<p>i’m just saying there’s no direct relationship between your results for one school and your results for another, except if you’re obviously underqualified for both</p>
<p>gosh, go for it.
People here are not adcoms ;)</p>
<p>:|</p>
<p>So if you’re rejected, you’re more likely to get into the other?! Somehow, things aren’t adding up.</p>
<p>I think he’s just saying that since HYPSetc… are so closely matched that it may just be chance that a reject from Stanford gets into HYP.</p>
<p>I hope this is the case, especially since Stanford rejects a significant amount compared to other schools that defer 50% of their Early pool.</p>
<p>What about this: “I might even say a waitlist from Stanford has lower chances of getting into Harvard than a Stanford reject.”</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>.serendipity:</p>
<p>Rejection from one school doesn’t mean rejection from another. Plus Stanford is much more engineering-based then HYP and I applied early too.</p>
<p>and I was just wondering.</p>
<p>No, and I agree. However, it confuses me when the poster says deferral from one school means a more likely chance of rejection from another, than rejection from the first school.</p>
<p>ya, I see hmmm</p>
<p>Since this appears to be causing confusion instead of reassurance:</p>
<p>re “I might even say a waitlist from Stanford has lower chances of getting into Harvard than a Stanford reject.”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>“might” indicates this isn’t a rule but a possibility, and that there is no direct correlation between admissions decisions from different schools of very very high selectivity. The applicants to these schools are very closely-matched, so pretty much anything goes.</p></li>
<li><p>“a” = singular which means this is referring to individuals, and it is very possible that you will have individuals who were rejected by Stanford and accepted by Harvard and individuals who were waitlisted by Stanford and waitlisted or rejected by Harvard. example: I knew one girl who was waitlisted by Stanford and rejected by Harvard, and I knew another girl who was rejected by Stanford and accepted by Harvard. In the end both of them ended up at MIT, so take whatever moral you want from that.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>re “So if you’re rejected, you’re more likely to get into the other?! Somehow, things aren’t adding up.”:</p>
<p>Correlation doesn’t indicate causation. An individual rejected by Stanford may be accepted by Harvard over someone who wasn’t rejected by Stanford for a million reasons, including chance. Does this mean that being rejected by Stanford raised their chances of getting into Harvard? No.</p>
<p>Better now? Stop overanalyzing these things. Once you get past college admissions season you’ll realize there’s much more to life than just this.</p>
<p>Well, you just completely invalidated your first statement. Not only is there no causation, there is very little correlation other than individual cases. So the better question is, why would you say something like that without substantiation? I know the interwebz isn’t “seriouz bizniz,” but honestly…</p>
<p>I would say you would need to work exceptionally hard on the essays and show how you are passionate. Otherwise, test scores won’t get you in. Talk about how much you love drawing, if that’s what you enjoy.</p>
<p>mcb52 has made her point: correlation do not equal to caustation, and u repeated her statements she had already said.</p>
<p>I would say you have approximately a 8% chance of getting into Harvard. This is actually really good since Harvard’s acceptance rate is much lower. So you should feel happy about yourself and your situation.</p>
<p>Sometimes a high school will have a better in with one university than another. There are only two students in the last six years who have been accepted at Stanford from our school - a legacy and URM and a recruited athlete. Meanwhile lots of students have been accepted at Harvard. There’s no way to know.</p>
<p>^^ do you know why a high school would have more people going to Harvard than Stanford?</p>
<p>tomjones - we’re on the East Coast, so Harvard reps come to our school. They know that the top students at our school are very well prepared and they’ve done well at Harvard. We also have more students going to Harvard because more apply. It’s frustrating though, if you want to go to Stanford from our school you know that you basically have no chance without a hook while a top student has a much, much better than 8% chance of getting into Harvard.</p>
<p>You obviously have the right objective stats to get in, but Harvard has become this diversity nightmare for anyone other than Blacks and Hispanics. Obama’s wife got into Princeton with much less credentials than you. Since your place competes with Asians and Whites, you will need to beat them out to get in. A good essay would put you in good standing. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s the reality with this obsessive PC culture we live in. Good Luck.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Sometimes a high school just won’t be on a specific college’s radar. For example our local high school gets one or two kids into HPSM every year, but no one ever gets into Y. For whatever reason Yale simply does not accept any applicants from our school. Never has and apparently never will.</p>
<p>hmmm… ic…</p>
<p>coureur- From what I’ve seen, that is definitely true. My high school has a good relationship with Princeton, sending 2+ every year (1% of our student body) for as long as anyone can remember. We matriculate a couple of kids to HSM every couple of years and 2-6 each to Brown, Penn, and Cornell each year, but we haven’t had a Yalie since the class of 1999. After I got in this year, I got a very excited call from my interviewer congratulating me and telling me that she discussed in depth the status of my school in her review. She noted that we are a school on the rise and that she believed that we were somehow missing on Yale’s radar. Apparently it worked. Shrugs. Throw that into the anecdote collection. </p>
<p>The thing is at the HYPSM level, many many of the applicants look similar with top SAT scores, great grades/rank, and devotion to ECs. These are the applicants with a real shot at acceptance. With hooked applicants- generally athletes, those with a truly exceptional talent, and developmental admits (legacy and URM just aren’t weighted that much) admited, there’s still plenty of space left. </p>
<p>The rest of the applicants are chosen on some merit-based criterion that includes all the elements that CC-ers admire, as well as an oft-forgotten one- personality. But, my point is that there is a large number of “human” applicants admitted. Most of the people I know who were admitted early (not counting athletes) didn’t have TASP or RSI or international awards. They’re just people who were involved and showcased their personality well to admissions. I also saw a lot of very qualified applicants (including those with international awards) get deferred and rejected in the early round. I wouldn’t call it a crapshoot, but admissions certainly involves factors that can’t be determined in a couple numbers and a couple lines of text. </p>
<p>My point is that you’ve simply crossed the line of qualification. You’re part of the group that deserves to be admitted. But there are so many more pieces of information that we don’t see that really matter, and nobody here can really tell you any more than that.</p>
<p>I think I just won the circumlocution award. 
This is what happens at 3 in the morning.</p>