<p>i’m also interested in how you calculate chance of attending</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did whether the EC was common or rare matter? For example, given similar levels of performance, how did piano and violin players do versus tuba and oboe players?</p>
<p>
I did not analyze this, but anecdotal reports suggest rarer activities are significantly more valuable. For example, a few weeks ago a parent posted in the Stanford forum about her daughter being accepted with an 1890 SAT and no hooks. The main thing that stood out to me in the description were her rare ECs and background (for Stanford apps), which involved Future Farmers of America events and awards. Nevertheless, my rating system did have strong correlation with acceptance, without considering rarity. Acceptances for non-hooks with less than a 3 were rare, while rejections for academically qualified candidates with more than a 3 were also rare. Note that my rankings of school/region/state/national did not require competing at that level. Instead if the division was not obvious, I considered if a school/regional/state/national newspaper would likely be interested in publishing a story about the student’s accomplishments outside of the classroom.</p>
<p>I agreed with Data10 about needing 4+ in EC to get into these top schools.
I really don’t think the EC has to be rare - they just need to be WOW.</p>
<p>For example, every kids around here who take the requisite bourgeois piano lessons will end up with the merit award (aka level 10) around sophomore year. As a parent, I think this is a significant accomplishment. However, for adcoms at top schools, this is probably a yawn.</p>
<p>A friend’s daughter attended Stanford. Of course, she got good stat. However, she also won a state championship in piano competition.</p>
<p>Another acquaintance’s daughter is attending one of the HYP and her flute skill is quite impressive. She performed in Carnegie Hall several times - the earliest was when she was 14.</p>
<p>Lastly, a friend of my daughter who is planning to attend a HYP (she was accepted to all of them + Columbia and Stanford). She has won international piano competitions. She was incredibly nice and self-assured.</p>
<p>Other kids who are more STEM-oriented, have placed in Science Olympiad at the national level. I don’t think doing a robotic club here or there is going to hack it. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you rank your preferences, the probability of attending a school is the product of the probabilities of being rejected by all more preferable schools times the probability of being admitted to that school. </p>
<p>In my example, assume Princeton was your third choice, and the probability of gaining admissions to HYP was 25%. Since Princeton is your third choice, the probability of attending Princeton is the probability of the following 3 events. </p>
<p>Probability of getting rejected by H: 0.75
Probability of getting rejected by Y: 0.75
Probability of getting accepted by P: 0.25</p>
<p>0.75<em>0.75</em>0.25 ~= 0.14 or 14%</p>
<p>The the probability of attending Princeton is 14%. </p>
<p>Worth applying in my view.</p>
<p>And somehow this helps you decide which colleges to apply to? If not, I don’t see the point unless you enjoying dabbling in statistics in your free time.</p>
<p>People talk about how much the ECs matter, but the application essays matter a lot too. The interviews may have some impact. Visiting, level of interest, etc. None of this stuff is stuff that you really have any insight into. All of the stuff about evaluating your own ECs is pure speculation. Some normal unhooked people get into reaches and they probably wrote outstanding essays and sold the ECs that they had and came across as genuine and likeable. </p>
<p>Why put all that effort into a school in which you have a 2% chance of attending. </p>
<p>I found that this methodology helped my kids focus their efforts and trim down their lists and put the effort where it was most needed. That’s why I shared it.</p>
<p>Obviously, YMMV.</p>
<p>If you have a low chance of attending then you probably shouldn’t apply (for example, if university of Kentucky is higher on your list than Harvard)</p>
<p>For me, ClassicRockerDad’s methodology is best for excluding colleges from a list. For example, at my son and daughter’s high school, over the past 10 years, UPenn has never taken more than 5 kids each year – no matter how many kids applied or how brilliant they were. So, if your kid’s heart is set on UPenn, realistically their chances of being accepted are pretty slim no matter what their stats. On the other hand, Harvard has taken as few as 8 students and as many as 26 students per year – so the odds of being accepted to Harvard (irrespective of whether you like the school or not, or even what high-end stats your child may have) are greater than getting into UPenn. For whatever reason Harvard likes the school and UPenn does not. Many colleges run hot or cold with high schools and that is very valuable information to know when forming a list.</p>
<p>0% - don’t bother if not first choice
10-30% reach
40-90% match
