<br>
<blockquote> <p>Secondly, the whole point I am making is that all the schools are different, and each are looking for different qualities.<<</p>
<p>And if the same basic application is used for each school, then the same flaws in the application may torpedo chances for each school.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Calmom -</p>
<p>You are arguing with yourself. In one post you say that different schools are looking for different things, which quite rightly suggests that if you happen to apply to the one that is looking for your qualities, your chances of being admitted will be increased. But three posts later you assert that the same "flaw" that keeps you out of one school will also torpedo your chances at the others, which quite wrongly suggests that failure (or success) at one high-end school predicts failure (or success) at all the others. </p>
<p>You were closer to correct in the first statement. Which is why I advocate that any students <em>with high-end credentials</em> can increase their odds of getting into one high end school by applying to several, perhaps many, of them -- to find the one or two that are looking for their particular "different qualities."</p>
<p>CC is replete with counter-examples to your second statement. Again, <em>assuming the kid has high-end qualifications</em>, getting rejected from one high-end school does NOT predict getting rejected from them all. Reread Twinmom's posts: D accepted at two Ivies and rejected at two. The "flaw" that Penn saw in her application did not disuade Harvard at all. Same with my D: using the same basic application, Y & P were not impressed; H, M, & S were. </p>
<p>It is nonsense to assert that it does no good to apply to multiple high-end schools. Following your theory, my D should have given up after getting rejected by Yale, and Twinmom's D should have applied to no high-end school beyond Penn. In both cases, and many more besides, following your advice would have been a BIG mistake.</p>