then the need would be one of the factor that may affect the chance.</p>
<p>I should add that although we’re not qualified for any need-based aid, my D received merit money on 3 schools:
USC (SoCal) - 1/2 Tuition about $23K (Presidential)
Case Western - 30K
UCLA - 2k (Regents)</p>
<p>Parchment was not very accurate for my D either, but I believe it was because of her test score/GPA disconnect (2100/3.4UW) and not particularly good fall semester grades this year. She was denied from a school where the prediction was 99% chance of acceptance (but I was not terribly surprised since I looked at other sources like the actual stats of enrolled students).</p>
<p>Looking at the OP, it appears to me that it is more likely that the problem was with the rest of the application than with Parchment. I suspect weak essays and poor teacher recommendations may have been the culprit.</p>
<p>Parchment is a very limited, crude tool with self-reported data. The problem is not with Parchment, the problem is with people who treat it like it’s gospel. If available, Naviance is far more accurate for any particular student, and even then, it’s still just a rough estimate that you need to eyeball, not a guarantee.</p>
<p>Parchment predictions are based on large numbers of students. The predictions are far more accurate when averaged across large number of students than for individual students. An individual student might have weak LORs, essays, ECs, or countless other things compared to the other members with similar stats, which leads to the individual getting multiple decision results that don’t match well predictions. It’s a very useful tool, if you understand and consider its limitations.</p>
<p>The assumption of an otherwise weak application did not apply here as already said earlier in the thread. Can’t prove it and don’t wish to.</p>
<p>The guidance dept suggested that demonstrated interest, legacy, single parent status, and ethnicity may have worked against him. Not knowing what was meant by “single parent status” I guess the implication is that a white male from NH whose parents are married makes for a bad candidate for college these days unless they are legacy (which he was at one of the wait list schools) that demonstrates an intense desire to attend school X where X is multiple schools. Is my bitterness seeping through again? ;-)</p>
<p>Still, I maintain that had we been full pay he’s in at all 4 wait list schools or at least 3 of them and I have heard nothing to sway me to the contrary. A colleague told me that an admissions officer at an elite LA school in the northeast acknowledged that virtually no school is truly need blind as they have a budget to work against. A rare honest moment from an admissions officer. Unless you are a rock star candidate or fill some quota for a given school you better have very little financial need.</p>
<p>There may be other reasons. The fact that the estimation is off for the full spectrum of schools suggests a hidden reason somewhere. It may be an error in the calculation of GPA, downward trend in GPA, school report, or recommendation letters.
By the way, the worse combination for top schools are Asian male from CA/NY/NJ. ;)</p>