<p>We carefully analyzed the reach and match variables and chose schools from those categories that S would be happy attending. Not a single match offered admission, only the reaches (and safeties). While it may not be random, trying to figure out the logic behind acceptance/rejection is far from clear cut. </p>
<p>This year we have friends whose kid's numbers are in the upper 25% of all schools applied, (4.0 uw GPA, all honors and AP), excellent test scores (north of 2300), very good committed EC's, and an excellent writer, who were turned down by the majority of schools that were not outright safeties. Did get accepted to one Ivy (to mini's point), that had a lower accept rate than others that rejected outright. Felt kind of random to them...</p>
<p>
[quote]
10% acceptanace at schools A, B & C..that adds up to 30% chance of getting in
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you buy the lottery idea among those who are qualified (which I do) the math is more like this ...</p>
<p>Apply to 1 school
Accepted to 0 = 90%
Accepted to 1 = 10%</p>
<p>Apply to 2 schools
Accepted to 0 schools = 81%
Accepted to 1 school = 18%
Accepted to 2 schools = 1%
(At least one schools = 19%)</p>
<p>Apply to 3 schools
Accepted to 0 schools = 73%
Accepted to 1 school = 24%
Accepted to 2 schools = 3%
Accepted to 3 schoold = .1%
(At least one acceptence = 27%)</p>
<p>
[quote]
the majority of students who don't get in aren't rejected: the simply don't make the cut to be chosen. They are edged out by other competitors for a variety of reasons: it may be a hook, it may be some sort of stand out quality, it may just be a matter of timing or the juxtaposition of one application with another. </p>
<p>I think the problem with the lottery metaphor is that it encourages students to essentially use a randomized approach to admissions
[/quote]
I do not view "the lottery view point" in this way at all. I absolutely agree with the first half of your thought ... tons of applicants are qualified in a general sence and that as applicants from the outside we do not know what the finer selection criteria are that the schools as using ... if my kids do not know which schools are looking for fine clarinetists then they should, in my opinion, to apply to a bunch of long shot schools as long as they are <em>SCHOOLS WITH A GOOD FIT</em>. To us it will look like a lottery ... to me this increases the odds my kids hit the committee looking for the clarinetist from the northeast ... we do not know which school is so let's hunt for them among the good fit schools. And in the scheme of the cost of college the additional application fees are minimal. I'm not advocating kids applying to 50 schools but for those kids applying to the top schools with a few Bs and 1500s (old SATs) I wouldn't flinch from up to 15 applications (2-3 safeties, 2-3 matches, 2-3 merit aid hunts, and 6-8 shots at the low odds schools).</p>
<p>marite, where I live doesn't really matter. I have been to many orchestral events at colleges and have noticed more empty seats than filled. Perhaps the halls are large. In any case, can the concern with rounding out an orchestra really account for the quirks of admissions? How many spots can vacated instruments account for? I would just like to dump that metaphor in favor of something more precise, if anyone knows. Are they counting up majors? % of body fat? I understand the edge athletics often gives. But I would like to know what kind of 'checklist' is utilized in the oft-referred-to but rarely explicated 'sculpting' of the class since we seem to respect that goal is achieved by the professionals who sort our kids. I am often slow to understand the obvious but I would like to understand the specifics, rather than the analogous, in the matter of the artistically balanced freshman class,...</p>
<p>Ah, if we knew, we'd be super-parents & super-counselors. I believe part of it may be geographic diversity--trying to be sure there are kids from every state (if possible). The other elements they are looking for may vary considerably with the schools. If you can find some candid adcoms, maybe you could get more insight. "Gatekeepers" does talk about how they try to get a "balanced" class, as does at least one other book written by a former adcom (forgot title). Don't believe it's as simple as a "checklist."</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In any case, can the concern with rounding out an orchestra really account for the quirks of admissions?<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>No, "the orchestra" is just a handy surrogate for all the various talent and diversity slots that schools might seek to fill through admissions. They could be looking to fill out the debate team, the marching band, the number of kids from Alaska, the (gulp) lacrosse team, and yes, the orchestra -- and many other slots besides</p>
