By which I mean: if you apply to top schools (Ivy league, top 10 LACs, Stanford etc…) with good grades and SAT/ACT (within the norm for the school), a good handful of ECs, complimentary reccomendations and interesting essays, does it then rely mostly on luck as to whether or not you get a place?
Yes.
Not so much luck as just too many qualified students applying to the hyper-competitive schools. I thought two observations put it in perspective.
I visited one of the very top-if not top–LACs with one of my children about six years ago. In the info session, rep said that 70% of applicants were fully qualified academically, and it appeared that they would be great people to have in the school’s community. At the time, the LAC’s acceptance rate was 14%. So only 1 of 5 fully qualified students were accepted.
A few years ago, an education writer asserted that Harvard, or a school like it, could go through the process, select its incoming class, throw that class in the trash can, choose a whole new class, and there would be no discernible difference and the predicted success of the new one would be the same as the old one.
So if a student is qualified, it is somewhat a matter of just having a little something somewhere in the application that strikes the right note with the people reading it.
I’ll note also, it must be really difficult being on the adcom at one of these schools, making many such fine distinctions to come to decisions that mean so much to those who applied.
There is a reason some refer to them as “the lottery schools”…
There have been a million threads on this topic. Someone posts this same question or a version of it at least once a week. No, it’s not a lottery. Your name does not randomly get pulled out of a hat. You need the grades and test scores, you need great recs, excellent ECs, you need to be hooked, or you need to be exceptional, you need to be likable, and a ton of other intangible qualities that are unique to each school. You need to get to the gate, and then the college decides if they open the gate to you based on their needs.
Read this thread, it discusses this same topic in a more analytical way: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1961675-question-about-institutional-priorities-and-chances-acceptances-p1.html
A lottery implies it is totally chance. that is not accurate with the Top schools. They do have certain slots they wish to fill. As was mentioned, they all get almost perfect academic record students applying so it comes down to more subtle things that only the schools know. They might be looking for a person from Utah or Alaska or maybe someone to round out the band. All you can do is apply and hope that your selected.
Agree with #4 - this topic comes up too often on CC. No it is not a lottery - that suggests “chance” or something you do not control. Every applicant controls his/her own application. The Ivies and other top LACs review each application and offer admission to those they think will contribute to their specific community. Make yourself distinctive for them. The combination of excellent grades and scores, together with proven leadership ability (through ECs), and strong recommendations make it more likely that you will be admitted. Then tell your personal story in an essay on why you believe you will contribute to a specific school’s community, and you have done all you can do. When I see comments like it is a “lottery” that tells me the applicant recognizes they did not distinguish themselves enough to be admitted. Just think - if you are admitted to a top school, would you really believe you were “lucky” rather than deserving?
I’ll disagree with the last few posters. Sure those accepting are deserving but so are many who are not. I’m quite sure it is just about a coin flip between some of the choices. But, as stated in previous replies, that is from highly qualified applicants. For sake of argument, say scores and GPA at the 75 percentile mark for the school. I worry that saying doing xyz EC or spending that extra 20 hours on the application will set you apart. Maybe and maybe not.
@Lindagaf said it well. Do what you can to get to the gate but I think there is luck past that if you don’t have a true hook and I’m sure those with hooks miss too unless the hook is a well known last name.
Geographic diversity is one of a few issues that can involve luck at some top schools (e.g. similar candidates from CA vs. MT), but forget about coin flips. These schools are carefully crafting their classes.
It is if you are a child/grand child of hard working/ upper middle class ORMs. These schools hold that against you, they prefer children of bums over average Joes. Though neither of you pick your parents, yet there is a penalty for having above average parents.
It’s not if you are a child/grandchild of a billionaire, celebrity or dignitary, or if you are a child/grand child of an underprivileged URM. Colleges love top 1% and bottom 1%.
It’s not if you go to a rural or inner city or wealthy prep school. It is if you attend a highly competitive affluent suburban high school.
It’s not if you had opportunities to proof yourself, it is if your GC was swamped with 1000 students and didn’t know your name.
Most of the good summer programs are either for poor URM or cost a fortune. Merit ones are few and just another lottery.
However, some lucky and some exceptional people make it every year without any hook or help. Most applicants apply to pay application fee to help these schools raise their acceptance rates.
It is not a lottery, but it can look like a lottery from an outsider’s point of view.
I think the reason this comes up so often is that the answer is both yes and no. No, it’s not a lottery in the sense that it’s random chance. Once you “prove” or “satisfy” that you meet a school’s “requirements” (all those things in quotations marks are a combination of objective and subjective valuations—the earlier in the process, the more objective, the later in the process, more subjective), get past the gatekeepers, and otherwise get your application considered by the “final” admissions committee, then is it a lottery? Again, yes and no. No in the sense that it is not random. Yes, in that at this point, it is probably 99.9% subjective (so here, I am equating the final decision of 100% subjectivity to the feeling that it is random, a crap shoot, nobody can really predict, etc.). But, if it’s truly random, why do some applicants get accepted not just to one “top school”, but more than one? The flip side of that statement is also true: if applicant A is accepted to college C, why did college B reject them unless it was random?
To put this another way, let’s suppose I’m a college coach for the baseball team. I need more pitchers. I analyze potential recruits. I see them play. I look at statistics. I talk to their coach. My final list is 26 pitchers that could help my team. I can only select 3 for my squad. I select pitchers, A, Q, and W. But not the others. Random? Do you think that if asked, I could give a reason for A, Q, and W over the others? I would not have to be right, but I would have a reason. I didn’t just throw 26 note cards down the stairs and take the three that flew the farthest, right?
