Low probability doesn’t deter people from their dreams. Just take a look at the lotteries.
2 Likes
“Low probability doesn’t deter people from their dreams. Just take a look at the lotteries.”
Agreed but we don’t blame the state for operating the lottery nor should we blame the colleges for trying to attract a broad, qualified and diverse applicant pool. People’s unfounded optimism is their responsibility not for others to reign in. All of the average stats and figures are published, but people choose to ignore them at their own peril.
2 Likes
I don’t think applying to reach schools is a problem. As long as you are realistic about the chances. And as long as you don’t have the “Elite” or bust mindset. Setting yourself up for “I have to go to x college or else” or x small number of schools or else is setting yourself up for stress and likely disappointment (at least if x school(s) have low admit rates).
6 Likes
I do, but I don’t want to hijack the thread for another issue.
6 Likes
The reality is, even if you are in the top 5% of your class with a 34 ACT and (seemingly) solid EC’s like team captain, student government, yearbook editor etc … you have virtually no chance of getting into Princeton without a hook. At that level, such applicants are a dime a dozen. DD21 had these type of stats but we knew the score (the information is out there for those who care to look). She applied ED 1 to a school with an overall acceptance rate in the high teens, got in, and we were done with the process before the Christmas tree went up. You don’t have to play the game.
12 Likes
I agree that you don’t have to play the game. I feel like my D had a leg up because after doing two decades of alumni interviews and basically having no one ever admitted without a hook, she heard all our stories and knew not to take rejections personally. You either fit an institutional need that year or you don’t. Focus on match and safeties and the stress is mostly eliminated.
4 Likes
Every T20 has an admit rate below 20%. Over half are below 10%. Several are 5% or lower.
Common sense says “little to no chance.” Any student smart enough to gets A’s in the math classes necessary to get into these schools should see those statistics and immediately think “little to no chance.”
Apply anyway, but realize, “little to no chance.”
True. But when we see the Sad Sack who spends $100/week on the lottery while saving nothing for retirement, we shake our heads and mutter “what a shame.” Similarly, when we see HS students/families in a T20-or-bust college plan …
We’re just saying, no family/student should bet your future on the lottery … or on an all-or-nothing T20 application cycle.
11 Likes
You are far more insightful than most parents. If that is “all you have”, admission is indeed difficult without a hook.
But most students or their parents have no way of knowing this is true. And therefore they apply, get their hopes up thinking they have a shot. They apply to many colleges at that level, incorrectly thinking that substantially increases the probability of getting into one. Even worse, they may not pay proper attention to match and safety colleges, or to the increased admission rates of ED (if finances allow). And therefore April rolls around and delivers a lot of bad news. And they look back and think “what more could I have done?”
I have long said that selective college admissions is just a complex game with intentionally obscure rules to give colleges freedom to shape the class in whatever way they want. This is the ugly side of holistic admissions, and for this part, colleges do deserve blame.
13 Likes
I think this sort of thinking is why so many people approach the application season all wrong, and reflect upon the rejections with misplaced emotions of feeling cheated. The reason why Harvard has a 5% admit rate has nothing to do with “intentionally obscure rules” and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that 40,000+ applicants are vying for 1200 freshman spots.
Even if every applicant is perfectly qualified (however you want to define “qualified”), Harvard will deny admittance to 95% of all applicants. Every single year.
13 Likes
The point is that Harvard would not have 40k applicants if the admissions standards were more transparent. Since they are not, many apply who have zero chance of admission. This increased last year with test optional, so even more kids applied with zero chance.
10 Likes
Let’s call it 40,000 applicants for 2000 spots, with a roughly 80% yield getting to its 1600+ students. So a student does the math and thinks they have a 5% shot.
But Harvard won’t tell you that almost nobody has a 5% shot. For example, if you are a legacy, you have over 30% shot. Recruited athletes get in at over 80%. If you take out all the hooked student categories, you end up with unhooked students being admitted at a far lower rate than 5%, perhaps approaching 2%.
