Percentage of qualified applicants

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
1

<p>I was wondering if anyone, insider perhaps, has any idea about the percent of qualified applicants. </p>

<p>I know Harvard says 90% of their applicants are "qualified", my idea of which is above average stats, average to above average ECs/essays/recs/etc.</p>

<p>What I'm really going after is, 'am I really going to have to fight 10 or more equally or more qualified applicants than myself for a spot at Columbia?'</p>

<p>This is not a 'chances' thread; let us "imagine" that I myself am qualified.</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
I know Harvard says 90% of their applicants are "qualified", my idea of which is above average stats, average to above average ECs/essays/recs/etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not very good at math, eh? How can 90% of the applicant pool have above-average essays, etc.? </p>

<p>
[quote]
What I'm really going after is, 'am I really going to have to fight 10 or more equally or more qualified applicants than myself for a spot at Columbia?'</p>

<p>This is not a 'chances' thread; let us "imagine" that I myself am qualified.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's no such thing as "qualified." Everyone is different. Some people are very qualified, some not very qualified. You incorrectly make the process black-or-white where there is either qualified or not qualified. And if you think 90% of the applicants to Harvard have above average essays, recs, etc., you need to assess whether you're really above average.</p>

3

<p>According to my very precise calculations done with my TOP SEEKRIT formula, about 49.99999999999 of a given class of applicants is above their given class' average. </p>

<p>In all seriousness, though, the OP brings up a good point. I feel like I read that 1 or 2 out of every ten applicants just happened to hear that Columbia is a school in Manhattan and applied for the sake of applying to schools in NYC. Then maybe 2 or 3 more are fairly legitimate applicants but have either lackluster stats or EC's. So that leaves 5-7 applicants with relatively strong stats and EC's. Out of those, maybe 2 or 3 have the essays, recs, and specific extracurricular distinctions to make them stand out. From those kids, I guess the adcoms just have to build a class with the right balance of physics majors, gender studies majors, athletes, musicians, legacies, first-generations, URMS, internationals, etc., etc.</p>

<p>Of course that's just a guess. I can't say I've worked in Columbia's admissions department.</p>

4

<p>"above avg essays" - I meant compared to all college applicants' essays nationally, not just in the harvard applicant pool; I only brought up the harvard fact as an example of one school's opinion on the quality of their applicant pool...it can be inferred that harvard believes 10% of their applicants do not belong in harvard.</p>

<p>I realize that in college admissions, there is a HUGE gray area, but one has to admit...a student who has a C or D average and NO ECs is very unlikely to be accepted whereas a student with an A or B average with some decent ECs has a much bigger chance - with a big enough disparity, the choice between the two is clear. (assume the 2 fictional applicants are identitical in every other aspect)</p>

<p>Columbia02, by claiming that I make the college process black and white, you, in turn, are making my STATEMENTS black and white. I try to pick my words carefully on the internet, but to nit pick every word I wrote to come to your final conclusion that I may not be qualified is superfluous and not on topic, since my sole question is all its basic simplicity is "how many people just randomly apply or overestimated themselves who are no real competition?"</p>

<p>thank you wmmk for giving me the type of response I was looking for.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
"above avg essays" - I meant compared to all college applicants' essays nationally, not just in the harvard applicant pool;

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What the heck does this mean? Most college applicants probably only apply to state schools where you don't even need an essay. And how on earth could one possibly know how one's essay measures up against "all college applicants' essays nationally"?</p>

<p>
[quote]
it can be inferred that harvard believes 10% of their applicants do not belong in harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What does this mean, too? Harvard might think that 10% of their applicants are incapable of doing the work. But what is "belong in harvard"?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I realize that in college admissions, there is a HUGE gray area, but one has to admit...a student who has a C or D average and NO ECs is very unlikely to be accepted whereas a student with an A or B average with some decent ECs has a much bigger chance - with a big enough disparity, the choice between the two is clear. (assume the 2 fictional applicants are identitical in every other aspect)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure where you're going with this. Neither of these applicants are likely to get into Columbia, for what it's worth.</p>

<p>
[quote]
since my sole question is all its basic simplicity is "how many people just randomly apply or overestimated themselves who are no real competition?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're again making it black-and-white. You want a number for how many people aren't "real competition" that you have to compete against.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
I feel like I read that 1 or 2 out of every ten applicants just happened to hear that Columbia is a school in Manhattan and applied for the sake of applying to schools in NYC. Then maybe 2 or 3 more are fairly legitimate applicants but have either lackluster stats or EC's. So that leaves 5-7 applicants with relatively strong stats and EC's. Out of those, maybe 2 or 3 have the essays, recs, and specific extracurricular distinctions to make them stand out. From those kids, I guess the adcoms just have to build a class with the right balance of physics majors, gender studies majors, athletes, musicians, legacies, first-generations, URMS, internationals, etc., etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is a solid analysis. It illustrates the point I made above, that it's a spectrum. I don't necessarily agree with your numbers, but you're just guessing and I'm guessing as well. I'd be hesitant to believe that 20-30% of the applicant pool really stands out; I'd think that number is much lower.</p>

