The odds are also different for a kid from a public HS, even a very good one, than a top of the line private prep school. And the odds are different from a top public HS that regularly sends kids to the super elite schools than that rarely does, even though kids apply. A district that is considered less competitive may have kids at the top of the rankings that are not Ivy candidates, because the neighboring district is perceived to have better qualified students. OTOH, being a unique kid from an out of the way location, may work in a kid’s favor.
The reality is whether the odds are higher or lower for any particular kid, when they are less than 10% (or even 20%), it is not going to make much difference.
Kids (and parents) also have the “why not try” attitude. You definitely can’t get in if you don’t try, so why not spend $100 at a super high reach just to know you tried. Not my attitude, but seems like many others do that.
OhioDad, I so agree with you, which is why the people with the mindset in PurpleTitan’s post make me sad. They have a fundamental misunderstanding, which leads them to do crazy things and their kids to get little sleep and then blame the system that isn’t even asking this of them, but they think it is.
And guess what? if your kid plays the cello and happens to be applying to Dartmouth the year 50 other talented cellists with comparable academic stats are applying, the “unique” factor isn’t quite so unique all of a sudden. Parents and kids have a fundamental misread of unique as it applies to college admissions.
Very true. In some ways that makes the athletic hook easier, because given the recruiting process you can pretty much tell where you sit in the hierarchy, and what each school is looking for in a given year. In other words, if you pay attention, you are forced to realize how unique your particular skill set is, and how it is valued at that point by that program. Not so sure that you get the same feedback if you are cellist. It is likely you will never know if five other kids with equal or greater musical skill sitting in the same adcom’s pile. I will tell you in two years, when my daughter the pianist/thespian goes through the mill ;).
I didn’t read through all posts above so I apologize if this is a repeat, but I think it’s, in part, due to kids being brought up thinking they’re special snowflakes and they get a trophy just for participating.
By whose definition of infallible? AdComs must be doing something right because their graduation rates are the best in the country. So they are obviously admitting kids that can do the work, thrive and graduate. Even those kids who have “hooks” that took all the spaces that denied kids did not get.
The more I think about it, the more I think it’s an overestimation of one’s own abilities relative to the competition (both by kids and parents) as well as a feeling that the realities/statistics won’t apply to them because they are “special.”
I do a lot with Penn, and Penn makes no secret of the fact that it is MUCH easier to get in ED than RD – they say it directly to GCs, in admissions panels etc. This yr Penn took 35% of its class ED, when it had a miniscule number of applications; I believe last yr’s stat was something like a 25% chance of acceptance ED, which meant that for the remaining spots RD with a much much bigger pool of applicants, you were looking at somewhere between a 4-7% shot at acceptance. And yet year after year I see kids saying – well Penn is great but I don’t want to waste my ED shot, I’m going to apply to HYPS and if I don’t get in – there’s always Penn . . . as if Penn will be waiting to welcome them with open arms.
I’m also from a place where Penn is the local (meaning closest) Ivy, so every yr there are a TON of kids from my high school (usually 25-50) who apply who really have no business applying; I don’t say it to be rude, but the reality is that if you’re an A/B student ranked in the middle of the class who has taken 1 out of the 10-15 APs offered at the school and are involved in a bunch of clubs but have no special hook like being a recruited athlete or an Olympian – your chances are next to none. I’ve seen kids pull out all the stops on such an application – submitting activity sheets that detail every single thing they’ve ever done down to – I was Recording Secretary for 2 drama club meetings in 10th grade when the Secretary was out with pneumonia OR I babysit for a kid whose mom is a nurse at the Hospital of Univ of Pa. – so that’s a hook. At the end of the day, it’s wasted money and you can tell when it doesn’t work out --even kids who probably shouldn’t have applied are disappointed and I don’t really blame them – I mean they’re 17 yrs old and they believed they had a shot, when really they didn’t.
I am so glad to be through with this process. All 3 are out and doing well. Three different college experiences for three different individuals.
A long time ago, read that there is a place for everyone and most tend to find that place. It works out. Take “prestige” and parental bragging rights out of the equation and it tends to work even better.
“Admissions committees are as fallible as the rest of us.”
They are in a better position to select a class that fills their institution’s mission and desires than any of us outsiders. If they were consistently selecting “bad” classes, their institutions would replace them. But they have sky high graduation requirements and their grads go out to do great things, so how can you say they’ve made
“Admissions committees are as fallible as the rest of us.”
