its NEVER about luck when you don't get in

Applying to College
21

<p>

That’s quite correct, on a global “class” level. However, your statement cannot be applied to any individual student. </p>

<p>It’s like a patient with a potentially life-threatening illness asking a doctor, “What are my chances?” For the individual patient, the “chances” are binary - either she is cured or she is not. The “30% chance of survival” doesn’t apply to this person; it applies across the population. It may give the patient some information about the likelihood of success of a particular treatment, as the college admissions process gives some indication of likelihood of admission. But as for the patient, the results of the admissions cycle are binary: either you are admitted or you are not (waitlisting simply extends the waiting period; ultimately, the waitlisted student is admitted or is not admitted). And hte rest of the statistics don’t matter.</p>

<p>

And this is the initial assumption with which I differ - not getting into a particular college does not mean that you made a mistake. Now, if you didn’t build a list properly, so that you didn’t get in anywhere - then yes, that’s a “mistake” from which you could potentially learn something. But not getting into College A, a match school? That’s no indication of a mistake. And the only thing you could necessarily “learn” from it is that College A did not have room for you in the class it wanted to create, for whatever reason it chose. You don’t want to call that “luck”? OK, call it something else. But don’t call it a “mistake.”</p>

22

<p>It’s a crapshoot. you can’t expect anything when applying to ivies</p>

23

<p>yep, I kind of felt uneasy calling it a mistake too. but I should clarify that, while typing that, I was thinking about people who study the “criteria” for getting into HYPSM and work specifically towards fulfulling them - then a rejection would by definition mean that they’d made some mistakes and missteps while working towards their objectives. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You also make the assumption that the lack of room is the reason for rejection for qualified students. But I believe there’s a reason for everything - a reason why one is passed over for that previous spot in favor of another applicant. It’s still a competition, after all, and those who made it had something more, however marginal, that won them their offers. Then the definition of “qualified” is redefined. It’s redefined and narrowed every single year. The concept of luck is built mainly on a specific definition of “qualified”, namely impressive SAT scores, resume, etc - applicant-specific factors - without any reference to selectivity factors like the number of spots and the % of acceptances. It’s based on precedent and memory - of the good old days where getting into Harvard were easier. </p>

<p>I prefer a dynamic definition of “qualified”. It’s simple: if you got in, that means you qualified. If you didn’t, it means you’re not qualified. Doesn’t matter if you’d have gotten in if it were 20 years ago. The competition has changed, and, with it, the definition of “qualified”. Either way, chances are you’ll end up just as happy. In just a few years we’re gonna have many Harvards; we’re gonna have more than a few schools that can collectively evoke the same respect and mystique for applicants 50 years from now that we now feel for those who attended Harvard 50 years ago. That’s the simple beauty of statistics and percentiles.</p>

24

<p>Well, IQ is most often determined by heredity, so is physique. Both are integral to success in life(I know you can argue hard work plays a huge part, but a hardworking person with an IQ of 150 is more likely to succeed than a hard worker with an IQ of 70). </p>

<p>Aren’t both of them dependent on luck, in other words, factors beyond your control?</p>

<p>I would say not only admissions, but even life is largely dependent on luck.</p>

25

<p>which is why so many young people born unfortunately into lower-class families, broken families, poor families, poor environments with bad schools etc. work hard to beat the odds. Isn’t America all about hard work?</p>

26

<p>“We aren’t surprised about most of the people who get in.”</p>

<p>No, but we are often surprised by the people who don’t! I haven’t had a child of mine go through the admissions process yet - but I have seen some amazing kids get waitlisted and rejected. I can’t imagine that they were much different from the kids who got accepted - as you said, screwitlah, “these criteria don’t vary much.” That’s why kids who have amazing GPA, large number of APs, super-high test scores, excellent ECs, excellent recs, etc. don’t get into schools they are qualified to attend. There are just too many qualified kids who want those places at the top schools - it doesn’t mean that the kids who did get accepted are necessarily more worthy or that they worked harder - in many cases, they were just luckier.</p>

27

<p>Yup, LIMOM…That’s exactly why it is just luck…Check out my post #18…Given your screen name, I think you know what I am talking about…</p>

28

<p>You can be absolutely qualified and not get in…it is very arrogant to say that all those that didn’t get in aren’t qualified</p>

<p>if one really believes that 90% of all the applicants to some schools are not qualified, what can i say</p>

