Is getting into a top college a "crap shoot" or "dumb luck"?

Class of 2019 has 63% from public schools, 10% approx. from parochial and 26% from private.

“Among many there is a lack of appreciation for the significance of character and communication skills and heart or compassion and empathy. As if those things are not talents or gifts to be valued and considered.
What characteristics do we want leaders in our society to have?”

They definitely are, but adcoms can’t figure that out from an application of 17 or 18 year olds who are going to change their character significantly over the next 5-10 years. They’re human and going to make a mistakes, a lot of them, including who to accept or reject. So even though I love to bring up the Harvard rescinding the admits of 10 applicants due to what they found out afterwards regarding their character, it can be tough to find out things like character.

Your percentages are way off. For example, the article at http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/12/13/making-harvard-feeder-schools/?page=single states 6% of students at H came from their top 10 high schools, not 30%. By far the largest number came from Boston Latin, which is a non-boarding school public.

Only one of those schools is a non-exam public school, Lexington. Stuyvesant and Boston Latin are both exam schools.

In my view, the families of students who were admitted to top schools and the students themselves (to some degree) have a vested interest in thinking that the choices have no random elements, while those who were not so fortunate (or not so well-qualified) have a vested interest in thinking that it’s all a lottery.

I mentioned a thought-experiment a while back that could test for randomness–in principle–by just interchanging the readers of the files within a particular college and changing the order in which the applications were read. I think that quite a few of the admitted students would be admitted in any committee scenario. A very large fraction of the rejected applicants would be rejected in any scenario, just on the statistical odds. But then in some scenarios (elements in the personal statements that resonated or not with different readers, different conclusions drawn from the same statements, different estimations by different readers of just how much advantage a particular private school confers, different estimates of parental influence, different weights given to different ECs . . . ), some of those who were admitted would be rejected, and some who had been rejected would be admitted. Probably many of their views on the high-quality vs. lottery character of admissions would also flip-flop, if they knew only about the new-scenario outcome, and not the original outcome.

Some of the admissions people are also quite committed to the idea that their processes work correctly, bordering on flawlessly. Some of them are very dug-in on that, and cannot be persuaded that a rejection was due to anything other than a short-coming in the application. Some CC posters share that view. I am happy to grant that the admissions processes at the top schools are truly excellent, given their admissions philosophies. But it should stand to reason that the admissions processes are not completely flawless, even in terms of the implementation of the committees’ own philosophies.

Personal qualities matter. They matter very much. Yet from time to time, the top schools will reject an applicant with both exceptional academic strength and sterling character, including strong compassion. It’s been difficult for many CC posters to grant any credence to this statement. It beggars belief that I would know the only instance of a rejection of that type (not a family member).

I know enough students who were admitted to the top schools (including multiple family members) and enough students who were rejected to have a glimmering (at least) of the strength of the competition.

I agree that the standards for athletes are lower, and wish it wasn’t the case but, the truth is, the athletes are chosen much more carefully than other students; it’s just that they’re chosen under a different set of criteria. The coaches screen and choose their prospects very carefully, certainly with more care and attention than than that given non-athletes, for whom admissions is more random.

Probably closer to describe the process as non-deterministic as opposed to random. If it was random and the @QuantMech experiment was run the results could be totally different. I don’t think that would happen (assuming a well established process). Instead I think that that only some minority would change.

If at the fringes there were two applicants that looked very similar, I doubt that the admissions folks would toss a (fair) coin to determine who to admit. Instead, I think the applications would be re-compared and one chosen for some reason. We don’t know that reason. That’s why there are so many questions.

It’s not that simple. A good article describing athletic recruiting admissions at the Ivy league is at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/sports/before-athletic-recruiting-in-the-ivy-league-some-math.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=EC48D643FCA8C40FE8C8C1B00FFDC91E&gwt=pay . A quote from the article is below:

I’ve interviewed kids for Stanford. One of the kids I interviewed was highly nationally ranked in his sport such that I expect he would have been one of the best players on Stanford’s team, had outstanding academic stats that are well above Stanford’s average, took an extremely rigorous HS curriculum, and had been in communication with Stanford’s coach about his admission. He was rejected.

