On Applying To Reaches

Applying to College
1

<p>First off I want to state that I never understood why so many people only apply to schools they have a good shot at (though of course you need a safety etc).</p>

<p>Recently two people I know both applied to a very selective school ED. One got in and one did not. The odd thing was that the person around their 50% mark for scores was rejected and the other who was below the 25% mark was. Both were white males. ECs were not amazing for either of them. I read their essays and thought both were good but thats very subjective.</p>

<p>What makes one person who applied to a reach school get in over other people who are more qualified? Excluding URM, Athlete, or legacy. I mean did they just get really lucky by having an adcom member like them? Is there something we can do to make reach schools more likely to take us? I was wondering about this as it struck me as very odd.</p>

2

<p>It's a very subjective thing -- no reason to try to determine the whys and hows. Adcoms themselves would tell you it can be very randomized and sometimes "hunches" and "feels" give one candidate a nod over another.</p>

3

<p>You also have no idea what was said in their recommendations or how they did in interviews.</p>

4

<p>op said--
... I never understood why so many people only apply to schools they have a good shot at.</p>

<p>My d is such a one. I could not get her to gofor the reach schools. After I did research I found a certain random factor at play in these schools. She has good ecs and is a very good interview and so could package/present herself.</p>

<p>I think she did a simple, quick cost ben analysis and thought ALLTHATWORK of essays and apps and the presentation that I just sketched for the probable return of a no, or a waitlist at best, was not worth it - especially in a crazy sr yr taking 5 tough APs.</p>

<p>also at play for my d at least is what I seem to see as a 'rejection complex'. I say just apply apply apply and see what happens, and if you're rejected, big whup, go to the next one. I dont think she thinks that way. It IS her skin after all. so she took my advice to apply apply and apply, but it was to solid matches, and she did get acceptances. </p>

<p>Hmm, with my idea she would have spent much more time / effort and expense for the apps, probably recv a lot more rejections, and, for her, a lot of emotional bruises (along w/ the associated nailbiting waiting), all during a tough sr yr. sure, no super prestige names, but all very competent, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, <em>fitting schools</em> (for her).</p>

<p>I know OP was trying to find the magic rnadom factors for getting in to reaches, but I wanted to share this point of view of the match tryers.</p>

<p>I agree w/ scout, that interview can be important. We knew of one school that a super numbered diva did not get accepted (she comes across as a diva, too). We wondered if she said something wrong in the interview.</p>

5

<p>I might be person #2. Maybe. I think there's a "magic" factor. A personality thing that the admissions counsel likes. I guess you could say a spark that comes off the paper. I think that really is the difference. That's where the interview and interest comes in.</p>

<p>Also, if one applicant seems much more the type to get involved rather than just study in their room, they might be favored because they contribute more. But, I think that magic personality factor is BIG.</p>

6

<p>I know many students who simply don't care about the high-prestige universities. Some are Ivy-level, and they just don't care about HYPSSKLDFJ. Their dream schools are often matches or safeties (for example, ELC students can consider most UCs a safety, and yet many of those UCs are the ELC students' top choices).</p>

7

<p>There's something every college is looking for, that they don't tell you about. For example, I heard UCLA loves Student Gov't Presidents, etc. So that's why I applied to many reaches XP</p>

8

<p>What makes one person who applied to a reach school get in over other people who are more qualified?</p>

<p>The answer is that it has nothing to do with being qualified. The one who got in helped meet the school's needs, and the other didn't. The schools normally don't let on about what their needs are.</p>

9

<p>Can we say that building a class is like creating a painting? So the adcoms might need a little red here, more green there? When they think they have enough red or green, that is it, for that type, then they continue the painting and look for blue?</p>

<p>The colors might be vallies, sallies, 25 pcters, 50 pcters, 75 pcter, in state out of state, usa geo region, bookish, organizer/active, socio economic status, gender, violinists, quarterbacks, oboists, ethnic groups, etc.</p>

<p>I could say it is like a garden, but then you'd probably call me Chauncy Gardener! :)</p>

10

<p>did both apply for financial aid?</p>

11

<p>"The colors might be vallies, sallies, 25 pcters, 50 pcters, 75 pcter, in state out of state, usa geo region, bookish, organizer/active, socio economic status, gender, violinists, quarterbacks, oboists, ethnic groups, etc."</p>

<p>I agree with this, except that I don't think the schools need or want a certain number of "25 pcters." They take some folks with those stats because they have one or more of the other things the school wants.</p>