<p>For what it’s worth: While HYP might seem like a crapshoot or lottery, in the sense that the result is unpredictable no matter how strong the applicant, at the next level, which includes the rest of the Ivies, results seem pretty predictable for top candidates</p>
<p>They’re all at the same extremely high level. I don’t understand people who talk about “the next level.”</p>
<p>It’s just a football conference. Remember that at every single one of the Ivies, at least 25% of the student body attending today had SAT scores below 1380, and in some cases, many more than that. Obviously, their idea of what makes for a good applicant and opinions reflected here are quite often not the same.</p>
<p>I think what the poster probably meant by “the next level” would be Cornell, Penn, Columbia, etc. Yes, those are also extremely competitive & selective, but possibly with slightly more predictably as to application content relative to admission.
JMO</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most of that 25% are part of the minorities, legacies, or atheletes. You shouldn’t be comparing yourself to these special cases.</p>
<p>Harvard was most selective last year. Yale surpassed by admitted a paltry 9.8%, to show you what a crap shoot it is.</p>
<p>Correction: Harvard was NOT the most selective last year…</p>
<p>when you say, </p>
<p>“My hypothesis: Ivy League admissions is an absolute crapshoot, is a sham, and is a lottery with minimal emphasis on your actual talents.”</p>
<p>Are you suggesting they take ALL the applications, throw them into one hat, and start pulling out acceptances at random? I am fairly cofident it is not that much of a “crapshoot.” On the other hand, it is plausible that they might have several “hats”, and after grouping applications that are very similar, the final acceptances from each hat may contain an element of randomness. But there also, my mental image is not an admissions officer with 10 apps spread out on the desk going, “eenie meanie miney mo”, but rather they hold up 2 apps, one in each hand, feel the weight of each, sniff at them a bit, and then declare, “I vote for THIS one”… at some point they have to make choices between applications that are more or less equal, so the process may appear random and probably couldn’t be exactly replicated if they repeated the process. That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it!</p>
<p>The top schools should hold a draft for high school kids, sort of like professional sports leagues. Have the ivies hold say a 500 round draft, then the slots left after that can go to students who were not drafted. This would ensure equal distribution of top students. Plus, this could further be broken down by major, if need be.</p>
<p>for the record, please visit Columbia’s ED posts. And then tell me it isn’t a crapshoot.</p>
<p>The same BS thoughts recurr every year. For the Ivies, they could put together 3-4 complete classes of completely different students and have no significant variation in the incoming class profile. Is it random? No. But is admission deterministic? No.</p>
<p>Different schools will give an eye to different needs and give different weights to different factors when putting together a class. So no, it’s not surprising that some students will get in 1 or 2 Ivies, others in 5, and others apparently just as qualified into zero.</p>
<p>Of course, I question the motives of a student who’s applying to more than about 3 Ivies anyway.</p>
<p>netshark… its not like the same adcom is reading all those apps. hes reading and comparing them with ones from his area and stuff and looking for what the school needs.</p>
<p>Of the 1,500 ed apps columbia got I bet over a 1000 were qualified and could do well. theres just not enough slots. so then you have to get the most unique people.</p>
<p>whoever said it about 1500 tennis champs… you’re so right.</p>
<p>Some of my friends think it is a crapshoot and some of my friends don’t think it is a crapshoot. After full consideration, I have decided to agree with my friends.</p>
<p>It’s not a complete crapshoot, you have to apply and you have to demonstrate some skill level or ability to contribute to the school.</p>
<p>It is a crapshoot because there are so many people trying out for the part who are acceptable.</p>
<p>It’s not a crapshoot because some parts of the application must meet with the specific needs that the school wants to fill. Maybe they are looking for a vegan religion major because they know they need to meet a threshold of students for a particular field of study and a type of student on the campus. Maybe somebodies SAT score is low or their GPA is out of whack, but the school might be looking for an artist. From the school’s point of view it could be entirely logical, but if we are unaware of what the decision processes is at the individual application level, then it becomes a crap shoot to us.</p>
<p>If you did a scatter gram of applications with grades and SAT scores as the axis, Harvard’s graph would have a majority of applications above the 1400’s and beyond the 4.0 cums and that is where the majority of the acceptances will sit. Who in that pool will be accepted or rejected will probably not be easily determined unless you know what the essay, recommendations, interview, and value of ecs are.</p>
<p>i second the draft idea…we can get scouted and stuff…heh that’d be sweet</p>
<p>Mr. B. that was well put. There’s a lot of bitterness and cries of unfairness over on those boards right now (also a lot of kindness and sadness.) It would behoove everyone to remember that there are reasons for the decisions, even if they’re ones we can’t fathom, or that we might not agree with if we knew them.</p>
<p>Rumor has it that Harvard and Yale reserve 15% of their entering freshman class for legacies. It’s a higher percentage than for minorities and athletes. Ergo, the lower SAT scores cited as well as less demanding admission standards are usually attributed to the legacy factor.</p>