They are in a better position to select a class that fills their institution’s mission and desires than any of us outsiders. If they were consistently selecting “bad” classes, their institutions would replace them. But they have sky high graduation requirements and their grads go out to do great things, so how can you say they’ve made “mistakes”? They make choices. As we all do.
I don’t think my kids had too much of this busy work. I’d add outlining the entire APUSH textbook as a stupid activity I’ve heard other schools use. My oldest loved the fact that his Calc teacher did not check homework. She suggested problems, but said it was up to the kids to do as many problems as they needed to in order to feel comfortable with the process. It could be less or more than what was assigned.
I too agree with #81. In general kids with fewer activities but who did one thing really well did better in admissions than those who were jack of all trades types.
I also agree with pizzagirl - the admissions committees aren’t making many mistakes. They get enough applicants to put together multiple classes and many have said if they just chose by random (especially if they first toss out the ones who really had no business applying) the admitted class wouldn’t look that different from what they actually put together.
Of course, selecting a “good” class is easier at the super-selective level, since selecting from a pool of applicants with near-maximum academic credentials means that almost any of the possible choices from that pool will be able to graduate from college.
Admissions committees accept a class, and that class as a whole is probably a good mix, a good fit for the school. A student in the class may have been a bad choice, someone who cannot handle the emotional requirements of the school, a student who has a drug problem that is not detected, a student who really can’t do the work. The committee might also pass on a student (or many many students) who could have really added to the class. The admission committee hasn’t failed the school, which is its job, but may have made a mistake on the individual.
Tom Brady wasn’t drafted until the 6th round of the NFL draft. Many ‘admissions committees’ blew it for that year (and admit it) but at the time were drafting the best individuals to make up the best teams. Lots of individuals have the stats and qualifications, but the drafters, the admission committee, is looking to make a team.
From a numbers/statistics perspective – I’m not sure why students and parents don’t understand (or want to accept) that if you are in the top 25-50% of the range that schools put out there of their acceptances numbers for GPA and SAT – realistically your chance of acceptance is pretty much the same as the school’s overall published acceptance rate. So if Penn’s top 25% range for SATs and GPA is 1500 M+CR and 3.95/4.0 (I have no idea what it is this yr – random numbers) and you fall right there, then you realistically have a 9.9% chance of acceptance (this yrs acceptance rate) – bumped up quite a bit if you go ED or have a hook. If you’re below that range, your chance is less than 9.9%. I see too much “bumping up” – as in oh I only have a 1400 and a 3.8 BUT I’m an Eagle Scout and varsity football player (not recruited) – that’s great but so is every other applicant, so realistically unless you have some kind of other hook like being from an under represented state like Wyoming or are an Olympian – you are looking at an acceptance rate of less than 9.9%.
I have no defense for students who pick EC’s that are not truly of interest to them, and then spend a lot of time on them, in hopes of gaining admission to a top school. That just seems crazy to me. I would think they could identify something that is of real interest–even if it were World of Warcraft or social media. Those pursuits could be done intelligently, although one would need the right admissions representative to appreciate them.
I know that PG thinks that once a student crosses the bar in terms of SAT scores and GPA, the admissions odds are the same for all. I think every school that puts out a Common Data Set does a detailed breakdown of admissions odds by score ranges, which shows that is not exactly true–though some break down the admissions odds by narrower score ranges than others.
If some people who have no realistic odds of admission apply, and they contribute to the 10% overall odds, then it must be the case that students who do have a realistic possibility of admission (no guarantee) have better than 10% odds. This ties in with aj725’s post #91.
My comment that admissions committees are as fallible as the rest of us was not meant as a slam on admissions committees. In context, it was just intended to suggest that students should not take admission/rejection as an accurate measure of their personal worth–something that I think most of us would automatically agree on.
Published admission rate can be very misleading. For example, UT Austin has a 40% admission rate. But applicants qualifying for automatic admission have a 100% admission rate, while all other applicants have a much lower than 40% admission rate (although that obviously varies by each applicant’s qualifications).
It must be the case that there exist students who have better than 10% odds. And we know that-- these people are called recruited athletes. So we have some applicants who have 0% odds. And we have some applicants who have 100% odds, or nearly. And then the rest, who have less than 10% odds because the students with guaranteed admission have sucked up some of the few admission slots.
