Will a "top" student get into some "top" school? Help, please.

Parents Forum
1

<p>It is sometimes argued on CC that a "top" student will get into <em>some</em> "top" school, although not necessarily any particular top school of interest. I have also seen it argued that if a student is shut out of <em>all</em> of the top schools, then something is wrong with the essay, letters of recommendation, or other components of the application.</p>

<p>I don't believe this. I think that a few very exceptional students will wind up being shut out of all of the top schools to which they have applied--and I feel doubly sympathetic for those students, if people assume that it must be in some way their fault.</p>

<p>I think the issue is susceptible to a probabilistic analysis, which I would like to try.</p>

<p>However, for the analysis I need an estimate of particular per cents--if you are willing to help with this. If anyone has real data, that would be preferable, of course, but I am not sure that hard data exist on this.</p>

<p>Specifically: </p>

<p>Out of the entire group of students who are admitted to Yale, what per cent do you think also applied to Harvard?
If you can give separate estimates for SCEA vs. non-SCEA, that would be especially helpful.</p>

<p>I am also interested in your estimates of the per cents, with Yale replaced by Princeton. Then with Harvard replaced by Yale, etc.--that is all the combinations of HYP taken two at a time. I don't need the per cent of all Yale applicants who also applied to Harvard, just an estimate of the per cent among those who were admitted to Yale.</p>

<p>I don't think that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are looking for very different qualities in the students they select, although there might be some variation around the borders. If you have opinions on the differences in qualities that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are looking for, that would be quite interesting. For present purposes, I would like to leave other universities out of this particular analysis--not saying that HYP are the "best," just that they make up a grouping for my analysis.</p>

<p>If you are willing to help with this, thanks very much.</p>

2

<p>Three is not “all” of the top schools, so I’m not understanding how this would prove or disprove the argument. I’m guessing that the College Boards would be about the only source for this information, other than students self-reporting. I doubt CB’s info is free to the public …</p>

3

<p>QM, I have no idea, and even if I still had access to the Naviance scattergrams I’d be hard pressed to tell. You’d have to find GCs at the schools to get the numbers. Of the kids I can remember (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech):</p>

<p>1 - applied to HYM, got into all three
2 - applied to HP got into Princeton, waitlisted at H
3 - applied to HMC, got into Harvard, rejected at M and C
4 - applied to M,C waitilisted at M, accepted at C
5 - applied to HY, got into both</p>

<p>Princeton is not very popular at school being perceived as too preppy. (Not saying it is, just the perception.) For our school, I’d guess lots apply to both H and Y. And lots of the science kids apply to HM or HMY, and some, but not many to C. I don’t know about S numbers. Some apply every year, but no one ever gets in.</p>

4

<p>^^ Ignore my post above. I missed the 20 minute window to edit. </p>

<p>Had no idea so much admissions info was available.</p>

5

<p>Right, the list {Harvard, Yale, Princeton} is definitely not all of the “top” schools!</p>

<p>It’s just that for the analysis I would like to run, I need to focus on a small number, with (probably) significant overlap among the applicants.</p>

<p>Thanks, mathmom, I appreciate your comment.</p>

6

<p>“Top” student - who is one?</p>

7

<p>QM, I think the best place for you to start is on the HYP threads. </p>

<p>I would post your query there. In addition, Students are often asked to post their stats as well as where else they applied on the EA and RD results threads. </p>

<p>for example, here are some threads from this year as well as LY:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/1470828-mit-admitted-current-students-where-did-you-get-rejected.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/1470828-mit-admitted-current-students-where-did-you-get-rejected.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/1305027-official-harvard-university-2016-rd-results.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/1305027-official-harvard-university-2016-rd-results.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>If you believe what is posted, there is a gold mine of info in these threads.</p>

8

<p>This seems like a real waste of your time and energy. Why are you bothering to collect data from self-selected and totally unqualified sources (namely CC readers/poster)? How reliable could any analysis of such bogus data be? You don’t need data to know that if a student (even a perfect #1 in class, 2400 SAT Olympian) only applies to the most selective schools, there is no certainty that s/he will get in. At this level, though a better resume can greatly improve the odds, it’s still s crap shoot every time. Some people do get unlucky. </p>

<p>I work with a lot of very strong students who apply to extremely competitive schools. No one gets in nowhere, but they all apply to safeties. Sometimes some of the most competitive do end up “under-matched,” or at schools that were pretty low on their list. I don’t know anyone who thinks that this is their fault. We think that they were unlucky.</p>

