Lottery metaphor exaggerates situation

<br>


<br>

<p>That is why we lumped matches and safeties together for the purpose of deciding how many applications were enough. I believe very strongly, as Calmom's daughter illustrates, that there is a law of diminishing returns, there is a number of applications for an individual that is the most that child can do well - beyond that they all sound the same, I think it has a lot to do with the kid's desire and ability to differentiate among their choices. Also, I think it is pretty natural for the kid to "dash off" the safety application - after all it is a safety. That is why I'm a big proponent of trying to find a rolling admission, by the numbers school that doesn't require any sort of personal statement. Once that school is in the bag, it is easy for most kids to find one or 2 more selective safeties and spend time showing interest and crafting a good application for those schools. If maximum merit aid is not an issue, then that strategy will work well for most high stat students.</p>

<p>The lottery myth most hurts the students with the least real chance - OK, so your parents can afford the $60, and you have 5 Bs and 1550 SATs, send that app into Harvard, you have nothing to lose but $60. But, what about the kid who thinks that 20 apps significantly improve his odds over 8 or 10? Can you really think that it will? How much does that cost? 3togo is right to some extent, I believe, the strong student who adds 2 well done apps to a list of 8 - 3 safeties, 5 match/reaches going to 3 safeties and 7 match/reaches - probably has decreased the likelihood of striking out with the match/reaches and improved the possiblity of having a choice. You just absolutely cannot predict for any one school, just for the group, AND you cannot reduce the chance to striking out to 0, you can just make the risk acceptably low.</p>