<p>You tell me: yes or no, with possibly a short explanation on the side.</p>
<p>No, it is not a crapshoot. Overall, students with the most rigorous courseloads, highest grades and scores, and most extraordinary ECs have the best chance of getting in. In addition, students from underrepresented states, income levels and regions of the world also have higher than average chances of getting in as do students whose parents are major donors.</p>
<p>I see this same kind of question on the MIT forum, and I think the answer Northstarmom gave applies well to the admission situation at most of the most highly selective colleges. It is a probabilistic process, NOT a deterministic process, and the way to boost your chances is to prepare well for several years during high school to be academically ready and experienced in self-directed activities. </p>
<p>I have seen another online thread in another place describing the despondency felt by a family whose son applied SCEA to Stanford this year. He was rejected. That's always the risk if you apply to a highly selective college: you might end up as part of the majority of applicants who can't be offered spaces in the entering class. But that risk of not getting in is total for someone who doesn't apply at all, and reduced for someone who prepares to meet the challenge of studying and living at a highly selective college.</p>
<p>"crapshoot" is a word signaling that the person who uses it doesn't have a clue how college admissions work</p>
<p>Is it a crapshoot? no? Is there definites? of course not. One with amazing stats and ECs might get rejected, but someone else who comparatively might seen a weaker candidate might be accepted? Why you may ask? It's about the overall package and about balancing the class? I really really believe what my interviewer told me: Believe in the system. The Harvard Admissions Committee really does pick people who fit at Harvard in a very thorough process. There are many good colleges. If you don't get it, it only means Harvard was not the best fit for you, but there is a school out there. :) And really, I do believe this. And that doens't mean you shouldn't try? But remember everything counts: ECs, grades, SATs, Interview, Recs :)</p>
<p>affirmative action aside, it is not a crapshoot.
but once you count affirmative action, it is most definitely a crapshoot.</p>
<p>By the words of people that replied in this thread, I would assume it to be, in fact, unpredictable for people who actually apply.</p>
<p>If seemingly well-qualified people are both accepted and rejected, and seemingly unqualified people are accepted and rejected, doesn't this imply an equal-chance rating overall? Which would essentially make the process random, which would lead to some very different admissions decisions.</p>
<p>So it isn't like it is a crapshoot, but more of an unpredictable rating. You have to hope that the group of admissions reviewers likes you, and if they do, you are probably in. </p>
<p>In life, success is all about opportunity. Each person has their own set of resources and skills, and the combination of these two leads to success or failure, at least in the general sense, in life. Normally, this fact is accepted as reality. However, when you have a university that must make these qualitative decisions on its own, with its relatively narrow scope of view, there are going to be unpredictable decisions. People will be angry because they feel that they are being rated by society, when in fact it is just a small group of college admissions people.</p>
<p>Bottom line, Harvard is great, but it isn't required for perceived success, so just let it be.</p>
<p>"If seemingly well-qualified people are both accepted and rejected, and seemingly unqualified people are accepted and rejected, doesn't this imply an equal-chance rating overall? "</p>
<p>I've never seen seemingly unqualified people accepted at Harvard, which graduates within 6 years of entrance the overwhelming majority of its students, including URMs. Some of the small percentage of students who don't graduate transfer elsewhere or return to Harvard and eventually graduate from it.</p>
<p>Here's a story from the Harvard Crimson about the graduation rates:</p>
<p>"Harvards graduation rate for black students rose to 95 percent this yeara 2 percent jumpas the College leapfrogged Amherst to lead the nation and remain over 50 percentage points above the national mean. </p>
<p>In an article in its Winter 2005/2006 edition, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE) reported that while nationally black students graduate at a dismally low 42 percent, the rate is highest at the nations most prestigious institutions. Amherst and Princeton University ranked second and third, and only four of the nations highly-ranked schools graduate less than 70 percent of black students, according to JBHE. </p>
<p>Harvards white students graduate at a rate of 97 percent, giving Harvard one of the nations smallest graduate rate differentials between black and white students." <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512166%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512166</a></p>
<p>"underrepresented states, income levels and regions of the world"</p>
<p>if Harvard is need-blind, how would income levels be a factor in admissions?</p>
<p>Being need blind means that Harvard wouldn't reject students due to their having high financial need.</p>
<p>Harvard wants students from a variety of socioeconomic levels, so anyone who's very poor has an advantage because relatively few very poor students have the stats and academic background that qualify them for admission. Relatively few poor students also are interested in going to Harvard. Many are first generation college and would prefer going to a school that's near their own community and doesn't have the reputation for snobbishness that Harvard has.</p>
<p>^i think the opposite of ......"Many are first generation college and would prefer going to a school that's near their own community and doesn't have the reputation for snobbishness that Harvard has.".....according to my own experience, i am applying to places that are farther from home, not b/c i have problems but the chance to excel can not be given up to distance...and if a students poor, they aren't living in the nicest community....Cambridge on the other hand isn't too shabby. i think the instances of smart low-income children attending lesser nearby schools is more out of circumstance and nessecity than out of desire to be close to the community. i tell you i won't be missing mine!</p>
