It is probably a lot easier to predict many of the rejections (GPA too low, not rigorous courses chosen, test scores too low, ordinary level of achievement in ECs), etc. than it is to predict admissions (which depend on being not only top end on the visible aspects, but also on the opaque-to-the-applicant-and-observer aspects like essays, recommendations, and how the student fits into the class building that the school does).
Note that while things like evaluation of subjectively graded stuff is not random, it may appear to be so to applicants and observers, due to the opacity of the process and some of the criteria involved (like essays and recommendations).
Acceptance is hard to predict because there is little variance in the observable factors (GPA, scores) and much more variation in the quality of essays and recommendations, which are unobservable to most of the people trying to do the predictions.
When I look at results threads, I’m often surprised that a particular student was rejected by that particular school–but when I look at the list of where else they were admitted, usually my surprise dissipates a bit, because often they got into other similarly selective schools. It’s my observation that, if they apply to enough schools and a reasonable range, the overall results are usually pretty consistent. There will be a kid who was rejected by Tulane but admitted by Brown, but the overall record makes decent sense. There are tough cases, in which a kid with really good stats applies only to a bunch of top reaches and only one safety (or none) and then is wiped out. I think that is usually because of a lack of good advice.
Note: we here on CC can’t predict accurately where somebody will get in, which is why “chance me for Harvard” threads are pretty useless. However, the collective wisdom here (in my opinion) can give a student real help if the question is “What would a reasonable list look like for me, given these goals and stats?”
I think it’s also worth remembering what the former cornell admissions officer turned college admissions consultant posted in his reddit AMA that was posted here (I can’t post the link straight to it, there was a Business Insider article about it that was an acceptable link, I’m sure people can find it if they want).
He flat out said that 40% of the applicants to Cornell (which accepts ~10%) were every bit qualified to be there. What separated the 10% from the other 30% was as he called it “the awesomeness factor” and odds are that you will be unable to get a sense as to what the kid’s awesomeness factor really is without seeing the ENTIRE application. SAT, GPA, and ECs/Awards lists can maybe start to hint at it, but you’ll never really know. Hence it’s not hard for us on here to predict who will fall into the 40% that are qualified for Cornell, but it is hard to predict on here who will be in the 10% that actually get admitted.
EDIT: Also CC results threads are incredibly unrepresentative of the whole admissions picture.
It is very hard, if not impossible, to predict who will be admitted. A lot depends on the readers of your application, especially the initial reader. There rating is very influential. You might hit a reader that really relates to your application and essays; another reader might feel differently. If your application goes to Committee, a lot depends on how well the person who presents you makes your case. And then there is the fact that each year’s applicant pool is different.
Find 8 dice. Keep rolling until 6 or more of them are 6’s.
Was there something outstanding about that roll?
A bit a an oversimplification, but if you chop of the supercandidates, valedictorian/2350+/intel winner (or similar) and chop off the 3.5/2000/nothing unusual - you have a whole lot of kids who (as a population) are very similar. On a micro level you can’t say they are all the same, but from a distance, on any given day, it will be impossible to distinguish between the ones that get into multiple Ivys and those that “only” get into 1 or 2.
There are always a handful of kids who get into every school they apply to Ivy or not. There are always lots who don’t get into any of the Ivies (or whatever you want to call the super-selective colleges). They are writing posts saying “Do I have a chance? The Ivy league has always been my dream.” They are good but not tiptop students, with nice ECs but nothing out of the ordinary and good but not stellar scores. And yet they apply anyway. I was amused reading the Harvard acceptance thread today that one kid got into both Harvard and Yale (after a deferral I believe), but was rejected by four other “lesser” Ivies. He seemed to have a good head on his shoulders. But for most students it’s very hard to predict which admissions officer is going to like you better than the equally talented kid in the folder they just read.
I know for my oldest (who got some great acceptances and some rejections), I knew which parts of his application (that I had access too) were really top notch and which were only hopefully good enough. And I have no idea what his teachers and counselor wrote.
When it comes to HYPSM, plus Wharton, in my 17 years as a consultant and ten years as an H interviewer…I have never been surprised by an acceptance. I am sometimes disappointed by a denial; I am sometimes surprised at which of those schools said yes and which said no. But every single kid who ended up with one of those acceptances blew me away at the first meeting.
I have had a few happy surprises with Penn, Cornell, and Brown – kids who I thought were classic Bright, Well-Rounded Kids but long shots for Ivy. It’s never happened with HYPSM.
“I have had a few happy surprises with Penn, Cornell, and Brown – kids who I thought were classic Bright, Well-Rounded Kids but long shots for Ivy. It’s never happened with HYPSM.”
Very true. It really isn’t that all that hard to predict. The lottery analogy really misses the point.
A normal, mortal, non-minority, non-legacy kid with a 35 ACT and a 4.7 GPA is cannon fodder at HYPSM. Pretty much a waste of time to apply. But such kids will have a shot in the next, slightly less rare-ified tier.
