<p>In college admissions, there are only so many spots. And the Admin people have to wade through them and say yes or no. I am wondering if sometimes students that 'should have" gotten in don't because of their place in the queue, if you get my drift</p>
<p>we have seen many qualified students get rejected, and some not so get in, wondering if the filling up of spots in the initial round of "hey, good enough" kids leaves better kids left out because they were last in line, through no fault of their own, maybe geography, maybe, filing, maybe luck of the draw, maybe adcom people getting tired</p>
<p>Of course. The process is arbitrary and a crap shoot in so many ways, given that it is so subjective. Your decision could be affected by where you happen to be in the queue (as you say), whether the reader had several amazing applications right before your app gets read, whether the reader has a headache or is in a bad mood, etc.</p>
<p>For a school with rolling admissions this would obviously be true. First come, first served. But at the most selective schools, so I have been told (I wondered about this also) they review all the applications before decisions are made so when they go back to make decisions they are in a position to assess the merits of the entire pool.</p>
<p>At all but maybe 100-150 colleges, the conversation may be more like, "what can we do to get this student to attend". Admit rates are 70% and above, and yields low.</p>
<p>For smaller colleges, it really isn't so much of a crapshoot, as those applying are very self-selecting, and the constraints upon and admissions department in selecting A CLASS (they don't accept individuals, they build a class) are very great. Once they have "qualifed" an applicant (SATs, GPA, etc.) they have to accept the developmental admits, and a high percentage of legacies. They need to fill up the sports teams, and the orchestra, and whatever. They need students who plan to study in small departments, or languages where they support their own JYA programs. They need to continue strong relationships with their traditional feeder schools, and with GCs at those feeder schools. They only have a certain amount of money for financial aid, and, historically, will only accept a certain percentage of students who need it in a big way. They'd like to have some academic superstars. Geography plays a role, especially for northeast schools, as demographics are shifting toward the south and southwest.</p>
<p>It may be a "crapshoot" for individual students, but to call it a "crapshoot" from an admissions department perspective is insulting. These are well-trained and experienced professionals who well understand their institutional mandates, know the in's and out's of yield management, and know how to manage large and complex budgets. It is not in the least arbitrary.</p>
<p>With the top colleges getting upwards of 20,000 applicants, and with so many being more than "qualified", you can't avoid the arbitrary element. They have to make tough decisions based on little more than their judgment. If you attempted to replicate the process at any given top college, you'd get different results every time.</p>
<p>That's just the thing. Just because colleges get more applicants doesn't mean they get more "selective". As the same number of applicants submit more and more applications, the chances of any particular college among the prestige school snagging the particular students they want gets lower rather than higher. In other words, there is more uncertainty on the college's side of the equation. But the result of that is likely even more cautiousness, and less arbitrariness, on the colleges' part.</p>
<p>For the vast, overwhelming number of schools, though, it is still a buyers market.</p>
<p>And, as has been so often discussed on this site, whether or not you require FA will also affect your chances. They have only so many spots and need a certain percentage of kids paying full frieght.</p>
<p>This discussion reminds me of something that I've been curious about. Perhaps someone can help me with an answer or direct me to another discussion if this has already been addressed. </p>
<p>When my son applied for college last year, two of the colleges he applied to put his name on a waitlist (as opposed to an outright acceptance or rejection) and immediately contacted him asking whether he would accept if he were admitted. Specifically, my son applied to 2 Ivy League schools, a highly regarded regional college, an honors program at a large state school, and a LAC that is a family alma mater. While he would have attended and been happy at any of these colleges, his top 2 choices were one of the Ivy League schools and the honors program at the state school. </p>
<p>I believe the colleges knew how he ranked them because he filed his National Merit Finalist preferences (listing his first and second choice schools) and these were provided to the colleges during the application process. Thus, unless this information was withheld by each college from its own admission's committee (and I don't see why that would happen), the colleges knew their ranking on my son's preference list.</p>
<p>We didn't think much of this at the time because my son didn't mind identifying his first and second choice schools. However, it was interesting that he was admitted to his top 2 choices and waitlisted at 2 of the other schools - even though these schools arguably had less stringent admission standards than his top 2 choices. Perhaps this was a coincidence but it was strange. Perhaps naively, I expected that completing the applications and paying the application fees would result in a yes or no response. Instead, I was left with the impression that it was a game in which colleges protect their yield rates by accepting only those students who they believe will actually attend. I've since read articles suggesting that this does occur, but I am interested in what the CC commenters think.</p>
<p>My thought is that a student may be exactly what the college is looking for, in every aspect, but because someone another student was close, they picked them, and by the time they get to an even better choice, there is no more room to admit</p>
<p>for instance you have 1000 slots, and because of so many good applicants, they really don't give the ones towards the end a fair shake, from where they are in the stack</p>
<p>i say this because it can explain why some kids, even legacies, get missed because of location in the piles</p>
<p>at that comes to, does a file get pulled out and put to the side if transcripts are missing fron senior year and do those files get looked at last, perhaps not getting a spot because there is no more room</p>
<p>I wonder if a analysis has ever been done to see if during the RD round, if applications that are turned in earlier have better luck then applications that are turned in on the due date</p>
<p>i ask because of the logistics of the process, not necessarily attitude of a school</p>
<p>are some applications looked at as soon as they are complete (just mising the senior transcript of grades only), or are they truly all looked at at the same time, and if so, are applications that were received first looked at first</p>
<p>I've often wondered if the mental (fight with spouse/boss) or physical (caffeine-withdrawal headache, shouldn't have had sauerkraut at lunch) state of the app reader plays a significant role in all of this! As I understand it, some schools have at least 2 readers for each app, but others will certainly have only one. Maybe this is why kids are advised to be sure their essays stand out - certainly an average essay read at 9:00 AM when a morning person is having a good day will stand a better chance than one read at 4:00 PM when the same person is wondering why they ever chose admissions as a profession, or what they should make for dinner.</p>
<p>CGM ~ Your question about applications that are read late in the process being at a disadvantage is interesting. I thought I had read (perhaps in A is for Admission?) that you are completely correct. I know that we planned to get the applications in early to all of Son's schools because of this factor. Now I can't seem to put my finger on the quote I read to justify this opinion.</p>
<p>Of course, it's hard to know how it actually works out. Son applied to 12 schools: one lost the application file completely, nine needed at least one emergency re-send of the core materials (seven schools needed a duplicate transcript, four needed two duplicate transcripts because they lost the first replacement, and two needed three duplicate transcripts, having made document-loss into an art form). Only two schools simply opened the materials, found everything, and then decided. But both of these schools admitted son very early in the process, so maybe that's some confirmation of your theory there...</p>