@menloparkmom wrote “the point is that all the mathematical models created so far dont and cant help students know specifically which colleges they will or wont get into. All we can do is say is the decision process is holistic, or it is like trying to peer into a black hole, or it depends on so many factors that there IS no way to predict it with certainty. Which currently are all true.”
While what she says is certainly true, I don’t think it is the “point” wrt to the OP’s question and to what csdad2 is saying. To me it seems like csdad2 is simply answering the OP’s question while others are offering their opinions (which are sound and useful) but not really addressing the topic of the thread.
I actually have a D18 who fits the hypothetical profile although she plays an instrument which is not the oboe. I think it makes sense for her to apply to several of the top schools on the chance that one of the schools puts a preference on her instrument. However, I also recognize that there are many other considerations that go into her choices and reducing the process into a mathematical model is probably not the best idea.
As the OP, I just want to thank everyone for their opinions. Sorry to have opened a can of worms. I asked the question truly from an academic perspective; my senior is already accepted to school and I haven’t really started the process in earnest with my S19. (And nobody in my family is musically inclined)! Thanks again!
Setting aside all the math debate for just a second, the reason it’s hard to give advice about chances, when you’re talking about applying to just one top school or several, is that applying to several may change the quality of the applications. If the time required to apply to many top schools means the common app essay suffers, or the “why this school” essay to the one favorite school that actually did need an oboe player suffers, or the first semester senior year grades suffer as a result of too much time spent on extra applications, the probability of getting into each individual school could actually drop further than the already low odds the student had from submitting his/her best work, and the potentially increased probability of getting into at least one school out of the many applications may not overcome that. And for any one student, we can’t predict whether this will happen. For that one kid making the decision about whether to apply to two top schools, or ten, this needs to be considered.
@csdad2 understands probability and has essentially provided (free of charge) reliable instruction on the topic. @ucbalumnus similarly understands probability, but appears inclined to believe that admissions outcomes are at least semi-dependent (as would be defined by csdad2), which complicates their calculation.
Hmmm. You have perhaps unwittingly stated something that gets down to the base point of your misunderstanding. So I will try to use it to get you to understand it once more. You see, in this case, as with many mathematical concepts, the formula is the definition. All those other things you’re looking at are attempts at intuitively explaining the definition (they are not definitions themselves, at least not accurate ones), and they are subject to inaccuracies and imprecision. It’s like explaining something using a metaphor or an analogy – it’s accurate to a certain degree, but then falls apart.
This may help drive home the point I keep making about the different senses of “independent”.
One final thing I’ll add. It’s interesting how so many people say things like you can’t model the college application process mathematically, that’s why you should apply to a number of reach-match-safety schools. The thing is, that whole idea/strategy is essentially based on a mathematical model. It’s like, reach school are ones where you have less than a 1/3 chance of getting in, match 1/3 - 2/3, safety greater than 2/3 (or whatever probability numbers/ranges you might use), yada yada yada, and using such a strategy increases the chances you’ll get into some number of schools. (Choosing schools based on fit is also an essential factor, and is used on top of this base strategy.)
Some people may not like thinking about things mathematically, it may be hard and difficult to understand. But we still do it all the time.
Please quit throwing down a gauntlet. This isn’t a thread about math tools to predict.
The wildcard is how a kid prepares his hs years and then the app/supp itself. Stanford is not looking for exactly what Harvard is. Yale may need more X majors, while P gets an excess of apps from kids wanting those, this year. It goes on.
And most kids, even top performers, have trouble with the strategy in their apps, don’t even know what matters to each target.
You can use the example of a 4.0/1600 kid, but decisions aren’t made on stats alone, for TTs.
And then the institutional comes in. You may be the 50th kid from your sub region wanting that major, for H, while S got fewer. Or P has enough enrolled from your hs in recent years, now wants to focus on other hs in your county.
No math accounts for these critical differences -and more.
Sometimes, you have to let go of the modeling. It’s sport, I get that.
Another item that has not been mentioned here is that the elite colleges seem will change their admissions standards in order to prioritize yield. In some cases, this means picking kids because they are less likely to be accepted at or want to go to your immediate competitors.
There was an academic article some time ago that analyzed Princeton’s admissions with Harvard’s, and noted that after a certain point, the acceptance ratio at Princeton declined with increased test scores. The explanation was that the tippy top test scores (36 ACT) had exhibited a strong preference for Harvard over Princeton in the past, so Princeton was less likely to accept those tippy top test scorers in the future unless there were other factors that indicated they would prefer Princeton.
Tufts syndrome is an extreme version of this phenomenon, but every school wants to be able to discern who will come if they are offered. Early Decision is the easiest method of doing this, and is most heavily practiced at schools that want to maintain low acceptance rates and high yield rates but lack the appeal of the top 5. Outside of ED, schools like Vanderbilt and WashU prioritize test scores because they know that HYPSM do not. There will be a certain subset of 4.0/36 ACT kids who write terrible applications and get denied at the top 5 schools, and these kids are more than welcomed at the lower schools.
Hey, I’ll tell you what – you don’t tell me when to stop posting, and I won’t tell you.
The reason these mathematical concepts have been covered in this thread is that others have made incorrect statements about them, and I (and others) have been trying to clear that up.
Besides, I wasn’t the one that brought up the idea of mathematical modeling. Basic mathematical concepts still apply, even if you aren’t doing modeling. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Further, everything you state can be modeled mathematically. You just have to use more sophisticated techniques. And you don’t have to get 100% accuracy for it to be useful.
Decisions may not be based on stats alone, but I guarantee you, at every school in the country, the chances of getting in are higher if your stats are higher. So even modeling based primarily on stats will be somewhat accurate. Naviance is quite popular and successful, I understand. (And as they get more data, they can do more sophisticated modeling.)
And in fact, I’m sure there are many out there that are doing very sophisticated mathematical modeling of the college application process, to their own (and others’) enrichment. It’s even being done by schools – why do you think it’s now being called “Enrollment Management”, not just “Admissions”?