7

<p>C'02: Thanks! My numbers were definitely approximated, but it's rather nice to know that someone who actually managed to get into Columbia would think that less than 20%-30% of the applicant pool really stands out. I suppose I should worry less about the arbitrary (or, apparently less than I had assumed) nature of admissions and more about making myself an outstanding applicant.</p>

8

<p>there are good essays. there are bad essays. why do i get the feeling that i need to conduct a 5+ year research survey just to say anything w/o columbia02's doubt and criticism?</p>

<p>not capable to handle harvard work is along the lines of not belonging in harvard </p>

<p>i don't know how i can make myself any clearer: little black area. huge gray area. little white area. columbia will not reject say, a nobel prize winner. but it WILL reject someone who barely met the minimum high school graduation requirements. black and white. then there's the huge gray area. spectrum. no one can tell. arbitrary. happy?</p>

<p>ok, i get it, columbia02, you want to tell me that this question is virtually impossible to answer (spectrum) and no one can ever tell for sure. so why not just SAY THAT. say THOSE ~20 simple words. you're wasting both your time typing all those words and mine reading them.</p>

<p>don't bother dissecting up my words and trying to make pointless arguments about them that are neither here nor there. this isn't cx debate. you're not going to win a trophy for being the most critical, unhelpful, stubborn, and argumentative.</p>

<p>I'd appreciate it if you'd first think about what I've said instead of immediately jumping to quoting me and trying to pin point every tiny thing you think i've said that is wrong or in your opinion 'illogical'. </p>

<p>I bet there are students on this forum that are actually reluctant to post a question they want opinions on for fear of you ripping them apart.</p>

<p>by the way, you ARE an ex-CXer, arent you? :P</p>

9

<p>columbia2002, you seem to contradict yourself. You say no such thing as qualified or not qualified and then you write about someone not too qualified, etc. You also say everyone is different which is somewhat of a cliche.</p>

<p>There are those clearly not qualified: bottom of class, 1700 on SAT, 2s on 2 APs, no ECs. Yes, they do apply to Harvard. With the electronic process, the buzz about Harvard eliminating tuition and the occasional story about someone way unqualified getting in which makes the national press, thousands of unqualified apply which is precisely the aim of Harvard admissions in admitting a few unqualified and garnering national attention to drive up applications to enhance selectivity, etc.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
not capable to handle harvard work is along the lines of not belonging in harvard

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Belonging at Harvard is having what it takes to be considered a "Harvard Man" (or a Harvard Woman nowadays) -- which is far more than just being able to handle the work. I don't know precisely what Harvard is looking for as I kind-of know what Columbia is looking for, but it seems they're looking for leaders, people who have potential to change the world, etc. You need to have these soft-factors to have what it takes to be qualified for Harvard admission.</p>

<p>
[quote]
by the way, you ARE an ex-CXer, arent you? :P

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What's a CXer? Cathay Pacific?</p>

<p>
[quote]
columbia2002, you seem to contradict yourself. You say no such thing as qualified or not qualified and then you write about someone not too qualified, etc. You also say everyone is different which is somewhat of a cliche.</p>

<p>There are those clearly not qualified: bottom of class, 1700 on SAT, 2s on 2 APs, no ECs. Yes, they do apply to Harvard. With the electronic process, the buzz about Harvard eliminating tuition and the occasional story about someone way unqualified getting in which makes the national press, thousands of unqualified apply which is precisely the aim of Harvard admissions in admitting a few unqualified and garnering national attention to drive up applications to enhance selectivity, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me try this again... First of all, the word "qualified" has misleading connotations and shouldn't be used when discussing college admissions. To a lot of people, qualified means being able to handle the workload and able to graduate. If that's what qualified means, it's easy to draw a line in the sand and divide the applicant pool into "qualified" and "not qualified."</p>