That’s where you get some of the seemingly random outcomes – accepted at Duke but rejected at Vandy; accepted at Brown but rejected at Penn; accepted at Notre Dame but rejected at Georgetown. And some of those outcomes are significantly affected by whether the smart mortal kid wisely or unwisely used their one ED silver bullet. Lots of ED bullets aimed at Stanford turn out to be duds, but many of those would have hit the target at Cornell or WashU.
The kids who predictably get into HYPSM (and everywhere else) all have some one thing that they do that is at the all-state to all-American level. Could be cancer research, debate, entrepreneurship or robotics. But they are not in the top 1% at that thing. They are in the top 1/10th of 1% at that thing.
“A normal, mortal, non-minority, non-legacy kid with a 35 ACT and a 4.7 GPA is cannon fodder at HYPSM. Pretty much a waste of time to apply.”
I disagree. My normal, mortal, non-minority, non-legacy, 2310, SAT, 4.6 GPA daughter was cannon fodder at Y, wait-listed at P, but got accepted at HSM.
You gotta be very,very good, but getting in without a major hook is not a miracle, and certainly not impossible.
You both have good points. I will add that a boy at my D’s high school this year got into Harvard by being a nice guy and having the usual good grades and test scores. But not stellar grades and test scores. The only thing anyone can think as to how he got in is that everyone likes him. Colleges want to admit people they like. It is possible that he is the only kid in the US who got admitted just for being a nice guy, but good for him.
@Pizzagirl - why the comment? What makes you think I am that type of parent. My daughter has no interest in the Ivies is more interested in women’s colleges. Not everyone fits into the mold you want to make for them. Even parents on CC.
Things have changed a lot over the past 10 years. My younger D has better credentials than the older one in someways but the outcomes have drastically changed from 4 years ago.
I get the feeling that with the overwhelming number of applications being received by top schools lately and the goal to 0% acceptance rates by driving up applicant volumes, the schools have lost sight of their primary mission.
Perhaps a simple predictor for typical prospective applicants to super-selective schools:
A. Unweighted GPA < 3.9 or not the most demanding course selection? NO.
B. SAT (and SAT subject) scores < 700 in any section, or ACT scores under 32 in any section? NO.
C. No achievement, award, or recognition at the state or national level? NO.
D. Otherwise, POSSIBLY BUT NOT LIKELY, but applicant should still view the school as a reach and have safeties that s/he would like to attend. Remember that other unobservable (from the applicant’s point of view) aspects of the application also matter, such as essay, recommendations, and interview in comparison to those of other applicants’, as well as whether the applicant fits into the carefully crafted class that super-selective schools have the luxury of building from an overabundance of highly qualified applicants.
“Just from viewing the Ivy League Admission Thread on CC it seems like there are quite a few kids who get into multiple Ivies and it seems like there are many, many kids who get into not a single Ivy.”
My son was asking basically the same question today over our dinner. My reply to him and to you is:
There are too many well qualified – quantitatively speaking, i.e., GPA, SAT/ACT scores, AP/IB results, etc. – than what elite colleges can accommodate.
What these elite colleges are looking for, then, is the “quantitative range” that they feel the accepted students are equipped with to successfully complete the college. As long as the candidates fall within this range, what these colleges are looking for is qualitative side of the candidate, specifically with the following goal in mind: does this student possess those unique characteristics that’d allow him or her to contribute to the campus life and in the work force upon graduation. Those who are likely to contribute (as entrepreneurs, political leaders, community organizers, innovators, artists, etc.) are also likely to return as contributors to their alma mater – and hence the legitimization of the legacy system. All those full ride financial aid or grant offers that these “generous” colleges are well known for aren’t as altruistic as people think. These elite colleges want something in return for their “investment.” They’re into human resources investment by way of higher education, that’s all.
There are more students with the both quantitative and qualitative ranges than what elite colleges can accommodate, so here’s the bottom line: at this point, the whole admissions process is a crapshoot. If anyone tells you otherwise, if anyone tells you that there must be an exact science in this process, i.e., empirical pattern, is only fooling themselves. This explains the phenomenon of why one particular candidate gets accepted into one of the HYPS colleges but gets rejected at Vanderbilt, Tufts, Carnegie Mellon, that makes you go “huh?” It’s a crapshoot.
So, if you’re one of those dreaming about elite colleges, just work hard on both qualitative and quantitative ranges, not for the sake of making them look good for elite matriculation but with genuine and passionate pursuit of excellence. I believe that if your life’s goal in itself is in line with these elite colleges’ goal, namely, being a contributing citizen in the future, then the odds are in your favor as opposed to those students who game the system just for their elitist lust. If you’re genuine, it will show through.
“Then the next question is why so many people who don’t match that pattern still bother to apply?”
The number of those seeking entrance to elite colleges has skyrocketed in recent years. That’s simply because of the blind need based admissions policy. Everyone now has a chance. They also know that a part of their chances at these elite colleges is a crapshoot, so why not me? Some, I assume, also want to know for sure what their chances are by applying rather than passing up and learn to regret later that they haven’t even tried.
