<p>I have been perusing some forum posts and and I have seen the phrase "You have a X% (the number depends on the school) chance of being admitted, just like everyone else" several times.</p>
<p>I do not think it is reasonable to imply that the admissions process is a random lottery, and that all that admissions offices do is write each applicants name on a ping pong ball and borrow the machine from the state lottery to pick the freshman class. </p>
<p>I understand that no one knows for sure, because what admissions is looking for varies from school to school and from year to year, but clearly, some applicants odds are significantly better than others. </p>
<p>Why do people keep making this comment? What am I missing? </p>
<p>I always laugh when I read “xxx is a reach for everyone”. It may be hard for anyone to get in, but certainly it is not the same difficulty for everyone. There are reaches that are basically near impossible for some, while above the admission rate for others. The truth is, scores and GPA that are readily visible on admission stat are not sufficient and not the only factors. There are other considerations that are not by any random means. It is definitely not a lottery that every ticket has the same chance, not even everyone with the same GPA and score.</p>
<p>At the very top institutions, it is not possible for any of us to give a valid prediction of admissions chances. Beyond stating that last year, of the total number of applicants, only x % were admitted, there really truly is nothing that we can offer.</p>
<p>In the case of the so-called lottery schools, students need to be aware that even with stellar grades, test scores, ECs, and the like, it is most probable that they won’t be admitted. From the outside of the admissions office, it does look like a random lottery drawing. Only those people on the inside know what strategies they are using to select candidates chosen for admission.</p>
<p>Yes it is true that some qualifications make it somewhat likelier that an applicant will make the cut, but there are no qualifications that will guarantee admission at the very top institutions.</p>
<p>If it were a true lottery and all it took were hooks like legacy, then no one would be able to string together two, three, four, five admits to Ivy-level schools. Some candidates are much stronger than others, with a huge pile at one in a million. The shame is, we (the schools and parents) encourage an awful lot of those one in a million shots to apply, when they could better spend their time applying to schools they really have a shot at.</p>
<p>True, some people may indeed have a (x+y)% chance of making it in rather than everyone else’s x% chance, but until we read their essays and recs, there’s no accurate way to judge. This is the best you can get on CC.</p>
<p>Most selective colleges do not release enough information regarding how they admit people to give a reliable, specific chance, while for most state schools and many private schools simply being above the 25%ile mark is pretty much a guaranteed admission. If a selective college released a data table plotting gpa vs. test scores and chance of admission then it would be possible to chance people somewhat more accurately; of course, that would neglect ECs, recs, awards, race (no way a college will release acceptance rates by race), etc. </p>
<p>The reality is that most people applying to these schools have a 1% chance or less, while others have probably over 90% chance of getting in. But it’s rude to tell people that they should just save the money, and it’s also probably not a good idea to tell someone that they have a great chance, as on CC we often do not have the whole story as far as essays and recs go, nor on what specific admissions offices prefer, nor do we want people to get a big head.</p>
<p>I do think that it makes sense to tell someone if they have a horrible chance or a much better than average chance, though. For some people, ivies and similar schools truly can be matches or even, dare I say it, safeties (recruits, incredibly accomplished people, etc.). For some people, daddy better have deep and generous pockets.</p>
<p>^ but in many cases with no hook, no legacy, no URM, average EC and far below mid 50 stat, money could have been saved. That lotto ticket will never hit the jackpot. :)</p>
<p>What’s even stupider are chances threads. Why? Because no one here knows you, and very few people here are also on ad coms. The best we can do is guess.</p>
<p>For the very top schools, however, it’s pretty safe to say that even if you have excellent stats, you’re unlikely to get in. Why? Because nearly everyone applying to those excellent schools has stats like yours and the vast majority will be rejected. No, it’s not really a lottery, but there’s no way any top school has room for all the excellent applicants it gets.</p>
<p>I think it’s incorrect to think everyone applying to any school, even Ivies, has excellent stats. That’s a myth that’s easily disproven by looking at any Naviance scattergram.</p>
