The fallacy of the lottery ticket mind set...

Applying to College
1

I have frequently read posts on CC that refer to applying to a “super” reach as a lottery ticket and or read advice “you can’t get in unless you apply so go for it”.

When playing the lottery everyone has the same very small chances of winning. Hardly the case for less qualified college applicants. More importantly lottery costs are entirely monetary and modest. For a time constrained, sleep deprived HS senior the effort, cost and emotional toll of applying to schools that are beyond their reach is punitive.

I believe this “shoot for the stars” mind set is a result of adults unwillingness to deliver tough messages to kids. Instead we defer that responsibility to admissions professionals. Once the inevitable rejections roll in we explain it away by saying the process isn’t fair, there are to many well qualified candidates for to few spots, legacies and athletes take up all the spots etc… Statistically the greater likelihood is you didn’t stand a chance to begin with.

The college addmissions process is not perfect but the rules of play are pretty clear. Largely the results are predictable and sensible. While disappointments abound in my opinion much could be avoided by realistic adult intervention.

Ok so I am trying to get a discussion going so should we tell our kids Santa doesn’t exist and there is no Harvard bound 3.3 GPA JV athlete who’s only EC is a lemonade stand or should we encourage them to go for it and hope?

2

I guess I vote for reality. Not a fan of kids getting crushed by unnecessary rejection. I encourage students to take a good look at Naviance and just skip the apps that are clearly not going to lead to acceptance. I know, I know, that once in a while there are surprises, but I sure wouldn’t want to be the student that magically got into Harvard (Vanderbilt, Michigan) by the skin of her teeth. She still would have to swim with the sharks on Monday morning in class. My advice: look for a place where you will flourish!

3

When we talk about the very top schools, I think that most people who use that analogy are referring to the odds of admission from the incredibly talented, qualified pool of applicants-- not the “shoot for the stars” applicant that you mention.

The vast majority of kids who apply to the Ivies, for example, are all qualified to be there-- top of their classes, taking the hardest courseload possible, active in ECs and other activities. Yet the odds of any one of those top students gaining admission are still poor-- hence the lottery comparison.

Now, broad picture-- I absolutely agree with your ideas when it comes to kids applying in general. I’m not a fan of too many reach schools. I think they lead to inevitable heartbreak and a real blow to the ego, when by definition the kid should have known that he probably wasn’t getting in. My personal personal preference is for a lot more safety and match schools, with only the occasional reach. The end results would probably be a lot more kids happy with their results in the spring.

4

I think almost every regular poster on CC would tell an unhooked “3.3 JV athlete” not to waste hia/her time and energy applying to Harvard (In your example above)

Where the “lottery ticket” idea does come in IMO is for very well qualified unhooked applicants with “standard” excellent ECs. That is because the top colleges routinely turn down people with outstanding credentials (including perfect GPAs and standardized tests) as there is simply not enough space to accept all of the well qualified applicants. Of that group of strong candidates who post on CC, it is impossible to tell who might or might not get in to a top tier college – it could come down to essays, LORs, or something else we don’t see in a post. So for well qualified, unhooked applicants the very top tier schools, which often have acceptance rates under 10%, acceptance is unpredictable (hence the “lottery” term). I generally recommend that very well credentialed applicants apply to some reach (top tier) schools but also find match/safety schools they love. And IMO everyone should avoid having that one “dream school” that they pin all their hopes on.

5

Why would you encourage a 3.3 JV athlete with a lemonade stand to apply to Harvard? Thats not telling them there is no Santa Claus, that is telling them that their qualifications are below that school. I mean would you encourage a junior lawyer with 2 years of M&A and a law degree from Harvard to go for a CEO job of a fortune 500 company? Not unless his Dad is on the Board or is the Founder.

6

I agree with @bjkmom … I’d use the ‘lottery’ analogy for someone with higher stats. For example, a 3.9UW kid with a 1530 or higher SAT, 800 Math 2, 760 Physics, has a number of AP classes with scores of 4 and 5, and one good, sustained EC like a varsity sport or 4 years of marching band but nothing like a national-level award or published research paper. I think kids like that do have a chance at the top schools, but need to spend most of their time on finding a number of places that they’d love to go to that would love to have them.

