"....and two kids were also accepted to Harvard in 2016 but neither Princeton nor Yale accepted anyone at all that year. Go figure."
Nothing to really figure. Just as there's a "fit" factor from the applicant's perspectives, there's a "fit" factor from the institutional perspectives. I know of a kid who was rejected by every Ivy schools he applied to except Harvard. Well, that just meant that H saw in his application package a good fit at H. We see this every year, i.e., kids being accepted to Y but rejected from HPS; another kid being accepted to S but rejected from HYP; accepted to P but rejected by HYS, etc. etc. This is what the holistic admission is about, the "fitness" factor. For this reason why I stated earlier that applicants from the same high school needn't feel competitive with one another. Each student's a good fit somewhere. No degree of competition among themselves will amount to anything except for a wasted energy and totally unnecessary angst. The only thing that one has a control over is doing the best both academically and in the EC areas. Let the AdComs figure out where the kid fits best. When I look back at my S's acceptances and rejections, I saw a pattern that emerged and it all made a good sense to me to the point where I almost wanted to thank those schools that rejected him (and, of course, thank as well those schools that accepted him).
For the top private colleges, applying ED will help eliminate some of the same HS competition, all things being equal. For example, say there are 4 kids who will ultimately apply to Duke but only 1 is applying ED so IF there is any truth to "competing" against your fellow classmates, the ED applicant will not experience it. Unfortunately, at the top colleges you need all the help and strategy you can think of to get accepted...For colleges like the UCs, I doubt there is much same school competition as they are primarily looking at the total applicant pool's GPA, course rigor, and test scores.
@TiggerDad Having read CC for two years, I still cannot tell what's the major difference between H, Y and P (for a STEM student) besides the location, except Y seems to be a little "softer". So I'm not quite sure how to catch this elusive "fit", and if you could elaborate on this difference it would be very helpful because my son's college list is still not final (not that we have great hopes for HYP in the RD round). Unless it's all about year-to-year needs like athletic recruitment and "we need a new trombone player this year".
During the time when we were in the process of finalizing the list of colleges to apply to, we basically came up with the list in the following categories: 1) top ideal colleges, i.e., those we felt a great fit (small undergrad size, teacher-to-student ratio, Oxford-style and its variant pedagogical methods, right programs for intended studies and EC, rich endowment per student, generous FA, etc.); 2) secondary choices; and 3) safeties.
S was accepted to most on his top ideal list while he was either wailisted or rejected by most on the list of his secondary choices. The ones on his top ideal list were comprised of LACs and some LAC-like Ivies.
What I said in my earlier post was the "fitness" from the institutional perspectives in the way they assess the applicants, not the applicant's view of "fit" in relation to these institutions. One thing that HYP has in tight common is their "prestige" factor that when applicants apply it's quite typical that they apply to all three. In that regard, from the applicant's point of view, they're all great "fit" since prestige is the top most on their mindset.
Obviously the "fit" factor can vary widely for each student and each family: location, intended major or concentration, programs, facilities, pedagogical methods, teacher-to-student ratio, undergrad vs grad population, political climate, FA, etc. etc.
Limiting the discussion to HYP, and disregarding the location (it's a huge "fit" factor for any students, though), P is the only one of the three with its undergrad population outnumbering the grad and prof students with all courses from its beginning level to the advanced taught directly by faculty as opposed to relying on grad students to handle the lower level courses. It's Oxford-style "preceptorial" teaching method is unique as are its "eating clubs." It doesn't have professional schools, such as law, medical and business, by institutional design. Its rich endowment per student is far ahead of any colleges out there, and that's quite significant in that it allows enriched student experiences, such as taking a course on Greek archaeology actually in Greece or taking a gap year or study abroad with all expenses paid for, etc.
I'm singling out P here because it stands out so naturally against the other two for its unique and distinctness, and it's the one I've spent more time researching and getting to know. When we were selecting the final list of colleges to apply to, as I mentioned in my earlier post, our top priority was those schools that are most undergrad focused. We didn't want a school that's huge and spread out with all three professional schools dominating the institutional presence. That doesn't mean that the quality of, say, Harvard undergraduate experience is poorer. I'd say it's more a "cultural" aspect that's different among HYP.
They might accept all 5 kids if those 5 kids were very different. Maybe one is amazing at music, maybe another one had their own huge nonprofit, maybe one is amazing at science and maybe one is an amazing writer. Princeton wants people who have different strengths and weaknesses in addition to just geographic diversity. If all 5 kids are very different students and fit the criteria Princeton is looking for, then yes, maybe they will get accepted.
Geo diversity at top colleges is true. And remember, it's not just your hs. It incudes the hs down the street or across town or even further. Very real issue for many kids from locations that produce a large number of highly qualified applicants. Yes, by state matters, somewhat. It depends on a good app. If none of the proverbial NDak applicants are so great, top colleges aren't afraid to say no. But of coure they'll get an ardent look.