6 Likes
Regardless of whether you approve of other countries’ university policies, transparency in requirements of certain minimum standards in order to apply does limit the applicant pool, and thus raise the admission rate.
4 Likes
Parents see their kids through a narrow and distorted prism of love and optimism. We all have done it and seen it.
Whether it’s the 5 foot 4 father who buys their kid a Duke jersey and basketball, or the mom speaking loudly at parent teacher night or the couple who casually mention in September their kid is going to U Chicago because they have been “recruited” having received mass mailed letters.
For many parents college admissions is the first time they are hit with the reality of their kids “normalcy” in the big scheme. It is often a hard pill to swallow in a “participation trophy” world.
Doesn’t mean they were victims or that someone else is at fault.
EconPop is the best example I have seen of someone who educated himself, was honest and direct with his kid and made an informed decision. To blame others is to ignore what he did.
5 Likes
I don’t understand the point of making that claim. Even if true, are you implying that if some of the applicants knew their actual chance of acceptance was 2% instead of 5%, that 10K would then decide to not apply. I don’t get it.
Whether the acceptance rate is 5% or 2%, 90%+ applicants will be denied. Those denied students will still be well served by having applied to options with higher admit rates.
1 Like
Harvard and Stanford are just the most extreme examples. Similar behavior occurs at colleges with 20% admit rates in that the hooked kids get in at much higher rates given the same credentials. This means that the admit rate for unhooked kids is lower. The situation is most extreme at small liberal arts colleges where a large fraction of the student body are recruited athletes.
2 Likes
Going back to the lottery analogy people know the odds are absurdly stacked against them, but yet people participate in mass. People participate and apply because it is human nature to dream regardless of how unlikely winning is or irrational expectations are.
2 Likes
Serious question, how does an applicant not understand the importance of the sports hook if they are applying to one of the SLACs where are large fraction of the student body are recruited athletes? Those schools don’t make the emphasis on sport unclear, to the contrary that is usually touted as one of their strengths and appeal to students looking to apply to those colleges. If a student who isn’t an athlete/being recruited doesn’t understand they have less of a chance to get into a small school where 45% of the school play varsity sport, is that the school’s fault?
I guess my larger question is how much agency are we saying highly qualified candidates don’t have when choosing their college list to apply to? How much ignorance of process, odds and institutional mission of highly selective colleges is acceptable for highly qualified, smart students who are competing for a limited number of spots offered?
We aren’t talking about borderline students, supposedly we are talking about the best and brightest. And yet, somehow those students (and families) are also hopelessly naive, the process is too opaque and the colleges are taking advantage?
4 Likes
Not even external standardized tests are needed for domestic applicants in Canada, since high school courses and grades are accepted as common standards at the provincial level. Some standardized (content matter) exams are incorporated as part (not all) of course grades in many cases.
But note that the most desired Canada universities are huge, and Canada’s population is much smaller than that of the US. So University of Toronto does not need to slice and dice a top-stats applicant pool the way that Harvard does.
The high level of competition for the most desired US universities has a lot to do with relative size of those universities compared to the national population. Note that places like China and India also have high levels of competition, even though the method of admission is different (one external standardized test determines your admission result).
2 Likes
One of the largest limitations that most college-intending high school students encounter is parent financial limitations (and sometimes other parent imposed limitations).
1 Like
Is understanding the nuances of each college’s admission preferences supposed to be a skill that is magically developed in high school?
For example, take a look at the home page of Amherst College. I see a major section on its bicentennial, the Science Center, some of its faculty, distinctive courses, and social media. The only thing that suggests anything about athletics is a link on the same line as “Arts & Museums” and “Library”. Even if you follow that link, the importance of athletics is not apparent.
So where exactly was a non-athlete student who thought Amherst could be a good academic fit going to find out that the deck is heavily stacked towards athletes?
3 Likes