I think the kids with the UW 3.5 and lower sometimes do need the reality check early on, to give them time to get over that unrealistic dream and go find the schools that will work for them.

7

For what it’s worth, there are several threads here for the B/C student. None of them encourage the “lottery ticket” approach-- they list a number of real, viable possibilities for kids who shouldn’t even be thinking of the top schools.

8

Agreed with most if not all of the responses.

FYI my Harvard/lemonade stand kid was highly embellished and intended to be absurd. The CC stand I view as largely constructive and informed. While CC is a high end microcosm of the process I was thinking more broadly.

What I was referencing is the approximately 20,000 applicants at every ivy that are eliminated on a quantitative basis before qualitative comparisons are done.

The average ivy has 40,000 applicants. I have been told directly by addmissions staff at two such schools that their process in essence “weeds” out between a third and half of their applicants due to a lack of rigor in HS or as they diplomatically put it; the likelihood the student wouldn’t thrive academically.

Someone is encouraging these kids to waste valuable resources. While the schools solicit applications from broad pools it is the adults closest to the kids who often embolden the student to go for it. It is then the same parents in my experience who complain the loudest when their kids get rejected.

9

The Harvard litigation makes it pretty clear that much more than half the applicant pool are"no hopers" of comparatively moderate achievement. Moreover, even in the competitive portion of the pool, in the age of superscoring, widely available test prep and inflated GPA, it’s not clear at all to me that 3.9UGPA + 1500SAT/34 ACT means a whole lot in the context of the very top schools, nor should it.

10

With teenagers, even the best of parental wisdom goes in one ear and out the other. Sometimes you have to let them experience a disappointment or two on their own. It’s a good life lesson. If he applies to all ivy leagues with a 3.4 GPA and he refuses to see reason, the rejections and semester at community college will teach him better than anything. He’ll get it.

11

@Nocreativity1 to your comment “Someone is encouraging these kids to waste valuable resources”. I think the common app is partly to blame–its much easier than handwriting or typing multiple applications–so people say why the hell not. Also-I think superscoring is a bad thing. I personally think testing should be limited and schools should not super score. It encourages over testing. Of course College Board and ACT dont want that. If a kid can squeak out a 1550 by taking it 4 times and having it super scored…okay now I can apply to Harvard! I think it is a constellation of factors. Another issue is ECs. There should be a limit–i.e we only want to see two ECs important to you–tell is about their impact on your life. The biggest factor is grade inflation. If it was REALLY hard to get a 4.0-there would be far fewer Ivy hopefuls.

12

Center I think you are spot on. I have heard numerous parents/kids express confidence that their child with a 35 ACT superstore places in the top 1%.

The process now makes it easy to just throw a few more applications out there, and the testing makes everyone feel elite.

In reality only those that aggressively research realize what they are up against.

13

One of the other issues is the uncertainty of acceptance for a hooked applicant (URM, 1st gen, location, athlete, legacy, special talent). For example, close friend’s legacy kid was waitlisted at Brown (likely soft reject) but probably didn’t have a realistic chance to begin with. How much weight should they give to “hooked” status. You just don’t know?

In addition, another friend’s kid was told not to apply to Boston University (29% accept rate) by her private counselor as she didn’t have much of a shot for acceptance but she applied anyways. Her only “hook” was 1st generation but she was accepted (spring 2019 enrollment). If she had listened to her PC, she would be going to UW-Mad in the fall.

At the end of the day I have no problem with some students applying to very reachy colleges as long as they understand that its not likely they will be accepted and have many other match and safety options on their list.

By the way, I hate the term “lottery” as it’s used in college admissions. Every kid is unique and not one kid has the exact same profile as another kid. I feel the adcoms take their job very seriously and there is a reason for accepting and rejecting every applicant. I know its a hard pill to swallow for some parents/students…

14

“In reality only those that aggressively research realize what they are up against.”

