<p>
First of all, we see those subsets all the time -- there is a kid at my daughter's high school who was accepted at almost all elites that he applied to, including at least 4 Ivies or Ivy-equivalents; there was a kid this year from Texas who posts here who got into all 8 Ivies,to the consternation of many parents; and on our master list of acceptances ror this year we have reports of multiple Ivy or equivalent acceptances from californiakid, finale, Yomama, and NCEph. So basically over the years I have seen plenty of kids who get into all or nearly all of the super-reach schools that they apply to. And there are far more who get rejected from all -- I honestly can't count the number of kids over the years I have seen go that route. </p>
<p>Secondly, the whole point I am making is that all the schools are different, and each are looking for different qualities. That was Quiltguru's point: you have to do the research & inquiry to figure out whether or not Yale is going to be looking for cellists this year. A two-way fit is important too -- I find it hard to believe that many kids would be equally suited to Brown and to Columbia. So your whole point ignores the fact that Dartmouth may be looking for something entirely different than Yale in a given year -- the fact that a student can be accepted by Harvard but rejected by Princeton is as much evidence that the colleges are looking for different qualities as it can br used to justify the lottery view.</p>
<p>Finally, I never said that you can increase the odds to 100%. If a student targets 4 extremely selective schools and crafts his applications perfectly, playing on whatever hooks he's got, so as to increase odds of admission at each school to 70% ... there is still a 30% chance of being rejected at each.<br>
Plus, the whole process is individualized -- not everyone is going to be able to build on their credentials to increase the odds to that level. But that's a lot better than 10% odds of admission.</p>
<p>Bottom line - statistically, if you go in with less than 50% odds of being admitted, chances are you will be rejected. The more schools you apply to, the greater the chances of rejection - because the odds favor rejection. </p>
<p>What you do by taking a lottery approach is put the kid in competion with other kids who have better odds of admission. Intead of working to increase odds at college A, you are leaving the odds at colleges A-G the same -- and at each school the competition involves kids who are focused narrowly and have thus have better odds of getting in. I don't see how the student who applies to 8 schools and wins admission to 2 has done better than the student who applies to 4 schools and is admitted to 3. I am sure that the first student will rationalize that it's all a lottery, and feel proud of the choice to apply to so many, and assume that the second student just got lucky. </p>
<p>But have you ever noticed how some kids just seem to have all the luck?</p>