<p>It does not matter to colleges whether the hall is packed or not. Some are fielding umpteen orchestras and need players. I have not heard of college orchestras folding because of lack of audiences. At any rate, since I live in Cambridge, MA, the audience is not all collegiate.</p>
<p>well, lack of knowledge shouldn't stop anyone from speaking. This just seems to be such a central issue, once the scores are high enough, that this assumption of a desirable aspect or talent that completes the class puzzle ought to be a very critical speculation. There's a million posts that assume the judges are looking for something that 'works' to complete the mosaic. I realize there is not an actual checklist. And I have read a number of those insider books, which are just as vague. So maybe once the academic index is met, they go by feeling. But there still is the question of how these individuals are woven into the cloth that satisfies some perhaps explicit model of the entire class. Geography I get. But I don't get how they break the class up into 'types'. Introvert, extrovert, intuitive, gregarious,..I guess this is not possible. Perhaps because there is no big vision? An organism just forms from the loosely associated individuals. Could be the alphabet. Someone should graph the years of admits alphabetically.Then you might change your last name to Z.</p>
<p>ro, they don't need to break the class into types. Once they've weeded out the academically unqualified and the "hail mary" applicants, they get to admit the kids who strike their fancy. Applicants are 18 years old after all and don't commit to sticking with the same interests and EC's that got them to college..... but if you admit a broad range of really smart, interesting kids who are self-motivated (i.e. not loading the application with stuff that they think looks good) you've got a very good chance of ending up with an interesting, smart class.</p>
<p>My son was a passionate debater in HS. He showed up for try-outs first week of Freshman year and was stunned at the quality of the other students. We've heard the same thing from his friends who are talented musicians, dancers, writers, etc. I don't think MIT has a checklist which says 5% of the admits have to be published authors; 10% need musical talent; 10% have to be politically aware....but if you get to plow through thousands of high quality applications, you get to cherrypick the ones that resonate with you based on the needs of the institution.</p>
<p>Is that a lottery? No, but since 90% or so of the applicants are academically qualified (at least according to the admissions office) the chance that your kid is going to end up at any one institution isn't that great. That's one reason why I think the essays are so important at the uber competitive places.... if you've read 30 applications that day of piano-playing, soccer loving kids who come from top public or magnet HS where they take 8+ AP's, your kids essay on how soccer games are a metaphor for life are probably not going to distinguish him from the other 29.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There's a million posts that assume the judges are looking for something that 'works' to complete the mosaic. I realize there is not an actual checklist.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm guessing that there is indeed no hard, fast checklist. The committee is probably just juggling an ever-changing list of requests from the various academic departments, athletic coaches, musical conductors, etc. about what their needs are. I'm sure that not all requests are equal. I bet the football coach's plug for the new red hot running back he has recruited carries a lot more weight at most schools than does the conductor's need for a new cellist. </p>
<p>Here is what I observed in the case of my daughter. She had excellent academic stats along with 200,000 other kids. For her main EC she really was an orchestra kid - a talented bassoonist. She won some regional awards but was not a music major and by no means was she pro material. By coincidence it turned out that her interviewer for Harvard was also a bassoonist, and they got along famously in the interview since they both could speak bassoon. Fast forward to April, D gets accepted by Harvard and several other selective schools. Fast forward to September, D enrolls at H and gets e-mails from a couple of conductors on campus recruiting her to come try out for various orchestras. She ends up playing bassoon in one school orchestra and one smaller ensemble. Somehow the conductors knew she played bassoon before she ever met any of them.</p>
<p>So did the admissions committee give her a boost in their deliberations over some of the many other high-stat kids because of the bassoon? I really have no way of knowing. Whether the committee was, at least in part, responding to a need identified by the orchestra, I'll never know. But it is clear that some of the information in her admissions file was being relayed back to the conductors. It may have played a role.</p>
