<p>I see these threads all the time and I'll admit that I was once naive enough to post them too. However, I have come to realise that there are no such things as chances. Whenever you apply to a school, any school, you are either going to get in or not, so 100% or 0%. It's not, o well 40% to this one and 20% to another, as if to say if you applied 100 times you'd get in 40 and 20 to the other. That's ridiculous. Also, when people say, oh well the average person has a 9% chance of getting in, again, that's just flawed. Those are general statistics that represent the whole class, but when you ask for your chances you don't care about the whole class, you care about you, the individual, so 9% does not apply, its 100% or 0%. A lower admit rate is just an indicator of the selectivity, but it doesn't change your 100% or 0% to that school. Finally, it bothers me when people say, o well this percent is filled by legacies, and this percent by URMs, and this percent by recruited atheletes, because rememeber they could overlapp, like you could have a URM legacy who is an athlete. Just had to get that out.</p>
<p>Okay...so are you done ranting now?</p>
<p>yup..........</p>
<p>Well s/he's right.</p>
<p>i would argue that at the most selective colleges the process is so random to select from many qualified applicants that one could apply more than once (if that was physically possible) and get different results</p>
<p>Well, Harvard accepted 11% of this one kid at my school, so your statistics are flawed.</p>
<p>=)</p>
<p>In all honesty, we know that it's obviously 100% or 0%, but the percentages WE give are on an independent basis by evaluating each individual. Like saying someone has a 50% shot at School X means that you're unsure, and it could go either way. Telling someone they have a 90% chance at a school means you'd be shocked if they didn't get in. </p>
<p>I think you've been misinterpreting our WAMC threads.</p>
<p>"i would argue that at the most selective colleges the process is so random to select from many qualified applicants that one could apply more than once (if that was physically possible) and get different results"</p>
<p>Maybe your right but I still contend that if the process were done over again then virtually the same class would come out again. I have faith in the admissions committee.</p>
<p>I don't see the point of WAMC threads. WHY do people post them? You should know on your own well enough if you can get in or not--why ask this question. What can other 17 yr olds tell you? Like they no or not. They aren't adcom reps. This WAMC is so stupid. The only good thing CC is for is getting information, not appraisals.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I don't see the point of WAMC threads. WHY do people post them? You should know on your own well enough if you can get in or not--why ask this question. What can other 17 yr olds tell you? Like they no or not. They aren't adcom reps. This WAMC is so stupid. The only good thing CC is for is getting information, not appraisals.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>A lot of people get replies from people who either go to that college or applied there themselves, and getting input from people with more knowledge about a certain school can be helpful. Chances are, they have a pretty good idea of what other students there are like.</p>
<p>Well, statistically, whether or not you get in is either 0% as in you're out or 100% you're in. But I still see it as there being a probability based on various factors whether your likelihood of being accepted or not. If you think about it, I guess it's like each accomplishment/achievement on the college ap makes up a whole. If a person has 100% of what adcoms are looking for, then they are accepted. For example, grades can might take up 30% of the whole 100%, but based on what the specific grades are, a person can either have that full 30%, if they get all A's, or perhaps 25% if they have A's and B's and so on. Then of course there are ECs... let's say they make up 20% and the full 20% would mean you are outstanding in one or more areas of your ECs. And then there's test scores, class rank, volunteer work, work experience, etc. But of course, there is a percentage for ambiguity... this is basically unexplainable... perhaps what it includes could be something like uniqueness... what makes this applicant stand out compared to others, but doesn't quite fit in any of the other categories. So I guess this is how I see the process... it's not just a probabilty that someone randomly makes up because that's quite impossible... I guess it's more like a grading rubric.
Of course, I do think the what are my chances posts are helpful as the people who reply (in contrast to what newyorker said) are in college and know what they are talking about based on experience. Granted, there are always those situations in which it is unexplainable where someone unexpected gets accepted or someone well-qualified is rejected... but most of the time, rough estimates point to the right direction...
but maybe what ares means to say is how do you know you're not going to be one of those few obscure cases in which the results are unforeseen.... and in that case we wouldn't know and predictions are no help.
I guess all we can do is keep our fingers crossed, and keep working our butts off.</p>