<p>When I look at my naviance scattergram for the very selective schools, it seems like about half of the people that apply have low stats for the school, and they are almost always denied. And since I know most of the other people that are applying personally, I can tell you that the difference between people from CC and the average person that applies to selective schools is real. And excellent stats are definitely indicators of probability: it’s commonly cited that perfect GPA and SAT improves chances of getting in to a place like Harvard to, what, 40%? That is a whole lot better than 5-6%.</p>
<p>I agree completely, and you gave an excellent example.</p>
<p>I understand that the kid with perfect grades and scores still has about 60% chance to be rejected by a school like Harvard. However, a 40% chance to be accepted is about 700% higher than the 6% overall acceptance rate. That is a huge difference.</p>
<p>The idea that each candidate has the same chance as all others is very discouraging to students who are working hard to earn top grades and scores. I am not saying they will all get into a top school. However, grades, difficulty of schedule, and test scores are important, worth working hard, and do significantly improve a candidates chances.</p>
<p>Sorry that a few comments might be repeats of what other people said; I didn’t have time to read every post in detail.</p>
<p>From the fair amount of chance threads I see), almost every reply sounds like it’s based exclusively on one or possibly a few of the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A subjective view of grades/scores in general and specific grades/scores. For example, the first thread I clicked on where grades/classes/scores are listed, and the only reply is literally “You’re definitely in! Your stats are good enough!” That list even includes top tier and Ivy League schools.</p></li>
<li><p>A (very) quick look at a person’s extracurricular activities. I personally don’t see how others can legitimately judge someone’s involvement and passion from the extracurriculars they list, but there are definitely a lot of replies on the chance thread that disagree with this. Of course, I’m pretty biased toward out-of-school activities, but having no formal leadership positions in clubs doesn’t imply that someone never did anything meaningful, while being active in clubs doesn’t mean someone did. On the other hand, one can’t really say that because some activities look too standard and school-driven, they won’t help.</p></li>
<li><p>It seems common for applicants to post how well they think recommendations and essays will go. Even if an applicant can tell their recommendations and essays will be good, who else can? And it’s not like most applicants have a really great idea of what colleges look for in their essays or recommendations (myself included), since quality is relative to the other applicants.</p></li>
<li><p>The acceptance rates of the school or its admissions reputation or whatever.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And although some schools probably play the “too many qualified applicants” card to explain their admissions difficulty, it’s definitely not completely untrue for places like Harvard, MIT, etc. In fact, quite a few admissions officers at MIT describe the difficulty of picking applicants pretty candidly, and I would at least somewhat trust their word on that. </p>
<p>Also, about higher GPAs and SATs directly influencing chances; past a certain point the SAT and GPA (would you say that you would care in the real world about the difference between a 770 and 800 on one section, or someone getting two Bs) aren’t really useful at all for determining the strength of an applicant. Although someone with really low stats is pretty unlikely to make headway, I would be careful about saying that they actually correlate with admissions success, since it might happen that more accomplished students tend to fare better in school and on standardized tests anyway.</p>
<p>@OP: do phrases like “You are a competitive applicant for any of those <reach> schools?” or “these are high reaches, like they are for everyone” annoy you by any chance? I see them made in the same vein as the one you quoted, a lot.</reach></p>
<p>Hue and much2- if you look at Brown, (which is one of the few that break it out this way,) 82% of vals get rejected, 84% of math 800s. One needs to understand how the rest of the app plays. </p>
<p>Based on some visibility, I’d guess about half of the candidates to tippy tops don’t get past first round. So yes, if you have what they want, your chances improve. But what they want is not limited to what most of CC seems fixated on- stats, rigor, passion. And even for the best, there are the uncontrollables- geo diversity and institutional needs, etc.</p>
I see them made in the same vein as the one you quoted, a lot.</reach></p>