<p>Wait, wait, what's this thread about, making fun of people?</p>
<p>Thanks, flutterfly_28! I've been wondering about it for a while now and always forgot to ask.</p>
<p>kwu@ I think h-bomber already gave answer to what this thread is about ;)
<hr>
<p>Yea, I kind of wish we had a better gauge for the accuracy of chances threads. I think it'd be cool if more people provided threads linking chances threads with actual results. ...
</p>
<p>ok i'll reveal mine: it's kinda different</p>
<p>Harvard (double legacy): Waitlist
Columbia: Reject
Brown: Waitlist
Duke: Waitlist
Tufts: Waitlist (tufts syndrome?)
Wellesley: Accepted, but really didn't want to go there
Boston University: Accepted/Attending (but applied to transfer hah)</p>
<p>So yeah, she wasn't too happy last april =(</p>
<p>H-bomber: I was going to be like all intelligent and say 'this is a loaded question, and not a blind study. the true way to study this is to NOT say that you are posting a stat to test CC's accuracy. the reason you are asking this is to post an excellent stat and wait for people to say "accepted," then reveal the truth with "he was rejected, you incompetent CC addicts" ' but was i wrong...</p>
<p>Not to be discouraging, as I am waiting for a Harvard decision as well, but for every one of the applicants he described getting accepted, there are probably 10 equally good applicants getting rejected.</p>
<p>hey guys.</p>
<p>she was rejected everywhere cept cornell where she goes now. yeah its a good school but she was a ***** and got her principle to send letters to harvard when she was deferred ED saying that they mustve made a mistake.</p>
<p>[edit] hey yeah wouldn't it be an interesting idea if we buried fake chance threads on every page and then made chart of how accurate CCers are in chancing :D lol. i bet most of the times we're wrong and all the poor, gullible people out there thinking that with their 2150 score they'll have 0% chance at harvard and then end up not applying or somehting :(</p>
<p>^^ I could imagine that just retaking a 2370 to get a 2400 would get you put in the rejected pile. It is a shame, but if you can't take not getting 100%, and you're constantly tutored... one starts to wonder where one's priorities lie...</p>
<p>Then again, for the record, my GC suggested that I retake my 2370 LOL. "You already have the 800s in math and critical reading! Just imagine how impressive it would be if you had an 800 in writing!" Thanks but... I'd rather not spend money to take a 4-hour test and miss my Saturday classes. Maybe I'm just weird. Haha. :-P (kidding... I would hope most people would not retake a 2370....)</p>
<p>^people at my school are like that>< i want to punch them in the face (some of them). it's really annoying that they're so competitive, it's quite palpable that everyone wants everyone else to fail. its like (hypothetically)</p>
<p>person: what'd u get on ur sats?
me: 200/2400. :(
person: good ONE LESS COMPETITION MUAHAHAHAH i mean im truly sorry that you failed. want to borrow my 13758973459873954 prep books?</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>person: what'd u get on ur report card?
me:...er...okay i guess
person: did u get any Bs?
me: no.....
