chances, not - but please read

<p>A lot of people use the Penn section of CC, as well as other parts, to ask others about what their chances of getting in are. Let me refute a few commonly held notions:</p>

<li><p>While CCers are possibly OCD in their overachieving (nobody “accidentally” finds cc.com), they are NOT college admissions counselors. Nobody on this site can tell you what your chances of getting in are, no matter what they say. Every school is different, every applicant is different, and every adcom is different. If you got a 900 on your SAT then you probably won’t get in, but again you still might.</p></li>
<li><p>There are people on this website that think that if they discourage others from applying, their chances of getting in will somehow increase. These people might tell you that you have low chances, just for this reason alone.</p></li>
<li><p>There are mean people. They will tell you that you have no chance of getting in. You’re probably already a little under-confident about your chances if you’re posting, so you might take what these people have to say to heart. Read bullet #1.</p></li>
<li><p>(For those asking about ED) You already applied! What difference does it make what your chances are? Stop worrying about it, there’s absolutely nothing that you can do now. In less than a month we’ll all know how the cookie crumbles - so let’s save our energies for then.</p></li>
<li><p>If you’re reading this post, you’re probably an overachiever. That means you’ve probably been working hard, and if you continue to do so, you’ll succeed in life no matter where you go to college.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Its very easy to get psyched out by a few “you have no chance” at getting in posts, so don’t bother posting your chance. You’re all probably fine students, so don’t worry about it.</p>

<p>Hope to see you at all in Philly.</p>

<p>That is a very astute, very well put, post. And you're completely wasting your breath.</p>

<p>Sadly, I have to agree. Most of the people on this board reading this post already know all of this, but WE CONTINUE LOITERING AROUND CC!!!!!!!!!!! We can't help ourselves....-__-''</p>

<p>I actually talked to Catch about this on AIM last night. Pretty much my sentiments exactly. CCers are probably an excellent display of non response bias.</p>

<p>Haha... non response bias... how about normal distribution and SRS's.. =)</p>

<p>ASalientOne...why do I have the feeling that you are mixing me up with somebody else? Or is the "Catch" you are referring to a difference "Catch"? -__-?</p>

<p>Maybe I was mixing you up with someone else. I think the person I talked to was named cash'd or something like that. Whatevs!</p>

<p>Oh, and musicbuster: my LSRL is greater than your IQR!</p>

<p>Urm..but, my Sx is greater than your Z-score. (down w/ random number tables)</p>

<p>omg random number tables are so stupid!</p>

<p>did you know that if you take two neverbeforeused TI83s and use the random number feature (our class only tried for {x|1=<x>=10} you'll get the exact same sequence of numbers?</x></p>

<p>Oh, and while your sx might be greater than my zscore, at least my zscore is perfectly linear!</p>

<p>Thats because the calculators use Markov chains I think</p>