29

<p>"It’s simple: if you got in, that means you qualified. If you didn’t, it means you’re not qualified. "</p>

<p>The experts say differently: "[Harvard Dean of Admissions William] Fitzsimmons added that “80 to 90 percent of the applicants are qualified to be [at Harvard].” </p>

<p>[The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Early Acceptances Down Despite Rate Increase](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356848]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356848)</p>

30

<p>Pasteur would agree.</p>

<p>“Chance favors the prepared mind.”</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>that’s one definition of “qualified”. the politically correct one. I’m talking about the dynamic definition, the one that changes every year and the one that’s dependent on who gets in. i.e. if there’re 1500 spots every year, only 1500 is “qualified for Harvard” every year, despite the increase in high school graduates and applications. so “2008-qualified for Harvard” is a more stringent term then “1958-qualified for Harvard”. you get my drift.</p>

32

<p>By the way, you aren’t that smart. I would hate to have to go to a college with someone is clearly ignorant as you.</p>

<p>Enough with the ad hominem attacks though! I’ll now step above the completely un-enlightened level of discourse you pursue…</p>

<p>Admissions personnel are PEOPLE, if you didn’t know. They make mistakes. It can be luck getting into certain colleges. Being a minority or having money is luck. Also, living in a certain region that is competitive or not competitive is also luck. </p>

<p>I agree, I guess, with the point that people shouldn’t cry about it and get on with their lives. Unfairness is endemic to life. But, it doesn’t mean that one should feel that they should’ve done better, when in many cases, people can’t have. </p>

<p>Its mostly not luck, but when there is a lot of competition at certain schools, then YES, luck has a huge role.</p>

33

<p>Also congratulations on wherever you got in OP but let’s keep it at that, shall we? You’ll never know who worked just as hard as you IF NOT HARDER, to be in your position of whatever school you got in. Just because you don’t get into a school doesn’t mean you’re not qualified, especially this year. Colleges were turning down plenty of kids not because they weren’t qualified, but because there is no room for such a pool of great candidates. Just feel lucky and thankful that you got in. It is arrogance to believe that you got in because you are “more qualified” than anyone who was rejected and therefore is the reason you were offered acceptance. Because I am pretty sure I could give examples of wonderful kids who are some of the most qualified people around. But they didn’t get in.</p>

34

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, and I guess it’s okay to have ad hominem attacks on admissions officers. They do make mistakes, but probably not enough to justify blaming them mainly or even partly for rejections. This is just symptomatic of the “the fault is with everyone else” mentality. That notion may not be true all the time. Of course, it’s easier to accept this notion, but carry on doing that and chances are that you won’t learn anything in life. (By now it should be pretty obvious that I’m Asian :))</p>

<p>And you think being a minority is LUCKY? you’re obviously way too obsessed with the college game. In real life, where most people actually live, being a minority entails discrimination, lower standards of living, and many other things that people commonly term “unlucky”. In any case… the minority don’t make up the majority of applicants. and even the minorities don’t get admitted if they’re way off the mark. surprise, surprise. </p>

<p>Luck happens to a few people. Yes, as Chedva says, college admissions is binary to each individual. It doesn’t make us feel better just because most of us didn’t have that kind of luck either. But that’s exactly my point - we shouldn’t even consider ourselves casualties of luck when MOST of us don’t have that college admissions “luck”. We’ve been competing with the 80 or 90% of us who don’t have the luck. It was still mostly equal competition, a competition that we didn’t win. Saying that oh, I didn’t get in because of that lucky 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 of applicants is just a form of denial. It’s more statistically probable that it’s the rest of us - that 9 in 10 or 4 in 5 - who actually did squeeze you out, however marginally.</p>

<p>Yep, I’m not that smart. But I subscribe to the politically-incorrect definition of “qualified” because it’s actually more logically-correct. :slight_smile: I never said that college admissions isn’t about a degree of luck that happens to the few people. But it’s just more likely than not that you lost due to good ol’ fair competition with people just as “unlucky” as you.</p>

35

<p>Im not talking about you! lol</p>

<p>I just read the OP’s posts and was…well…disgusted by his attitude.</p>

<p>EDIT:</p>

<p>I mean luck as in chance. Discrimination not in terms of being chosen for college, by the way ^_^. I’m not against affirmative action, but it is a factor in getting into college. I have friends who are Hispanic whose parents make very large salaries, live very comfortably, and get into schools that my other friends (who are equally or more qualified) get rejected from. I’d say its worth about 100-150 points on your SAT being a minority, roughly.</p>