person: darnit!</p>
<p>I find this thread ridiculously funny. H-bomber posts up the stats of someone who is mediocre and the person ends up getting into all of the top colleges and Narcissa posts the stats of someone who, at least in an objective sense, is outstanding and she ends up going to Cornell (not that there is anything wrong with Cornell, but it near the bottom of her preference list I am assuming). </p>
<p>While neither claim they are trying to prove a point, I would urge everyone to be skeptical of what they read. Sure, strange or even paradoxical admissions cases can happen every now and then. But you need to remember the college admissions process is a competition, meaning the people who receive golden tickets into universities such as HYP are usually the most desirable, i.e. having better accomplishments than everyone else.</p>
<p>haha the reason why we posted these stats is becuase we thought that what happened was weirder than expected, so these are probably the "paradoxical cases" that you speak of</p>
<p>besides, it was pretty obvious that she was an arrogant *****</p>
<p>here's another set of stats.</p>
<p>girl @ my school
GPA-4.6w, 4.0uw
rank-1/300
SATs:1590/1600 (when there were only 2 sections), 790math 800 reading
SAT2s:800 x 5
APs: all 5's
recs: one amazingtastic, others not that great (not many teachers liked her excpet for like 1)
essays: okay</p>
<p>awards:
fbla top 10 in nation (x2)
national merit semifinalist</p>
<p>clubs:
fbla (future business leaders of america)
national honor society
key club
no leadership positions, though</p>
<p>chance away :D
tried to make my tone neutral, probably failed miserably</p>
<p>harvard (ea)
yale
penn
stanford
princeton
rutgers(state flagship, safety)</p>
<p>See what people need to understand I think is that while yes the stats people are posting here are great, there are thousands with great stats. It comes down to ECs (coupled w/ awards to show devotion and excellence) and essays I believe. That is why chance threads are not too accurate and why people with unbelievable stats can be rejected. The stat post right above me does not have that great of ECs and so im guessing the person was probably rejected at the top schools. The first stat post of Narcissa's had good ECs, but by the description of her, prolly bad recs.</p>
<p>In addition to all this, you just never know what can happen. An admission officer might like you, but then again they might not. It is really not possible to tell how things can go. I think it is just better for us to hope for the best and whatever happens after that is not our fault, but rather due to the sheer volume of awesome applicants.</p>
<p>kyzan</p>
<p>"I find this thread ridiculously funny. H-bomber posts up the stats of someone who is mediocre and the person ends up getting into all of the top colleges and Narcissa posts the stats of someone who, at least in an objective sense, is outstanding and she ends up going to Cornell"</p>
<p>I think you need to adjust your glasses. H-bomber's candidate was anything but mediocre and was head and shoulders above the others here.</p>
<p>Actually, if I had a point at all kyzan just made it. Apparently his idea of 'mediocre' is not shared by any of the big three ad-coms (especially Yale, who went out of their way to recruit the kid).</p>
<p>Additionally, the use of the word 'mediocre' should probably be avoided in real chances threads, since that's an actual person with actual hopes and dreams that you're dismissing.</p>
<p>^that's why we all shoudln't take the word of other bored/nervous 17-year-olds when they chance us :P</p>
<p>btw the girl above got into Harvard Yale UPenn</p>
<p>OdysseyTiger, perhaps I did not clarify my use of the word "mediocre." I simply used it as a comparison to the accomplishments of others who were admitted to HYP. Certainly you cannot tell me that the person we are evaluating was "head and shoulders above the others here" without substantial evidence of our resumes. Though I agree with you that the person had reasons to be admitted to HYP, I can tell you right now (and many others would agree with me) that that reason is not immediately obvious with just the stats of H-bomber's post. His stats are solid, but not amazing. There must have been intangibles we are unaware of. </p>
<p>"Apparently his idea of 'mediocre' is not shared by any of the big three ad-coms (especially Yale, who went out of their way to recruit the kid)."</p>
<p>H-bomber, I believe you are wrong. If I had to guess, my idea of mediocre is probably shared by most admits into HYP (with me being one of them). Again, I must emphasize the intangibles of the admissions process, or even the tips we are not aware of. He could have been from a underrepresented geographic location, struggled with financial poverty, had amazing life experiences which were conveyed poignantly in his essays, etc-- almost an endless sea of possibilities. I am being completely subjective here when I assessed his chances; I honestly thought he was mediocre compared with my peers. </p>
