<p>I just heard a terrible story about a boy of my friend's friend.....</p>
<p>This boy had an extream high stats, impressive ECs, and national academy awards etc....but he got rejected from all top schools that he applied, and he is now at a state university....</p>
<p>The main reason being, my friend explained, because he told interviewers about all the top schools that he applied, and every school believed that he will be accepted by any other schools, so to make sure the school has a good enrollment rate, every school rejected him for he definitely will get other offers for other schools....</p>
<p>I really doubt that's the reason. Although yield has become increasingly important to top schools for fear of losing their high slots in the rankings, most measures to raise yield are implemented post-admission (telephone calls to accepted students, campus visit weekends, etc) rather than being based on where schools believe the applicant also applied.</p>
<p>If you look at a graph of MIT's acceptance rate (and that of Harvard as well -- see page 6 of this</a> paper), you see that probability of admission rises with increased SAT score (which I'll use as an assumed stand-in for high stats), but that even those with perfect scores are only admitted about half the time. I'm sure some of those perfect scorers had strikes against them in other categories, but think about it -- some (many) of them are probably also straight-A valedictorians with solid ECs.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, admission to elite colleges is a very competitive thing, and many highly qualified people get rejected every year to their shock and dismay. There just aren't enough spots for all the qualified applicants, hence the very difficult job of an admissions officer.</p>
<p>I think this story just serves to reinforce the idea that admission to top schools is not a guarantee for anyone, rather than raising suspicions of mysterious yield-raising practices going on in secrecy. I mean, it wouldn't be a shocking story if the end were "...and he was only accepted to one top school", but the difference between being accepted to one top school and being accepted to none isn't really that large, statistically speaking.</p>
<p>You're not necessarily missing any part of the story: no one is guaranteed accepted at the "top schools". We have seen examples here on CC of students who were excellent in so many ways, acadmically qualified and highly accomplished in other areas and really great people to boot, who apparently did not build their list of schools to which they applied broadly enough. For whatever reason -- and no one can be sure why -- some students are not accepted at any of their "top schools". It is always wise to apply to at least one safety school where the student would be satisfied (better yet, happy!) to attend, while working hard to craft the best application possible for those dream schools.</p>
<p>considering that most schools don't even do interviews, it is highly unlikely that the kid even had interviews at every single "top school" to which he applied. So even if he made psychotic death threats at all of his interviews, that would only affect some of his apps. More likely it was just a qualified kid with bad luck in the lottery, or that the kid was not as stellar as his mother would have her friends believe.</p>
<p>Ivies play a lot more yield games than some other schools, and it's not inconceivable that Ivy A would reject a student if they thought it very likely he was going to get in and go to Ivy B. Princeton's graph on page 6 of the paper that Mollie cites is very interesting in this respect. But my best guess is that even the most yield-conscious Ivies do this rather infrequently, because it's rare to be positive where a kid will get in and where he will go.</p>
<p>To make the argument that this was what happened at all schools to which one applied is much less plausible. (But don't tell this to the mother in question; sometimes delusions are salutary.) Just one example, even though I know Caltech/MIT are extreme in their comparitively low engagement in nonsense. Having done this for a while, there are cases in which I would bet nontrivial amounts money that student S will get into MIT and go, and his or her chances at Caltech don't change as a result -- if S is good enough, S will get in. I am sure Ben J. would say the same of a situation at MIT with the names reversed. Could we play games and pump our yield? Surely -- and we could probably hide it better than Princeton too ;-). But who wants to do that? There are things more important in life than yield, like fairness.</p>
<p>Long term readers of CC have heard similar stories, and some kids never bothered to apply to their state U. Come April, many people will ask for the web site of schools that still have openings or how to arrange a productive gap year.</p>
<p>Personally, when a kid with good stats gets rejected from reaches and matches, I wonder what was included in the recs. The wrong phrase could communicate more negativity than the teacher/GC ever meant.</p>
<p>Namkin, Please, a few deep breaths. relax. See a movie, hang with friends. Watch Numbers on TV tonight; I think this is the episode that was filmed in one of Caltech's houses.</p>
<p>Some safeties are based just on numbers, without wanting recs. Georgia Tech is such school</p>
<p>They were filming like a week ago -- I doubt it airs a week after filming. (Confirmed by checking what tonight's episode is about.) But do kick back and relax. Unless your safety is Caltech or something, I think you'll be okay :)</p>
<p>Definitely apply to a school that admits "by the numbers" (in my state, the state flagship university admits that way) as a safety school. And remember that some state universities in some states have strong mathematics and science programs even if their other programs are much less prestigious. You can apply to a state university's rolling admissions program quite early, even if you apply to a single-choice early action (SCEA) school (which neither MIT nor Caltech are).</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you look at a graph of MIT's acceptance rate (and that of Harvard as well -- see page 6 of this paper), you see that probability of admission rises with increased SAT score (which I'll use as an assumed stand-in for high stats), but that even those with perfect scores are only admitted about half the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that the graph tells us anything about how perfect scorers fared. The x axis measured percentile score, which might not encompass anything beyond integer percentiles - and even if it did, perfect scores would be a tiny blip at the far right, probably eliminated in the smoothing process. After all, doesn't "99th percentile" begin at 1470 or something?</p>
<p>For an in-state Californian with a maxed-out UC gpa, near-perfect scores and respectable other credentials, it might very well be. Although it seems sort of risky....</p>
<p>is it true applying to rutgers is like applying to an ivy if out of state? cuz people have said that, but being from nj it just seems like it's plain ol' rutgers...</p>
<p>also, random thought, do you have to be mormon to apply to byu, not that i'm planning to, just curious, lol an asian boy at byu great imagery no?</p>
<p>We know how perfect scorers on the SAT fare in highly selective admission from other sources, including annual press releases from the top schools in which they indicate how many 1600 scorers failed to gain admission. (It's generally believed, on fairly good warrant, that something like half of the 1600 scorers are rejected by any one top school they apply to.)</p>
<p>Randomperson, I assumed that the data point labeled "100th percentile" was the perfect scorers, since there is a separate data point for the 99th percentile. I suppose it's not really possible to tell.</p>