Rejecting a recruit because the recruit had not taken chemistry since 10th grade? You have got to be kidding me! That is among the more ridiculous reasons for a rejection that I have ever seen. That also has to be highly variable depending on the readers or the particular composition of the committee.

No science since 10th grade? That’s something different. But no chemistry since 10th grade? As dearly as I love chemistry . . .

It isn’t luck or random from the perspective of the schools doing the choosing, but there is a certain amount of luck involved from the perspective of the applicants.

The classic “average-excellent” student could probably identify 40 or more colleges and universities in the US where they could be blissfully happy and where they stood a good chance at being accepted. Not a feasible number to apply to though (yes, people try). So in practice, our “average-excellent” student will choose maybe 8 of those dream colleges along with a good selection of safeties. Making those choices between largely equivalent schools is where the luck comes in…maybe an application reader at Williams would have been charmed by an essay which left the Amherst reader flat but we’ll never know.

Cornell University publishes their incoming freshman stats and for CO2020 this was their admissions breakdown

ED Applicants: 4,882 / Admits: 1,340 (27.4%)
RD Applicants: 40,083 / Admits: 4,997 (12.5%)

6.6% of total admits were recruited athletes and not all were admitted via ED.

For Cornell, fit and alignment with the school’s mission plays a large part. They’re not necessarily looking for perfect stats, they want students passionate about something that will contribute to society, and in the case with their land grant colleges, to NY state. Also, it depends on what college a student is applying to and their stats against other students applying to same college.

“Cornell’s mission is to discover, preserve, and disseminate knowledge; produce creative work; and promote a culture of broad inquiry throughout and beyond the Cornell community. Cornell also aims, through public service, to enhance the lives and livelihoods of its students, the people of New York, and others around the world. Cornell’s faculty, students, alumni, and staff strive toward these objectives in a context of freedom and responsibility. We foster initiative, integrity, and excellence, in an environment of collegiality, civility, and responsible stewardship. As the land-grant university for New York, we apply the results of our endeavors in service to our alumni, the community, the state, the nation, and the world.”

In their published stats, Cornell also specifies breakdown of ethnic background, internationals, first gen, percent male and female, geographic area, etc. The school prides itself on the diversity of their incoming class. This tells me they do look at an overall diverse student body so that may affect who they offer admission to.

My son was a recruited athlete and he was vetted thoroughly before he took his OV. He had to have a certain AI, an essay written and our financials looked over before they flew him out. He had interviews with coaches, was asked what he planned to study (thus knowing which college he would be applying to within Cornell). Plus, feedback from the team was considered. Times that by how many other recruits were being considered for his spot and that’s how tough it is. It’s not a shoo in as many would like to think at tippy top schools.

Are elite school admissions a crapshoot? Yes, just as much as it is sending out your resume for a particular job; you have no idea about the quality or quantity of the competition you’re up against.

“Virtually every coach interviewed had a story about a recruit with a 210 A.I. (a 4.0 student with roughly 1,300 on the two-part SAT) who was rejected for admission for various reasons — a poor interview, a sloppy essay, because the recruit had not taken chemistry since 10th grade or because the recruit’s transcript lacked enough Advanced Placement classes.”

That’s the definition of anecdotal, one athlete out of the hundreds they’ve coached. I’d venture 99 out of every 100 athletes over 200 is admitted, I’ll grant that one is rejected. I actually am not against athletes getting preference, just saying that they’re a significant part of the class (13% is actually higher than I thought) and go through a different but still relaxed admissions process. A non-athlete with a 3.0/1140 is not applying to an ivy, not even coming close to applying.

