College applications seems more like a strategy & probability effort than a simple “I like it, I’ll apply there” thing.
Is it reasonable to use the Bernoulli process to calculate one’s college acceptance probability? That is, take your expected loss multiple that loss repeatedly for as many times you play and subtract the result from one (eg. 1-.80.80.80.80.80.80.80.80.80*.80 = 89.3%
OR Is there a better probability method to use?
i’m pretty sure it’s a probability and an “i like it, i’ll apply there” thing. in other words, it’s an “i have a good chance of admission based on my stats, and i like it there, so i’ll apply” effort.
Holistic admissions policies make a mockery your statistics and probablities.
I’m not totally buying the “holistic admissions” thing. If you’re the Harvard/Stanford/Williams/Amherst/etc. Admission Office and you’re getting 500 applications for every staff member, I’ve got to believe there’s not a whole lot of actual reading of the applications going on. There might be a sorting out of who’s in the top 1/3, read those more carefully and admit from there, and maybe the bottom 2/3rds goes to the we’ll get to them later…if we can.
^Er. No.
Parchment does this for you - they have the data on a lot of kids, and often can factor in AP tests and leadership positions. You put in the universities you are thinking of applying to, and then they do a simulation and tell you how many they think you’ll be accepted at, and the probability that you will be accepted to at least one. They also have some error rate that they report. Whenever I look there, however, among those accepted, you often see high correlation - so if someone got into any ivy league, for example, they were often getting into many. That says to me that the statistics are missing something, particularly for top twenty schools (as reported by USNWR). It also says to me that for a lot of students success rate at one university is correlated with success rate at another, so relying on an assumption of independent odds and quantity of applications increasing chances of admission could be a bit dicey.
No
No
Parchment is as accurate as my picking the winning Kentucky Derby horse. Whatever statistical methodology they use falls apart considering that the users who enter they data are not, IMO, a statistically representative subset of the pool applying for a particular college.
Believe. Don’t believe. It’s your choice. My choice is to believe that a school with a 95% rejection rate is not simply then taking the top 5% of applicants based on stats. Regardless, it is what it is. Nobody ever said that the admissions process was transparent. The college does not owe anyone an explanation, and none will be forthcoming.
This formula is used to calculate the odds of N independent events occurring at least once. Admission results are far from independent, they are highly correlated.
@NewEngParent FWIW, at an admissions program at Wesleyan, an AO said that all the applications get read in full. A bunch are quickly and easily rejected, another bunch are quickly and easily accepted and then there are all the ones in the middle that need more time, thought and discussion. No, he didn’t break down the relative sizes of the groups.
While, yes, I could come up with reasons why they might have strict cut-offs and why he might lie about it, I see no reason to think that’s the case.
It seems logical to me to believe that this is more or less how it works at all the competitive schools with holistic admissions.
The reason to read the entire application even when grades and scores are low is because they never know what else is in there, what might, every once in a while, make an AO want to give an application a longer look or give a kid a chance.
Read The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg. It’s old, but I’d be surprised if it isn’t still a broadly accurate picture of how admissions decisions get made at competitive schools.
No, because college admission decisions are not independent events.
Also, the decisions are not random.
From wikipedia:
In the setting of college admissions the outcome for each trial is nonrandom and dependent on different variables depending on admission criteria of each separate college.
@millie210 This is helpful, thanks. “Read The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg. It’s old, but I’d be surprised if it isn’t still a broadly accurate picture of how admissions decisions get made at competitive schools.”
Maybe I’m trying to make college admissions logical, when it probably is not. But if there’s a sorting (like the Wesleyan AO suggests), is it reasonable to assume that Admissions offices sort into Safe / Match / Reach / No chance & Incomplete piles? And then it’s the Safe/Match/Reach piles that get the “holistic” reading?
OP, can only go on my own kid’s experience, I was very doubtful about the whole ‘holistic’ thing but I now believe it to be true.
Yes, there would be that type of sorting going on, but “Safe/Match/Reach” are categories that applicants think about-- it is not sort of categorizing that the admissions team would do. Instead they would do a yes/no/maybe sort – one group of definite admits, another would be definite rejects - and then the broader “maybe” group would be students who are qualified for admissions and whose files would require further review by whatever process the college is using.
Keep in mind that for selectivice admissions, the decision for everyone is the “maybe” group is going to be made based on institutional priorities. Not, “is this student good enough to attend college here”-- and not – “how deserving is this student” — but “what does the college gain by admitting this particular student?” So I’d imagine that there might be other ways of annotating applications to note specific points that fit within the overall admission goals of the college.
@Jon234, why is that? I see the number of applications to the selective LAC & mid-sized universities, and I just wonder.
So @calmom, for the institutional priorities, it would be something like we (the college) need more students for the Russian program, and we see this student who’s a “maybe” has studied in Russia, collects Russian comic books, etc. would also probably study Russian here, we’ll admit. Like that?
You have to just accept that if your child applies to any remotely competitive colleges that use holistic admissions, there is no guarantee of anything. Even a “safety” school that uses holistic admissions isn’t truly 100% safe. That’s why many kids will apply to a couple of safeties, several matches, and a few reaches. Where people start going wrong is when they assume that by applying to a LOT of reaches, they increase their odds of getting into one reach. It doesn’t work that way.
IMO, a balanced list could be something like 2 safe, 4-5 match, 2-3 reach, and maybe a high reach or two. And I think all students, before applying to any reaches and potentially just throwing money away, should consider if that reach is even within the realm of possibility. That means that the student actually does have a competitive application to submit, but the acceptance rate is extremely low. A kid with a bunch of Bs in regular classes, but a great test score, is highly unlikely to be anywhere near the realm of possibility. If you have money to burn, submit the apps to the reaches, but do not skimp on the match and safe schools. Most kids will end up at one of those.
I believe that this year, the admissions cycle was particularly brutal. I don’t see it getting better next year. There have been a lot of students posting about only having one or two schools to choose from, and they don’t even really seem to like them. No kid should apply to schools they don’t like.
ETA: I read the Gatekeepers, great book, and I don’t expect much has changed in terms of how they actually evaluate the app.
Yes, but it could also be demographic factors, and I would assume a student who could meet multiple goals would be at a particular advantage.
I also recommend The Gatekeepers because it gives insight about internal reporting and how institutional priorities shift during the course of an admissions season as the admitted class takes shape.
Going into this, that was my belief also. What changed my mind was that, along with her offers my daughter recieved several hand written letters complimenting her on and commenting on specifics of her essays (maybe this is normal and I’m easily fooled?). She is lucky to have a guidance councillor who phoned colleges as well as writing a letter of recommendation. Several college AOs spoke to the GC in depth about her essays (BC and Haverford AOs were apparently quoting it and laughing aloud over the phone) and asked how she contributed to the make up of her high school, her personality but, apparently, not much about academics. Had she been rejected at the majority of schools she applied to I might have remained doubtful about the procces. However, she was rejected at Swarthmore, wait listed at Cornell but admitted everywhere else she applied including, Williams, Wellesley, Brown, U Rochester, Haverford, Havard, BC and Yale with a 1470 SAT. It’s a great SAT score but schools of this calibre routinely reject kids with higher scores. On scores alone I 'm not sure she would have faired so well.