And if a hs that hasn't been on their radar lately suddenly starts producing great kids, none of OP's 5 may be accepted.
But this "fit" thing matters. It needs to "show" in your app/supp. Most kids, even top performers, miss the whole a top college wants to see. Grades alone (or even with what some think are excellent ECs) don't predict an admit chance. You need a reasonable Why Us and the right thinking shown in your app/supp. Drives me nuts when a Chance Me gets enthusiastic and absolute responses ("You're a lock, man!") when the OP isn't thinking holistically or hasn't dug into what those colleges look for. Which, btw, isn't some non-profit or writing a lot.
Replies to: Would Princeton Admit All Five Applicants From My High School?
Nothing to really figure. Just as there's a "fit" factor from the applicant's perspectives, there's a "fit" factor from the institutional perspectives. I know of a kid who was rejected by every Ivy schools he applied to except Harvard. Well, that just meant that H saw in his application package a good fit at H. We see this every year, i.e., kids being accepted to Y but rejected from HPS; another kid being accepted to S but rejected from HYP; accepted to P but rejected by HYS, etc. etc. This is what the holistic admission is about, the "fitness" factor. For this reason why I stated earlier that applicants from the same high school needn't feel competitive with one another. Each student's a good fit somewhere. No degree of competition among themselves will amount to anything except for a wasted energy and totally unnecessary angst. The only thing that one has a control over is doing the best both academically and in the EC areas. Let the AdComs figure out where the kid fits best. When I look back at my S's acceptances and rejections, I saw a pattern that emerged and it all made a good sense to me to the point where I almost wanted to thank those schools that rejected him (and, of course, thank as well those schools that accepted him).
During the time when we were in the process of finalizing the list of colleges to apply to, we basically came up with the list in the following categories: 1) top ideal colleges, i.e., those we felt a great fit (small undergrad size, teacher-to-student ratio, Oxford-style and its variant pedagogical methods, right programs for intended studies and EC, rich endowment per student, generous FA, etc.); 2) secondary choices; and 3) safeties.
S was accepted to most on his top ideal list while he was either wailisted or rejected by most on the list of his secondary choices. The ones on his top ideal list were comprised of LACs and some LAC-like Ivies.
What I said in my earlier post was the "fitness" from the institutional perspectives in the way they assess the applicants, not the applicant's view of "fit" in relation to these institutions. One thing that HYP has in tight common is their "prestige" factor that when applicants apply it's quite typical that they apply to all three. In that regard, from the applicant's point of view, they're all great "fit" since prestige is the top most on their mindset.
Obviously the "fit" factor can vary widely for each student and each family: location, intended major or concentration, programs, facilities, pedagogical methods, teacher-to-student ratio, undergrad vs grad population, political climate, FA, etc. etc.
Limiting the discussion to HYP, and disregarding the location (it's a huge "fit" factor for any students, though), P is the only one of the three with its undergrad population outnumbering the grad and prof students with all courses from its beginning level to the advanced taught directly by faculty as opposed to relying on grad students to handle the lower level courses. It's Oxford-style "preceptorial" teaching method is unique as are its "eating clubs." It doesn't have professional schools, such as law, medical and business, by institutional design. Its rich endowment per student is far ahead of any colleges out there, and that's quite significant in that it allows enriched student experiences, such as taking a course on Greek archaeology actually in Greece or taking a gap year or study abroad with all expenses paid for, etc.
I'm singling out P here because it stands out so naturally against the other two for its unique and distinctness, and it's the one I've spent more time researching and getting to know. When we were selecting the final list of colleges to apply to, as I mentioned in my earlier post, our top priority was those schools that are most undergrad focused. We didn't want a school that's huge and spread out with all three professional schools dominating the institutional presence. That doesn't mean that the quality of, say, Harvard undergraduate experience is poorer. I'd say it's more a "cultural" aspect that's different among HYP.
2013-2015 Princeton=23; 2015-2017 Princeton 18: 2016-2018 Princeton 17
And if a hs that hasn't been on their radar lately suddenly starts producing great kids, none of OP's 5 may be accepted.
But this "fit" thing matters. It needs to "show" in your app/supp. Most kids, even top performers, miss the whole a top college wants to see. Grades alone (or even with what some think are excellent ECs) don't predict an admit chance. You need a reasonable Why Us and the right thinking shown in your app/supp. Drives me nuts when a Chance Me gets enthusiastic and absolute responses ("You're a lock, man!") when the OP isn't thinking holistically or hasn't dug into what those colleges look for. Which, btw, isn't some non-profit or writing a lot.
Plus kids make mistakes.
I think @Sally_Rubenstone's printed answer is spot on.