<p>I’m not talking about blaming acceptance rates. When you are very very qualified for a college, even over-qualified, and you get wait-listed, rejected, then you are in the realm of luck.</p>

<p>Was I blaming admissions officers? I really don’t think I was. I said it is a factor. Please stop misinterpreting what I write…you are almost as bad as the original poster of this thread. In certain scenarios, luck plays a huge factor. I think most people would agree with this. </p>

<p>I’m not talking about:
Example 1: You apply to Harvard with a 1600 and perfect GPA. But thats it. They will probably reject you because of your lack of extra-curriculars, and would be justified to do so.</p>

<p>I’m talking about…
Example 2: You apply to Harvard, 1600, perfect GPA, speak 5 languages fluently, top of your state in swimming, have perfect subject test scores, have great extra curriculars, and so forth. You get rejected. Luck, maybe?</p>

<p>Example 2 happened to a kid I know. It was Stanford, and he got deferred ED. His father also was tenured there for 10 years before his application. LUCKILY, he was accepted from the deferred pool. But to be deferred at all, in my opinion, was…unlucky?</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>By my preferred definition, then that, by definition, means you didn’t qualify. :smiley: It’s a lean and mean definition, mine is.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>He must have lost out, VERY MARGINALLY, to some other guy then. perhaps that margin is statistically insignificant enough for it to be down to luck. maybe not. but it’s still a margin. maybe some other guy just had a little something more. as you said, it’s in your opinion (and ours) that he was unlucky.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, in certain scenarios. they happen to few people though. most people are unlucky. if you’re unlucky, then you’re competing against the vast pool of unlucky people - still a very large pool. Perhaps then all the unlucky people are therefore competing for 1350 out of 1500 spots - the rest of the 150 going to the lucky ones. What’s the biggie? It’s still a pretty large number. It just got a little harder, thats all. With admissions getting more competitive every year, who can tell the difference a few years later? Maybe you were unlucky, but most people are unlucky too. that just cancels out.</p>

37

<p>No it doesn’t cancel out…when you say it cancels out, you negate both sides…what do you mean by canels out?</p>

<p>How does alot of people being unlucky and one being unlucky make neither unlucky?</p>

38

<p>so if you’re saying they’re unlucky, they’re unlucky relative to what? The minority of the applicants having some legacy or ethnicity advantage? The large majority of applicants are unhooked. chances are they’ll be competing against one another. it’s a stretch to blame dumb luck IMO. that’s what i mean. if you want to dispute that, it’s fine by me, as long as you got there by reasoning.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>exactly what i mean. if I’m “unlucky” to be unhooked, and you’re also “unlucky” to be unhooked, then we end up at the same level of “luck”. So when the large majority of applicants are also unhooked… it’s so much more likely that you’ll be competing against an unhooked applicant… and ultimately, it’s so much more likely that you didn’t “unluckily” lose out to a hooked applicant. I think that the “luck” based on being hooked happens to too few people to affect you and me.</p>

39

<p>lol whos this miller who suddenly bludgeons in with his self-righteous and “enlightening” posts?</p>

<p>this is the 3rd time i’m saying it, not getting doesnt mean one isnt qualified, it just means that one was edged out by applicants (not necessarily better) who had sth else to offer that the college needed (better fit)…i’m just saying, what i had learned from my rejections was that if i really wanted to get in/achieve sth, i must be prepared to go the extra mile “in the right direction” (i.e. even if it means finding out whether the college was looking for a tuba player/point guard etc.) and not just shrug off everything as luck and deluding myself into thinking that everything is fine…when theres competition, nth is a given, so you really shouldnt “expect” to get in with certain stats </p>

<p>i agree that when it comes to deciding between 2 applicants with very similar stats, it boils down to a rather subjective decision made by admissions officers, which imo being trained professionals with an acute awareness of the college’s needs, can be expected to do a more than decent job compared to the rest of us, and that is a fact…saying that luck plays a huge factor, that admission depends on the officer’s mood that day, his specific preferences or knowledge, though reasonable given the imperfections in human beings, is afterall still a conjecture thats not backed by hard facts</p>

40

<p>…But each of these “trained professionals” will have different opinions and subtle biases, so, in the end, it’s still not a complete meritocracy.</p>