<p>But I submit that the inquiry is not about "qualified." Rather, it's about "having what Columbia is looking for." Someone who is "not qualified" obviously doesn't have what Columbia is looking for because they can't even handle the workload. But beyond that, every person who is able to handle Columbia's workload is a different individual with different attributes (grades, scores, ECs, essays, passions, fit with Columbia, geography, etc.). It's not a cliche; things like "good ECs" vs. "great ECs" simply aren't quantifiable. And some of those individuals are exactly what Columbia is looking for, some are pretty much what Columbia is looking for, some aren't too much what Columbia is looking for, and others aren't at all what Columbia is looking for. That's why it's a spectrum. And that's what you may be referring to when you say that I "write about someone not too qualified, etc."</p>

11

<p>Columbia 2002, So, please elaborate, what is Columbia looking for, what is Harvard looking for? Who is a H man or woman, who is a C man or woman? Thanks.</p>

12

<p>ok at least we can both concede that harvard believes 10% of its applicants are "not qualified for harvard admission" and "does NOT have what it takes"
I don't know why you insist on arguing about harvard, I don't know about you but I do not care about harvard, we are in the columbia forum after all.</p>

<p>CXer = one who participated in cross examination debate</p>

<p>I also dont know why you keep emphasizing the idea that there's no clear distinction.
For the last time, I REALIZE, I UNDERSTAND, I TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION that there is a spectrum. I wanted to know how many "aren't at all what columbia is looking for" as you've said yourself; they exist - it's not ALL gray.
How many applicants have NO CHANCE at all? I'm not even asking for any quantified statistical data (even though I did use the word 'percent'), just some THOUGHTS on the matter.</p>

<p>How do you propose I ask my question w/o the use of the word 'qualified'?
We all know that once an applicant passes into a vague threshold, everyone is pretty much considered equally and it's all up in the air depending on what the college "is looking for". but how many people do not even pass that bar to have ANY chance?</p>

<p>I concede that it may be possible that there's some strange miscommunication going on here...but please, if you do not have any more constructive ideas on my query, stop posting and just PM me any questions or rants you might have...I really don't want to reach 3000+ posts just to argue with someone. :)</p>

13

<p>and to ramaswami, it's unfair and pointless to ask columbia02 what harvard or columbia IS LOOKING FOR. Each year each college's needs change (if only in the slightest), and how in the world do you expect columbia02 to know what those needs are?</p>

<p>Since a specific response cannot be garnered...nearly anyone on this forum who's familiar with the admission process can answer that question in the general sense: a bright, intelligent, thoughtful, and inspired student, or something else vague along those lines.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to remonstrate you, ramiswami, I am just giving you a heads up on what columbia02's own cutting remark to your question may be.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
Columbia 2002, So, please elaborate, what is Columbia looking for, what is Harvard looking for? Who is a H man or woman, who is a C man or woman? Thanks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I shouldn't be the one to discuss Harvard even though I have faint ideas. And what Columbia is looking for has been discussed on this board a million times.</p>

<p>
[quote]
ok at least we can both concede that harvard believes 10% of its applicants are "not qualified for harvard admission" and "does NOT have what it takes"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, you don't get it, and you're making things up I have no idea, but it could be 70% or 80% or 90% of Harvard's applicant pool that does not have what it takes to be Harvard men or women.</p>

<p>
[quote]
CXer = one who participated in cross examination debate

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, didn't do debate in HS. I did the math team.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I wanted to know how many "aren't at all what columbia is looking for" as you've said yourself; they exist - it's not ALL gray.
How many applicants have NO CHANCE at all? I'm not even asking for any quantified statistical data (even though I did use the word 'percent'), just some THOUGHTS on the matter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know the answer, and the adcoms don't know either. And it'd be silly for anyone to speculate and put a number on it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
We all know that once an applicant passes into a vague threshold, everyone is pretty much considered equally and it's all up in the air depending on what the college "is looking for".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, this isn't true at all. It doesn't make something more true to preface your opinion with "we all know." This statement reflects a misunderstanding of the process, which I've articulated in my post this morning.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and to ramaswami, it's unfair and pointless to ask columbia02 what harvard or columbia IS LOOKING FOR. Each year each college's needs change (if only in the slightest), and how in the world do you expect columbia02 to know what those needs are?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What Columbia is looking for stays pretty much the same every year. Why would their needs change? Columbia is looking for a certain type of person, and they aren't all of the sudden going to have different ideals next year.</p>

15

<p>Frankly, I haven't searched the boards to find out what columbia is looking for and freesia I asked Columbia2002 since he seemed to know. No need to pounce on me.</p>

16

<p>no I was not "making things up"; a harvard admission officer actually SAID that competition is so fierce that they have to cut down their 90% of qualified students to whatever number they have enough space for.</p>

<p>unless you were once an adimissions officer or something like that, I don't see how you have the experience, background, or knowledge to say that I don't understand the process, or that 'the adcoms don't know either'. </p>