100% safety</p>
<p>Realistically, you’re never going to get 100%. I’d say safety = 95%+, match = 33-94%, and reach is anything less.</p>
<p>auto admissions maybe?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends. Some examples of places where one might get 100% assured admission (of course, affordability also needs to be checked):</p>
<ul>
<li>Texas high school students in top 10% rank are assured for Texas public universities (except Austin where top 7% is needed). Some combinations of rank and test scores give automatic admission for many of them.</li>
<li>For Iowa public universities, there is a Regents’ Admission Index formula where students who score high enough are automatically admitted.</li>
<li>Students who are California State University (CSU) eligible (by GPA and test scores) are assured admission to non-impacted majors at non-impacted CSU campuses.</li>
<li>Anyone can be admitted to an open admission community college.</li>
</ul>
<p>I’ve read that a safety, for any individual, might be defined as a school where the acceptance rate is over 50% AND the student’s GPA is at the high end of the previous freshman year class/ the student significantly exceeds the 25-75% SAT or ACT range. Also, admissions is by the numbers, rather than holistic.</p>
<p>I agree with emberjed for applications in the US. ShawSon had steller grades/board scores and was waitlisted at one school that his college counselor listed as a safety. His GPA/SATs were above almost everyone else from his HS who had applied there and all at high levels had been accepted. I suspect that they thought he wouldn’t attend so waitlisted him to see if he responded positively. However, there are undoubtedly some exceptions such as those ucbalumnus points out.</p>
<p>ShawD applied in Canada where they more or less told her on our visit that she would get in given her grades and SATs (they do it basically by formula and don’t worry about leadership or extracurriculars). So, at schools in Canada that don’t use holistic decisions (I think McGill and Queens do to some extent), you can get a nearly 100% probability.</p>
<p>My 2015 son is a double legacy at a lower Ivy, and he is applying ED because it is his first choice. Even if he ups his scores, he knows that with a 7% acceptance rate, even with being a legacy, and even with being recruited for a sport, it’s just not a good chance. Luckily with athletics, there are ways to make scores like 2000 SAT and 700 average SAT II work out at an Ivy.</p>
<p>I applied to three schools senior year of HS. Like the Texas case, NJ had automatic acceptance junior year HS to Rutgers, which isn’t all that bad. My two others were an Ivy I really wanted to attend, and another that I was interested in. Money was an issue for my parents, so I didn’t want to just throw in a bunch of schools I had a good chance to get in. But they didn’t want me to just go to Rutgers because of money.</p>
<p>With athletes, there is a lot of action before senior year (way before for girls; I’ve heard of commitments in 9th grade), and if he ends up applying to only three schools, it will only be because of athletics. If his academics have any question, or if he is interested in athletics outside of our area, we would up it to ten schools. Being recruited is not a guarantee if the grades don’t come through.</p>
<p>I agree with the rolling admissions consideration, unless a student has to apply exclusive ED to take advantage of it.</p>
<p>Applicants have to realize that many schools, like the state school I work at, will keep taking applications and making decisions up until August for September freshman year entry. If money is an issue, applying to three schools won’t mean you’ll ruin your college career if you get three rejections for whatever reason in the regular timed cycle. And there is always transferring to the college of your dreams.</p>
<p>You can choose safety schools that get you pretty close to 100% using:
- Schools with Open enrolment
- Schools with rolling admission you apply to in September/October. If by chance you dont get in, you can substitute a different rolling admit school.</p>
<p>“In general, if you have average stats (1900-2150 SAT/28-31 ACT), you should probably apply to MORE target/match schools than reach schools. If you have above average stats, you could split them into 50% target/match and 50% reach provided you also apply to a safety school where you have a 100% chance of admission and a 100% chance of the school being affordable.”</p>
<p>doncha love college confidential? ACT nat’l avg = 21.something
<a href=“http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/Section1.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/Section1.pdf</a></p>
<p>Safety is 99-100% (nothing is certain in a process you can’t control)
Match is 50-99%
Reach is 1-50%</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Should have checked whether the school considers “level of applicant’s interest”. If it does, it cannot be a safety, and chance of admission probably goes down as the applicant’s stats and qualifications get further above the typical admitted student range.</p>