In other words, it’s random in the sense that no APPLICANT can really predict what any single college will want or do, or how they will evaluate a student based on diverse needs, for any particular year/class. That’s random in one way, to the applicant. It’s never random to the person making the decision. Outside that admissions committee who will know the reason, all the outsiders have, with zero actual insight into the whys, is … random.
at “lottery” schools admissions officers are forced to look for applicants that they can REJECT- there simply are too many “qualified” applicants.
On paper an “equally’” qualified student can get in and another is rejected cause there is not enough room for all of the students they would like to accept. So it CAN seem random to those who are not accepted, because it kinda is.
Thats where wait lists often come into play.
Remember the definition of “Hook” in the context of applications to these schools. Those without “hooks” mean there are tens of “you” with similar grades, similar achievements, similar backgrounds (socioeconomic, racial, gender blah blah) to the admissions office. So how do they pick “you” out of the other “you” in the bucket? It is more random than you think for applicants w/o “Hooks”. It seems so unfair, but it is what it is. If you are 1st Gen, URM, Legacy, DACA kids blah blah - you have “hooks”. But if you are one of the regular upper middle-income class, (White/Asian) kids in a large suburban school, then you better have all sorts of awards, athlete skills to get picked. Better to recognize these factors up front instead setting wrong expectations and hurting the kids’ self-esteem. JMHO
Did I read that correctly @“Yalie 2011” ???. They prefer kids of “bums” over kids of average Joes? They hold it against you if you are the child of hard-working ORM parents? And if you actually attended Yale, I truly can’t believe you just said that.
First of all, as an ORM parent, I won’t complain that my kids don’t get a fair shake in life because they have been fortunate enough to live life without privation, with plenty of resources, an intact family, no discrimination ( primarily if white), no lack of basic necessities, a great education, and everything else that goes along with being a ORM, suburban, middle or upperclass family. And while URM and low SES families might not struggle with all those things, it’s entirely possible they struggle with some of them.
I am going to guess that even at Yale, with its 71% white and Asian students, a substantial number of those students come from nice suburban high schools similar to the one my kids attend. I do not feel that these kids are playing a lottery to get into top colleges. They have a huge advantage right from the start and all the other kids have to work that much harder to earn their place in top colleges. Virtually all kids who get into a college like Yale have worked their tails off to get there, but it’s not a lottery for any of them. The kids who already have a head start in life have to prove themselves too, but it’s often easier for them. Top colleges don’t “hold” anything against kids from ORM schools, but it might be true that their expectations are higher, and rightly so.
I’ve seen individual students recently profiled by USNWR with both low standardized scoring and low GPAs who gained acceptance to top schools (as defined above), so I’m sceptical that the exemplary academic baseline frequently assumed applies at all of these colleges.
I was trying to make my point that they weigh things that no applicant can control, like race, gender, ethnicity, income, standard/size of school, geography, parent’s education, legacy, access to aid or wealth, eligibility for underprivileged summer programs or affordability for elite programs, having dedicated college consultants or overworked GC, exposure to athletics, parents who aren’t first generation college but know nothing about American educational system.
If a bum doesn’t make an effort to pay, his kid gets aid and support to make it to best school he can get in, if an upper middle class parent denies paying, a middle class kid has no choice but to go to whichever school offers merit, even if he is way more qualified and worked even harder to get to a good school. Not saying that kids who have bum parents shouldn’t get support, just reflecting light on unsung issues of middle class kids.
@“Yalie 2011”
I don’t really appreciate how you call them “bums” rather than what they are, which is the poor and underprivileged. I happen to be one of those people. Sure, you can complain about the woes of being a privileged citizen with a nuclear family and access to many things, (side note: “underprivileged summer programs”? Really? Most kids I know go to actual summer programs that are well known and they do this because they are driven and have merit. If these middle class families are so privileged, surely they can send their kid on a summer program, and if not, that does absolutely nothing to weaken their summer experiences. They can get a job, volunteer, self-study. A summer program doesn’t really do much for anyone; it is the experiences they have and how they respond to it that matters.) but the fact of the matter is most of this poorer families that don’t have all of this have to often work harder to get there. I am a leader in many different things that are important to me, and I can barely make it to them because my mom works two jobs to support my family by herself. I have to watch my sister and study, self-study for the ACT and AP exams because I can’t afford the fancy tutors, and yet there are people like you who reduce efforts of people like me once we get in the door. Please, take a step back and look at what you’re saying. The plight of the average and middle class is a real one, but don’t reduce the plight of others to make theirs seem more important.
A lot of it comes down to holistic aspects of admissions: essays, letters of recommendations, and interviews. Whether it’s a lottery depends on how objective you think scoring is for those elements? The notable exception is Caltech, which might be close to accepting the highest stats kids until they run out of slots.
@sumuz People who work hard and can’t make ends meet aren’t bums, bums are one who don’t make an effort though nothing is stopping them. If they make money then they support life style, affairs, addictions etc, not saving for education or rainy days.
I’m saying that different social sections have different sets of problems and using a broad brush to paint all kids from upper middle class looking families as privileged is naivety at best. Only a child of “colored” immigrants who looks different, eats different, prays different, has a different background and stuck between two world, can understand issues of not being able to fit in schools and colleges and not finding sympathy from immigrant parents and culture. You don’t know what kind of social issues they face.