<p>"Additionally, the use of the word 'mediocre' should probably be avoided in real chances threads, since that's an actual person with actual hopes and dreams that you're dismissing."</p>
<p>I would agree with you. But I felt no need to hide behind a facade of flowery words when clearly this kid got into HYP in his own right. Also, how can I dismiss his dreams by saying he is mediocre? I don't even know what his dreams or hopes are. Again, that was my honest opinion, and you have the complete right to disagree. However, might I remind you that by saying someone is just "average" is not always negative criticism. It can open someone's eyes up to perspective and make him work harder for a desired goal.</p>
<p>^^ Wow, Narcissa, really? This is why chances threads don't really mean much. I am almost positive her recs and essays must have been Outstanding, and conveyed some piece of her background or personality that is missing from the above. Or maybe she had legacy?</p>
<p>Chances threads... hardly elucidating, heh, even when we already know the answer!</p>
<p>Kyzan</p>
<p>You labeled one candidate “mediocre” (Candidate 1) and another “outstanding” (Candidate 2). I fail to see a rational basis for your labels. The following is a comparison of the candidates presented. No disrespect is intended towards candidate 2, who seems a very nice candidate and indeed ended up at a fine school. </p>
<p>Base stats:
Candidate 1<br>
GPA 4.67/3.9<br>
Rank 2/320
SAT 1530<br>
SAT II 800,790,760 </p>
<p>Candidate 2
GPA 4.7/4.0
Rank 1/500
SAT 1600
SAT II 800,800,800</p>
<p>Both have the requisite stats. Differences between them are insignificant. </p>
<p>Additional Academics:
Candidate 1 </p>
<p>National Merit Scholar<br>
AP 5,5,5,5,5<br>
(as a junior)<br>
Qualifies for Harvard advanced standing
(as a junior)</p>
<p>Candidate 2 </p>
<p>Unknown PSAT/APs</p>
<p>Candidate 1 knocks this out of the park. Candidate 2 does not. While these items are unknown, it seems reasonable to expect Narcissa would have mentioned such highlights as she did with her other candidate.</p>
<p>On strictly an academic basis, Candidate 1 is clearly the stronger candidate. What more did you want from him in this area?</p>
<p>EC’s and misc.</p>
<p>Candidate 1<br>
4 years winter musical – 1 lead<br>
Newspaper editor<br>
Class Officer – 4 years
President model UN
Some sort of national French award </p>
<p>Candidate 2
Lead in couple of plays
President 3-4 clubs
Nonspecific piano awards</p>
<p>OK, so far we know both are alive.</p>
<p>Candidate 1
4 years varsity soccer – senior captain<br>
4 years varsity lacrosse – senior captain </p>
<p>huge outside time commitment - 2 sport varsity athlete as a freshman<br>
at a school with 1,300 + students is impressive</p>
<p>Candidate 2
School orchestra – concert mistress</p>
<p>In school activity – probably for credit</p>
<p>Candidate 1
All Southwest Ohio First Team </p>
<p>One of top 11 players in Southwest Ohio – possibly the top player at his position </p>
<p>Candidate 2
All NYS violin</p>
<p>Scored a 100 on level 6 NYSMA piece along with hundreds of other NYS violin
players</p>
<p>Candidate 1 again wins hands down. Greater time commitment, greater achievement. Where are the outside ensembles and regional orchestras for Candidate 2? Where are the Conservatory programs (MSM or Julliard HS division or the like) which would be typical for this type of candidate? Where has she challenged herself musically? </p>
<p>Candidate 1
Founded school climbing club<br>
Certified climbing guide
Extensive climbing/hiking experience</p>
<p>Passion</p>
<p>Candidate 2
Community service</p>
<p>No demonstrated passion. See comments above on music.</p>
<p>Frankly Candidate 1 seems almost perfect - fully engaged in life and able to maintain sterling academics while pursuing all sorts of other activities in depth and excelling at them. Just the sort of candidate that Harvard (and Yale and Princeton) is looking for - (and obviously the adcoms at HYP agree). I am more than a little intrigued in what specifically you see as the shortcomings that make this candidate in your view “mediocre” even as compared to your “peers”.</p>
<p>Candidate 2, while nice, does not seem to particularly stand out to me. Further, it is not clear that she does much beyond schoolwork and lessons. Time management is touted a huge key to success at Harvard. But there has to be time to manage. It is not clear that this candidate will have any. This has been a red flag in elite admissions for decades. I am curious to know what to your mind makes her "outstanding"</p>
<p>OdysseyTigger, after reading your post, I think you have perhaps changed my mind. :D</p>
<p>Maybe I was too hasty in my labeling. I think I'll retract my former statement and reconsider their qualifications in light of your analysis.</p>