<p>Additionally, things seem to work out well for the “unlucky” ones. If they really are all that, they do well wherever they land. A couple of examples. Several years ago I had a student who was at the top of his class and nationally ranked in his EC activity. He only got into one school (Chicago, and this was before it became so selective). He was wait-listed by Duke. Chicago was really not a good social fit for this kid, so the GC worked hard to get him off of the wait list at Duke. Once there he did published research as a freshman. Graduated and was admitted to multiple med schools (inc. UCSF and Wash U.), took a few years off in the middle of med school to attend Yale Law School, and is now about to start his residency. I don’t think that not getting into Harvard, Yale, or Princeton has hurt him in the slightest. Another student who springs to mind (a similar academic powerhouse) got into no place higher ranked than Chicago (this also before Chicago’s admissions had grown so competitive). He completed a double major there, followed by a masters degree at Cambridge, and is now in a doctoral program at Yale. No harm done there either.</p>

<p>So…save your energy. If you’re planning to do this work to save the reputations of the “unlucky” ones, they don’t need the help. If you are (or fear that you will be) one of the “unlucky” ones, don’t worry. You’ll do fine. Just focus on doing your best wherever you land, and don’t waste your time on silly tasks like this one.</p>

9

<p>^ QM is already a prof somewhere and she is running an online experiment to look for correlations.</p>

<p>Your examples prove an important point - great students don’t need specific colleges to thrive. They will thrive irrespective of where they land.</p>

10

<br>

<br>

<p>Oops. Guess I should have noticed the 3k+ posts! I have to say, however, that I fail to see the utility of this work. I just don’t think we need to do any number crunching to know that some great students do get unlucky when applying to colleges. I do, however, think it is worth looking at how the school at which a student does their undergraduate work affects their ultimate academic achievement. There has already been a decent amount of work done on the impact on first gen, URM, and low income student populations. It is certainly worth looking at the impact on top academic performers (a category that should not be read to exclude first gen, URM, and low income students).</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Probably most will be shut out, since the number of exceptional students far outnumbers the places in the super-selective schools, if that is what you mean by “top schools”. Especially since many places in those schools are taken by very good, but not quite as exceptional students, who have some desired demographic characteristics like legacy.</p>

<p>However, if you have a more inclusive definition of “top schools” that includes schools which are well matched academically for the student (including many state flagships for many possible intended majors), then most exceptional students should be able to find a good academic match that they can get admitted to. Those from poor families in some states with poor in-state financial aid and little merit offerings (e.g. IL and PA), and those from small population states where even the state flagship has limited academic offerings may be the ones most likely to find difficulty.</p>

12

<p>Good points have been made by all. Since I have been around on CC for a very long time, I have seen many posts specifically claiming that if an apparently exceptionally qualified student is shut out of HYPSM+C, then there was something wrong with the student/essay/letters of recommendation . . . I don’t believe this. Mirabile dictu (I love the name, incidentally) is clearly in agreement with me already; so there is no need for the “study,” from that point of view. I expect to spend less than an hour on the study–and therefore would prefer not to comb through the threads on the HYP forums to collect data. (I did that once, about 4 years ago–it was plenty for me!) Of course, this does not count the time spent reading CC and posting on CC!</p>

<p>The statement that a “top” student will be admitted to one of HYPSM+C unless there are problems with the applicant/application cannot be refuted anecdotally, because it is always possible for other posters to claim that there is something I don’t know. </p>

<p>Elsewhere, I have posted that the University of California, Berkeley and UIUC are excellent options for students who are in state for those schools (not so good out-of-state due to the cost factor). However, even in state, for some income brackets, the cost of UIUC is apparently higher than the cost of private schools such as WUStL or the University of Chicago.</p>

<p>I’d like to avoid arguments about what constitutes a “top” student. I have in mind a way to identify a subset of students that contains only “top” students by definition. However, omission from this subset does not mean that a student is not a “top” student.</p>

<p>We have had discussions of “exceptional,” “brilliant,” “very highly gifted,” and other terms on other threads. The numbers so classified by different posters ranged over at least two orders of magnitude. I would prefer not to argue over this either.</p>

<p>Just hoping to run a numbers-based probabilistic analysis.</p>

13

<p>“Since I have been around on CC for a very long time, I have seen many posts specifically claiming that if an apparently exceptionally qualified student is shut out of HYPSM+C, then there was something wrong with the student/essay/letters of recommendation . . . I don’t believe this”</p>

<p>And you shouldn’t. Who would say such a dumb thing anyway? It doesn’t mean there was anything “wrong” with the student’s personality, essay, etc. it just means that they didn’t get into a bunch of schools with vanishingly low acceptance rates. The only “problem” is if one assumes that HYPSMC are the only games in town, or the validators of one’s worth as a human being. People aren’t “rejected” - they are simply not admitted. It’s not a referendum on one’s soul. </p>