IMO, this is the biggest blind spot for the vast majority of applicants. We’ve seen it here many times on cc and most of us have seen it IRL - the “average excellent” kids who post about how they’re agonizing over choosing between Princeton and Harvard for SCEA and their list contains not a single safety school. It’s tough to give those kids good advice without being overly harsh. They’re used to being local superstars, they’ve been hearing all their lives how exceptional they are, their scores are within the 25% - 75% CDS for the school… Yet for most of them the biggest risk isn’t missing out on a Princeton acceptance if they apply to Harvard SCEA, it’s that they’re far more likely to not be accepted at either school.

15

My son’s high school has now posted on Naviance the info that includes his classmates (high school class of 2018).

For what many CC posters call “average excellent” kids: Early Decision is clearly the way to go. From his public high school, unhooked kids with lower stats (scores and GPA) were accepted early decision to colleges where unhooked kids with higher stats were rejected regular decision.

The kids from our local public high school (and also the children of my colleagues at work, who attended a range of public high schools) who were accepted ED were happy with their financial aid package if they received one. So if the net price calculator looks right, needing aid should not be a deterrent to applying ED to a need-blind/ meets-full-need college.

It is not a lottery, because it is not random, but the odds of acceptance to top colleges are slim even for top students. IMO, almost anyone aiming for a top tier college that offers early decision should apply early decision.

And yes- as long as a candidate has matches and safeties as well as reaches, there is nothing wrong with applying to a reach. The worst thing that happens is the work and fees put into that application bear no fruit.

16

Rant alert. Right. “Run a lemonade stand, if it’s what you love!” “Don’t add an activity that matters to decision makers, that’s padding.” CC is full of crapshoot advice. “You won’t know unless you apply!” Meanwhile, top colleges aren’t looking for assumptions, blind faith, dreams, leaning back, etc.

To most, even this notion of “qualified” is about stats, especially on CC. You may know stats (one kid’s or percentiles,) but you don’t know what’s a “quality” app package. And too many applicants don’t, either. Many just want encouragement, “write a great essay and you’re in.” Not.

Unfortunately, not every kid is even “unique.” Not in a good sense. CC is still stuck on how “standing out” means something weird, some sad tale, the biggest awards. Not. You don’t even need awards. But that’s the common thinking.

When H says 3x the number of seats are qualified, they mean it in the vague MIT sense, “could” do the work. But the actual work is only one part. The truer keyword is “compelling.” I.e., we want her or him. Not compelling as in sad.
Rather, the whole presentation,

You don’t even need to aggressively research. (Certainly not the CDS or what some book says.) How hard is it to understand basic math? 5% get in. Why do so many kids post asking what to write in their Why Us for particular colleges? They don’t know why they want X? Oops.

Don’t get me wrong. The great kids are great. But they digest and make wiser decisions. They flex and are willing to fine tune. But still, all you can tell those is they have a 50-50 chance, get in or not.

Ps. Early offers no advantage if you can’t present a solid full app. And this idea even “lower stats” kids got in early still misses that “quality” or compelling isn’t just about what you know of their stats. See how it circles?

17

“How hard is it to understand basic math? 5% get in.”.

Lookingforward- I am by no means an expert but I explained it to my kid as follows:

Stop thinking that you only have to stand above 19 other kids you know and have stood out from previously. Instead realize you have to stand out among 20 kids of similar achievements and ambitions. You are special to us but you are now starting as merely a blank piece of paper.

After a long moment he gave me the same shocked look he gave me when I told him that he wouldn’t be starting a lacrosse game I coached him at when he was 12. In both cases he survived and rebounded stronger.

18

Anyone unhooked kid who wants to know if they have a realistic shot of getting into School X or School Y need only log into Naviance and see where their stats put them in comparison to applicants from their HS school who applied to these school over the previous three years. If your place on the chart is surrounded by red X’s guess what, you’re not getting in.

19

Naviance is not the full view. You don’t know what kept those others out. (CC often points out that if it were the opposite, kids with your grades do get in, you don’t stop there- they could be recruits or etc.)

20

A huge number of high schools do not have Naviance.