<p>you seem to stress that every application is treated equally, but I remember an article about one university (yale or uchicago, can't recall exactly) that starts their application reading process by having a senior member scan the application for any "deal breakers". these applicants with deal breakers are exactly who I've been refering to.</p>

<p>when I said "needs" I meant if the track team desperately need a distance runner they're gong to keep their eyes peeled for one in the application pool; to have diversity they might pick the farm boy instead of the big city girl. if the college hasn't accepted anyone interested in __________ in many years, they might decide to recruit a few the current year.
no need to tell me if you think this view is "silly" or ridiculous, I'm just explaining what I had intended to get across.</p>

<p>accusations that I just "don't get it" is not helping your argument much. </p>

<p>And ramaswami, I am sincerely sorry if I've offended you, which was not at all my intention. Please accept my apologies.</p>

17

<p>freesia, of course, you did not offend me, I decline to accept your apology since none is called for. I have not followed the argument closely but it seems to me that there must be some algorithm applied to cut down the 27000 apps to a manageable number that can be individually reviewed. I don't know what is qualified any more, perhaps everyone who applies is qualified in that conceivably if you have graduated from HS you can be admitted to HYP ,etc. So, perhaps one methodology may be for a school to consider everyone qualified, (makes all the rejects feel good plus it is good press) then ruthlessly cut down on the apps to a manageable pool of what Harvard wants, then have the readers go after these to winnow them further.</p>

18

<p>I'm going to be a freshman at Columbia next year, so I've been all over this board lately. And I just want to say that, at first, Columbia 2002's comments seemed to be intelligent responses to people's gross misconceptions, and I genuinely respected them. But after repeatedly seeing his antagonistic posts, I realize he's just incredibly argumentative. And now I'm actually worried that Columbia students really are as jaded and sardonic as people say they are. I mean, his questions of semantics on this thread are quite ridiculous, and it was very obvious from the beginning what the OP meant.</p>

19

<p>"And now I'm actually worried that Columbia students really are as jaded and sardonic as people say they are"</p>

<p>there is no 'columbia type of student'. C02 would probably be a minority if he were to be on campus, and his blunt diction is usually a good counter balance to beating around the bush on this forum as it would be on a campus. </p>

<p>"But after repeatedly seeing his antagonistic posts, I realize he's just incredibly argumentative."</p>

<p>we could all do with a little less of it at times.</p>

<p>". I mean, his questions of semantics on this thread are quite ridiculous, and it was very obvious from the beginning what the OP meant."</p>

<p>i've almost never met someone, especially not at columbia, who's quite as petty.
C02 - it isn't perennial, just more so off late </p>

<hr>

<p>Also to the OP your question is silly, qualified isn't properly defined, there's little way of knowing, and admissions will always decorate their applicant pools, it boosts their image and makes rejectees feel better about themselves. At the end of the day look at the admitted class stats, and if yours are comparable you stand a decent chance. Getting caught up in wanting to estimate your EXACT chances would be largely unfounded and has practically no marginal benefit.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
unless you were once an adimissions officer or something like that, I don't see how you have the experience, background, or knowledge to say that I don't understand the process, or that 'the adcoms don't know either'.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've done admissions interviews for 6 years and I also attended the place and saw the types of students Columbia selects. So I think I'm able to recognize that you don't understand the process.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you seem to stress that every application is treated equally, but I remember an article about one university (yale or uchicago, can't recall exactly) that starts their application reading process by having a senior member scan the application for any "deal breakers". these applicants with deal breakers are exactly who I've been refering to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I didn't stress that. I didn't say that at all. You keep putting words in my mouth -- totally inappropriately. Please point to a statement I said that gives gives you that impression. And contrary to your assertion, Columbia will spend much more time (readings, discussing in the committees for longer times) on the applicants who possibly have what Columbia is looking for and will quickly get through the applicants who don't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
when I said "needs" I meant if the track team desperately need a distance runner they're gong to keep their eyes peeled for one in the application pool; to have diversity they might pick the farm boy instead of the big city girl. if the college hasn't accepted anyone interested in __________ in many years, they might decide to recruit a few the current year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, fundamental misunderstanding of how this works.</p>

<p>The admissions officers aren't athletic scouts. If the track team needs a runner, they aren't "gong to keep their eyes peeled for one in the application pool." The track coach will tell the adcoms about the applicants he absolutely needs / would like to have / etc. </p>

<p>
[quote]
accusations that I just "don't get it" is not helping your argument much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But accusations plus explanations why you don't get it do help a ton.</p>