| I'm actually disagree with much of what Calcruzer says. Much of this information is freely available on the various school's websites. I rarely reply to anyone who is asking for information that is freely available, but which they cannot be bothered looking up (except occasionally to correct wrong responses).
I very, very rarely respond to chances threads, because at most of the top schools, academic excellence is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for entry. As a result, scores are not a particularly useful indicator, and most chances threads concentrate on scores.
For example, for the MIT class admitted in 2006, 97% of the admitted class had SAT I math scores greater than or equal to 650, yet only 19% of applicants with scores 750-800 were admitted.
Does that tell you anything? It doesn't tell me much.
Also at the competitive schools places are lost as much as they are won. How good are your letters of recommendation going to be? How well did you do at the interview (if there is one)? How articulate are your essays and what do they reveal about you? These are often much more indicative of chances for admission than scores. They are also almost always absent in chances threads.
Another reason that chances threads are not particularly useful, is that I do not know your high school. Chances are the University does. A key question is "Did the student take fullest advantage of the academic and other resources available to them?" If your high school offers 27 AP classes, and you took 3 of them, then the answer is probably no. If your high school offers none, and you therefore did not take any, then in most cases that won't hurt you. If your school does not offer any AP classes, but you chose to take the AP Physics exam anyway after studying on your own and occasionally working after class with your teacher, then that is significantly more impressive. If your chances thread tells me you did well on the 3AP's exams that you sat, I don't know whether that is great or awful.
Applications are evaluated in context, and the fact of the matter is that the admissions counsellors at the top universities tend to know a great deal more about the high schools and context of the application than the rest of us ever will.
Therefore, if I lack the basic information to make an informed evaluation of the application, why should I possibly reply to chances threads?
I actually find them quite distasteful. On the occasions that I read them, I see lots of really biting, often cruel comments on the posters shortcomings, which cannot be useful in any way. Indeed, it is hard to find the utility in them. For applicants who really do have it all, they are an opportunity to brag a little bit: ("I've got 5 patents, and three published academic papers, but I only got a 2390 on my SAT's. Will that keep me out of Harvard?)
For applicants whose applications are, say, more nuanced, they either get ignorant people telling them they are getting in (which could be setting themselves up for a fall), ignorant people telling them that they will be rejected (which just hurts), or more likely, some politely phrased version of "Dunno???"
I agree with Observer1, rather than trying to improve them, life would be better if they did not exist. |