<p>oh, and snobbiness....there's that at every school and the amazingness of the people who go there far outweight the few that maybe super-elitist. :)</p>
<p>That's not what I mean by seemingly unqualified.</p>
<p>By unqualified, I mean that guy with a 30 ACT score that gets in. Most people would say that he is horribly at a disadvantage, while I would say that he has just a good of a shot compared to the 36 ACT guy because the 30 guy might be able to make up for it in other areas that still might not make the appearance of a Harvard-material person.</p>
<p>The aspect of the admission process that makes it SEEM like a crapshoot is the unavailability of space. There is simply not enough space for ALL qualified applicants. Therefore, a student could have top scores, grades, ECs, etc. but he/she will be rejected because in that particular year there wasn't enough room.</p>
<p>Admissions processes, especially for Ivy League schools, could be best described as mathematically chaotic behavior, not mathematically random behavior.</p>
<p>I think the actual admissions process is not a "crapshoot" . . . your application is very carefully deliberated.</p>
<p>Every thing else before the actual admissions process is a "crapshoot" or depends on a lot of luck and just seizing opportunities. Filling out an application could be a crapshoot. </p>
<p>but I think Harvard wants students who, regardless of their circumstances, were able to use the resources in their environment and seize the available opportunities to succeed within or beyond the context of their surroundings.</p>
<p>Hmm . . . the college admissions process is best described as "human" . . .</p>
<p>it is a very human process.</p>
<p>To play devil's advocate, I think that it is more of a crapshoot than people are describing it. Of course, you increase your chances if you're excellent in every aspect of your application. However, at a place like Harvard, you can be a perfect scorer, have a 4.0, done research, be a legacy, and STILL get rejected. It is a crapshoot in the sense that you can take absolute advantage of all opportunities given and be the best you could've possibly been, but you may still not get in. If you ask the Harvard admissions people to repick the class of 2010 without any prior memory, I don't think they would've picked the exact same class, or maybe even close to that. With so many stellar applicants, the choices certainly have a degree of randomness.</p>
<p>I was accepted at my ED school over people who I think are absolutely better than me. I attribute some of this acceptance to luck wokring in my favor that day.</p>
<p>In my experience, the qualified children of my friends have almost universally gotten in where they wanted to go (their "first choice" schools.) Parents have a responsibility to lead their children in a realistic direction. When they do so, whining about it being a "crapshoot" should not result. These are not random processes.</p>
<p>To put a specific point on this, and recognizing that we are talking about elite college admissions, here are actual experiences over the last five years or so, including this year:</p>
<p>Family A</p>
<p>Father Dartmouth, Princeton, Oxford (Marshall), Harvard Law
Mother Boston University, U. of North Carolina </p>
<p>Oldest son, Princeton (1st in class at public high school)
Second son, Boston College (top quarter, same high school)
Only daughter, Brown ED this year (top 15% same high school, recruited athlete)</p>
<p>Family B</p>
<p>Father Harvard, Oxford (Rhodes), Harvard Law
Mother St. Mary's (Indiana)</p>
<p>First son Harvard (top 10 or so parochial school)
Second son Harvard (top 20 or so parochial school, lightly recruited athlete)
Third son St. Vincent's in western PA (middle of class, same parochial)
Daughter Boston College (top half, private school) </p>
<p>Family C</p>
<p>Father Stanford, UCLA MBA
Mother Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science (now Philadelphia U) </p>
<p>First son Rochester Institute of Technology (top quarter public)
Second son Stanford EA this year (top 10 or so same public)</p>
<p>Family D</p>
<p>Father Princeton, Oxford (Rhodes), Harvard Law
Mother Mount Holyoke, U. of Pittsburgh</p>
<p>First son Princeton (near top of class at public)
Second son Colgate (top quarter, same public)</p>
<p>I don't mean these are "typical" and recognize the legacy effect, but ALL of these students got into their first choice schools because they were realistic about their choices.</p>
<p>Someone who is top 10% at an okay high school with 2000 or so on SAT's can't realistically expect admission at an elite college unless he or she has a major hook, such as being a recruited athlete or URM or some other significant accomplishment. </p>
<p>If such a student does not get into HYPS or Cornell or Amherst or Dartmouth, he or she can't honestly point to "crapshoot" nature of admissions. Instead, they were simply not well qualified for the highly competitive process. The error, and the responsibility, is likely the parents' and their saying, or permitting their son or daughter to say, the process is "random" or "unfair" is simply evading responsiblity and refusing to engage in a reasoned examination of cause. </p>
<p>That said, the occasional top 10%, 2000 SAT student does get in to all of these schools. There are, I think it can fairly be said, reasons for that which may be known to no one outside the adcoms. The majority with similar statistics who do not gain admission should not point out the fact that some similarly situated do in fact get accepted as evidence of the randomness (or "crapshoot" nature) of the application process. In fact, the small number admitted of those similarly situated is evidence of the rationality of the process.</p>
<p>But, we're usually not simply talking about top 10% kids with 2000 SATs. The process is practically as unreliable even for 2300, top 5%, elite private school kids. I think that if you have around a 2250 or so, excellent grades, and you are devoted to your activities, you are of Ivy-caliber. However, there's an excellent chace you still won't get in to any Ivies. That is where the crapshoot comes in.</p>
<p>Exactly right, Kazoa. Redcrimblue is fundamentally flawed in implying that the higher scores get a direct benefit at these top schools, because it just is not true at all.</p>
<p>As soon as you deny a 36, 2400, 4.0 kid, you are expecting something beyond that, which IS random and subjective.</p>
<p>Not random. Subjective, yes.</p>