Statement against "Crapshoot"

<p>Does anybody else not buy this "luck of the draw" admissions motto that's been going around? I mean sure you can replace the entire princeton class STATISTICALLY but you're gonna lose out on the 5 kids from the Math Olympiad team, your top swimming recruits, some very great actors/actresses, that English stud, that piano virtuouso...It seems like these studs are the ones who get in--so why do they fool us into saying that its SOOOOOO RANDOM. I disagree completely, i see these studs getting in at significantly higher probabilities (note the word higher probablitiy, not necessarily guarantees) than the normal 1450, 4.0 gpa, im the prez of everything, 2 varsity sports kid. I mean we've all seen the chances posts and the latter case usually gets the "crapshoot" which is probably a good term for that applicant because there are much less spots for that kind of student. But for a kid in the former case, we all say "wow you're a star, you're a lock". And its true if we look at the admissions stats that the studs have much better chances, so does that make the admissions process still a "crapshoot"?</p>

<p>For the non-stud kids, its a "crapshoot"</p>

<p>Right but I guess what I'm saying is that I think people need to be more specific when they tell everyone "oh its all luck" or when someone posted that "Princeton's class can easily be replaced statistically by the reject pile"--ya statistically, but that means nothing...</p>

<p>i guess the real query is, what percent of the class are from the crapshoot pile?</p>

<p>Oh, true that, I definetely think that certain people will definetely get in, but I'd say about 40% of the students there are in the 'recycleable' pile, meaning that they offer just as much as the next best group</p>

<p>However, everyone there is amazing in their own way, and would be a great addition to any campus probably</p>

<p>Yeah, I don't believe this crapshoot crap either...</p>

<p>Yeah. Just look at EncomiumII's [almost 100% correct] predictions for proof of that, lol. There's obviously some rationality to it.</p>

<p>Or what if enco's predictions were random? :p</p>

<p>Well, I think the idea of the crapshoot is that after they admit the guy who published his own book and the Olympic swimmer, the spots are such that probably get in more based on the Admission Committee's intuition than on anything specific. They can't admit you because of your 1500 SAT I, because 3,000 applicants have the same or better. It's not a statistical thing; it's more of, "I think this applicant would do well in this environment" or "I see a lot of potential here" or "I think it's really cool that he was able to do ____ in high school." Given that these are completely subjective things that vary from school to school, the Princeton committee might view you as a definite admit, while Harvard might have reservations because of a difference in the schools. Because of this, you get kids who got into Harvard and Yale, but rejected at UC Berkely, and they conclude that it's random.</p>

<p>Yeah. I know someone who got into Cornell, Princeton, MIT, Columbia, Yale, Harvard -- but rejected at Boston U. :-/</p>

<p>I don't believe this random stuff either. I see kids that look like they have similar stats, but one group of kids doesn't get in anywhere, and the other group of kids gets in everywhere. Obviously the admissions committees are seeing something beyond the stats and they seem to be seeing the same things.</p>

<p>hmm gives you something to think about dont it?</p>

<p>Hey, that's a whore post.</p>

<p>It definitely rides on whether or not you have a hook. If you do, your chances increase by a very liberal margin. If you have no hook, it's a crapshoot. It's luck as to WHEN they read your app, how many kids right before you were admitted/rejected, and a lot of other things. If you have (a) hook(s), your outcome is totally different.</p>

<p>That being said, I still think it's important for every school, especially ivies, to have its share of athletes, musicians, artists, etc. The rest of the group is almost a grab-bag deal because, for the most part, everyone who applies is very capable of being admitted.</p>

<p>My predictions were not random!</p>

<p>D</p>

<p>wahoocavilier: wat?????</p>

<p>I agree with wahoo in that there are not people who will always be accepted by princeton.</p>

<p>would anybody care to translate for the white folks?</p>

<p>rough translation:
let me say something. the way that they(college admins) choose some of us is not written on paper (written in stone equivalent) or said for some who choose others. For this (because of this) you guys need to see that the manner is a bit uncertain. i doubt that there is one person who cant write a good college essay and be accepted to princeton. What do you guys think of this. They say that there are people who would always be accepted to princeton. I dont believe it. I'm sorry that I'm only writing in spanish, but I am very bored. Translate if you can. Also, if you find errors, don't hesitate to correct me</p>

<p>It's definately a crapshoot for the well rounded student. As for applicants with a hook, it is more likely he/she will excel in a way other than becoming a professional in his/her field. Admitting students who are musical prodigies and star athletes is far more beneficial to a school that is looking to draw attention...since that student has a higher probility of becoming famous in some respect, and therefore creating an image for that school. Admissions is on behalf of the self-interest of the university as an institution.</p>