<p>QM, collecting “data” from CC is a fool’s errand. It is not remotely nationally representative. This board is very east-coast thick. I am willing to bet the actual national cross applications to HYP are a heck of a lot lower than what you would find on CC, because the concept of " getting into an Ivy" just isn’t as prevalent and those schools aren’t seen as the magic troika to which all smart kids must aspire to. I am also very willing to bet that those who apply to 2 or 3 of those schools are very different demographically from the total pool of qualified applicants.</p>

14

<p>Say, Pizzagirl, could you send your opinion to JHS? He/she seems extremely well informed across a wide range of topics, but has said more or less just the thing that you labeled “dumb.”</p>

15

<p>“Additionally, things seem to work out well for the “unlucky” ones. If they really are all that, they do well wherever they land. A couple of examples. Several years ago I had a student who was at the top of his class and nationally ranked in his EC activity. He only got into one school (Chicago, and this was before it became so selective)”</p>

<p>“Another student who springs to mind (a similar academic powerhouse) got into no place higher ranked than Chicago (this also before Chicago’s admissions had grown so competitive).”</p>

<p>This really has nothing to do with the OP’s questions but just a comment on the “selectivity” of UofC. It’s my opinion that Chicago had always been extremely difficult to get accepted into and only the brightest of the bright were accepted - but before it began it’s marketing mission it just wasn’t a popular school and simply had many thousands fewer applicants. Having gone to graduate school there in the late 80’s and TA’d, imo, the students, imo, were far more “intellectual” then the typical HYP student and I found most were “brilliant” versus just being extremely smart.</p>

<p>It only looks more selective now because of the huge increase in applicants but the same amount of seats to fill as before. And it might be that now, with the increase in applicants, the students admitted are less the brilliant, quirky types then before - as I’ve heard that from people in my graduate school who stayed at Chicago.</p>

16

<p>Instead of agonizing about all this, wouldn’t it be better if people who don’t get into the tippy-top schools just went to Wash U or Cornell or Northwestern or one of their equivalents and stopped fussing so much?</p>

<p>Going to Wash U or its equivalent is not a bad outcome, as students discover when they apply to graduate schools or jobs four years later.</p>

<p>Going to your flagship state university isn’t a bad outcome, either, especially if it has an attractive honors program.</p>

17

<p>I think it’s like shooting fish in a barrel to prove that an exceptionally qualified student can be shut out of HYPSM, much less HYP, probabilistically or otherwise. I am one of those who would generally argue that a “top” student will get into a “great” college given a reasonable application strategy and an absence of strong negatives, and disregarding financial aid issues. But I would never argue that those colleges, or even a group twice that size, constitute the universe of acceptable colleges. (In the end, my confidence comes down to not having seen Berkeley or Michigan reject an applicant with HYPS-level credentials, and believing that such applicants are also very likely to be accepted at some great LACs that are not Swarthmore, Amherst, Williams, or Pomona.)</p>

<p>Now, there are some really, truly extraordinary candidates that I have seen and said, “This kid is going to run the board.” And they haven’t always, but close enough. But to say that you need to know the story, read the writing, and look in the eyes; grades and test scores don’t provide nearly enough information.</p>

<p>I also believe in the secret flaw theory, because the few kids with top credentials that I have seen shut out (or nearly so) by appropriate match and safety colleges have each had some kind of secret or not-so-secret issue that did not affect their grades or test scores, but that might have flashed a warning sign for a college admissions staff if they got a whiff of it.</p>

18

<p>HYPSM+C admit about 12700 students or so. They have about 8400 actual seats.</p>

<p>HYPSM admit about 10% internationals, 14% athletes, 12% legacy (MIT does not and not sure about Chicago). They also look at firstgen/QB etc at about 10% or more. So if we drop about 40-50% to state that only about 50% have to meet the academic all stars, we have around 6500-7500 seats. </p>

<p>I believe the premise of a top student differs from person to person. I will use one example, SAT/ACT scores. If I use the chart for ACT scores and use a cut off of 34, we have 14,860+ who will meet this number.</p>

<p>So is this premise realistic without suggesting the profile of a top student or assuming only these 5-6 colleges make an academic difference?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/National2012.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/National2012.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

19

<p>QM - an exceptional student may have been shut out of HYPSMC because of something “wrong” in the application - or he may have been shut out because, well, that’s how the cookie crumbles with highly selective schools. Unless you sat at every adcom table, you don’t know.</p>

20

<p>

OP, I don’t have the data you are looking for but I do have some evidence to support your conclusion. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/192395-no-acceptances-one-kids-story-year-later.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/192395-no-acceptances-one-kids-story-year-later.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;