Lottery metaphor exaggerates situation

Parent Cafe
81

<p>"I'd argue that for the most part, that the kids who are throwing out multiple applications with the idea of increasing odds are also the ones with the slimmest chances at the schools they apply to; on the other end of the spectrum are the ED kids, who of course have the greatest chances of admission."</p>

<p>I doubt it - in fact, I think the data would show the opposite - the ED reject is likely to throw in the largest number of applications. This is at prestige schools of course, which is a tiny, tiny sliver of the college-bound population. </p>

<p>Of course, in my day, folks did put in multiple applications. A typical grad from my high school would apply to City College, Brooklyn College, Queens College, and, maybe Baruch, and then have Hofstra, Long Island U., St. John's, or NYU as a safety.</p>

82

<p>Mini, I meant that the ED applicant has the greatest chance at the college to which he/she applied ED, as compared to other comparable apps to the same college. Part of that comes from having made the ED commitment, but I think it also comes from the higher level of fit and greater attention paid to an application when a student is focused on applying to their one very top choice.</p>

83

<p>I agree with that, but with the number of ED rejects increasing rapidly, the number of additional applications they throw in rises even more rapidly, from 1 (if they got in), to anywhere from 2 to 15 or more. This is why it is NOT more difficult to get into an Ivy (provided you don't choose which one) even though the number of applications has grown. What matters is the number of qualified individuals applying cross-Ivy, not the number of applications.</p>

84

<p>Yes Mini, but then they no longer are an ED applicant. Those 2-15 apps are RD.</p>

85

<p>I think the largest factor (among several) is their greater financial wherewithal, but that's neither here nor there. Their throwing out large numbers of applications post-ED-rejection, increases their odds that they will be accepted at at least one, provided they are in the group of "qualified" applicants. Again, with a cross-Ivy admit rate in the 40-50% range, it's just not that hard, provided you are "qualified", and aren't picky about which one. There are state universities with lower admit rates. And forget the triumvirate of Caltech, MIT, and Cooper Union - now THAT'S tough.</p>

86

<p>The whole thing is crazy. My child applied to 4 Ivies (all urban locations - she would have been thrilled to attend any of them) and of the four, thought her best shot was Penn. I actually thought it was her best application and that her "Why Penn" essay was outstanding. She was accepted to 2 of the 4 - not Penn.</p>

<p>And Coureur - unlike your daughter, she had nothing in common with her Harvard interviewer ... she actually did not think she had a good interview at all! Of the four interviews - her Penn one was by far the best. Go figure.</p>

87

<p>twinmom - Harvard then?</p>

88

<p>beprepn - Yes.</p>

89

<br>


<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>

90

<br>


<br>

<p>I agree with this statement if the "same flaw" is a real app killer--uneven GPA/low test scores/lack of toughness of curriculum/disciplinary problems/a really dumbo essay. Applying to a zillion highly selective schools won't help a non-starter application gain traction.</p>

<p>But also agree with Coureur (with whom I rarely disagree) that "assuming the kid has high-end qualifications" (big assumption), a NO from one highly selective school does not necessarily mean a NO from all highly selective schools. But I have to say, when your kid gets that EA NO, he or she thinks that means that NO COLLEGE will ever accept him or her!</p>

91

<p>What about ED? Are ED applications done more on a numbers basis and less on a beauty contest basis?</p>

<p>I'm thinking that the ED applicants could be used to prime the pump with good test scores and grades giving the adreps more freedom in the RD round.</p>

92

<p>They could be, but ED can also be used to grab other candidates that have something the school wants: URMs, athletes, etc. So probably during the ED round, the ad coms try to grab the high stat AND the hooked applicants.</p>