<p>cangel had two awesome points - not that the others weren't good - one is to change the metaphor from a lottery to a beauty contest (although a beauty contest with more than one winner.) So the metaphor is that great grades and test scores get one an entry into the beauty contest!</p>
<p>The other point is that not all the information is known! One can get a bad recommendation - even from a teacher who loves the kid but just doesn't know how to write a great recommendation. When one chooses schools to apply to, one has the additional uncertainty of having been damned by unintentional faint praise. Great - one more thing to worrry about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
for those kids applying to the top schools with a few Bs and 1500s (old SATs) I wouldn't flinch from up to 15 applications (2-3 safeties, 2-3 matches, 2-3 merit aid hunts, and 6-8 shots at the low odds schools).<a href="Post%20#43">/quote</a>.</p>
<p>The kids with the few B's really need to better assess their chances. They are not going to increase their chances at "low odds schools" by applying to more of them... they just increase their chances at being rejected. The way to get into a "low odds" school is to have SOMETHING that stands out, apart from and above the competition. For some students - that may be academics, and academics alone. However, that kid with the few B's needs something else. Maybe its athletic prowess; maybe its a compelling personal story; maybe its a rich and famous parent; maybe its something else. But when 90% of students are being turned away, it has to be something. </p>
<p>But your post illustrates the whole fallacy of the lottery argument. If you can't answer the question, "what does this kid have that 90% of the other kids don't", then the kid is not going to get in at any "low odds" school no matter how many applications are tossed out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This year we have friends whose kid's numbers are in the upper 25% of all schools applied, (4.0 uw GPA, all honors and AP), excellent test scores (north of 2300), very good committed EC's, and an excellent writer, who were turned down by the majority of schools that were not outright safeties.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are your friends Asian? I'm just thinking that the "25%" rule may be ?15%? if one is Asian?</p>
<p>At any rate, your story seems to contradict the 25% rule, but there is still the possibility of a not outstanding rec.</p>
<p>Look at HYP - their 25 percentile SAT scores are at 1580, 1590. I don't see how you get there unless you admit a huge percentage of kids who apply that have perfect SATs and perfect grades.</p>
<p>the fallacy of looking at the 25-75 percentiles is that it only tells you about the kids who attend -- it tells you nothing about the kids rejected.
at the highly selective schools, well over half the kids in the 25 percentile can be rejected. unfortunately, not all schools publicize info on rejections, but here are some examples:
brown - only 26.1% of those with verbal sat's between 750-800 were accepted; only 25.7% of those with math scores that high. only 33% of the valedictorians. only 15% who were in the top 5% of their class. those are some pretty harsh figures - A LOT of really top students are being rejected. <a href="http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html</a></p>
<p>^^ I don't know. I always assumed it was. Perhaps Northstarmom can tell us whether they try that hard to match up the interests and hobbies of the alumni interviewers and applicants. I assumed they just assigned her to an alumni interviewer who happened to live nearby.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The kids with the few B's really need to better assess their chances. They are not going to increase their chances at "low odds schools" by applying to more of them...<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Depends on what you mean by "few B's". If you mean say 7 or 8 Bs, I'd say you are right. If you mean 2 or 3 Bs, I'd have to disagree. D applied with 2 Bs to six very "low odds" reach schools. Got accepted by 3, waitlisted by 2, and rejected by 1. She certainly increased her odds of acceptance by applying to all 6. Had she applied only to the three that didn't accept her, she'd be attending a different school today.</p>
<p>Since everyone keeps talking about orchestra, one thing should be clear: if you are applying to the MUSIC SCHOOL of a selective school with a hot music school (Yale, Rochester, Hopkins, Michigan, Oberlin, NWestern, etc.) then you can have a 3.0 GPA and mediocre SAT's. They want MUSICAL TALENT. And they take more bassonists than they have room for in the orchestra!</p>