“The coaches screen and choose their prospects very carefully, certainly with more care and attention than than that given non-athletes, for whom admissions is more random.”

Do you really believe this? Do you think the players at the top basketball schools that are going pro after one year, are going to class, joining a service club? And we’re talking Duke, UCLA, Michigan, UNC, superb academic schools.

“They’re not necessarily looking for perfect stats, they want students passionate about something that will contribute to society,”

Ok so every top college says that, for Cornell, the 25-75 SATs are 1390-1550, so you can be passionate but you better have a 1450 if you want a good change at getting in. I wonder how may passionate people with a 1100 get in.

You are guessing at numbers, and such guesses may be inaccurate, like your earlier guesses about 30% from top 10 high schools. I’d guess completely different numbers, as I think would most persons knowledgeable about AI bands . In the end, neither one of us knows the actual numbers, but what we do know is that recruits go through the process described in the article that may include being rejected over things like poor essays, lack of APs, and similar… not just a guaranteed admit.

Still thinking about the recruited athlete who was supposedly rejected because the recruit hadn’t taken chemistry since 10th grade. The initial reader of the file was an alum? Who was a retired Dupont executive? And decided to enforce “Better living through chemistry” with a vengeance?

Yes, I believe it. And no doubt you would have agreed too if you had considered the rest of what I wrote: “…it’s just that they’re chosen under a different set of criteria.”

I meant what I wrote, that is, that coaches choose their prospects carefully, not that they choose their prospects to find the most academically capable. Perhaps it wasn’t obvious so I’ll be more clear. Coaches screen and choose their prospects very carefully, in order to get the best athletes that will be accepted by the school.

That said, recruited athletes are often extremely well qualified academically. Consider the athletic recruit ranked second in the country in his sport, with a 235 AI, which is higher than any college in the country, who was recruited by HYPS and went on to graduate magna cum laude from his choice of those. For this student admissions wasn’t random at all. But if he hadn’t been an athlete, admissions would have been much more random.

With that explanation, can we agree that “coaches screen and choose their prospects very carefully, certainly with more care and attention than than that given non-athletes, for whom admissions is more random”?

“With that explanation, can we agree that “coaches screen and choose their prospects very carefully, certainly with more care and attention than than that given non-athletes, for whom admissions is more random”?”

I agree that the athlete’s chances of admissions are not as random, indeed if you have scholarship offers as a junior for football from Stanford, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Michigan, Harvard (non-scholarship), there is no randomness in that, in fact now the power shifts to the player, not the school.

As for carefully choosing, for the ivies yes, but outside of that it cannot be made generally, the graduation rates of athletes at many other schools, admittedly public but still academically excellent, is too low - from 44% to 70% to say the coach carefully chose someone that can balance academics with athletics.

Too lazy to read all the above replies, but would like to address the OP’s original question. With admissions rate in the single digit for most top colleges, especially the HYPS, it would be literally a crap shot and a lot of luck one gets admitted without any solid hook. Reading from various other threads, out of the 40 to 50 thousand applying to tops schools, about a third are all well qualified to succeed in their school. A good majority of those top third would have perfect or near perfect grades and test scores, with impressive ECs and LoRs. So we’re talking about at least 10K applicants for only 1 to 2 thousand spots. So yes it would take a lot of luck to get admitted. However, for someone with a very strong hook, especially a highly ranked athlete with solid grades, it’s almost a guarantee that he/she will be admitted, as long as they passed the preread by the admissions officer. For these applicant there is no luck involved, just pure talent.

Note that there is another thread going on about letters of recommendation… Letters of recommendation are among the least observable parts of one’s application, and the part that is most influenced by factors outside the student’s control (i.e. how good are the teacher and counselor at writing the letters of recommendation, and how does one know which teachers will write better recommendations for a strong student?).

Anyone who gets accepted is sure that luck had nothing to do with it, while anyone rejected will blame dumb luck.