The fallacy of the lottery ticket mind set...

Applying to College
21

Naviance does not filter out athletes, legacies, URMs, big development kids…any hooks. If you are unhooked, by looking at Naviance it is hard to know what is your chance.
When D2 was applying to law schools, there was one site that had self reporting stats and outcome. She was able to filter out hooks and therefore knew her chance better.

I do not usually do chance threads. I only post when I see students have “no chance” stats for certain schools, and there are posters talking about financial safeties or questioning them if they could afford those schools. Why worry about affordability when there is no chance of getting in.

At the same time, I think when student has good stats/qualifications for those lottery schools, s/he then need to apply to more schools like that in order to get in one. By applying to NU/Cornell/Duke would increase someone’s chance in getting into one.

22

I think Naviance gives a false sense of probability and predictability. People tend to take comfort in prior results and assume they represent thresholds or benchmarks that will yield the same result for them.

I suspect all that Naviance can indicate accurately on a consistent basis is whether or not your raw data will merit further review. Whether or not your ECs, athletics, essays etc serve to differentiate you remains impossible to predict. These factors that make a candidate unique however are within the candidates control and visibility.

Back to my earlier point. If a kid is well below the Naviance profile or published stats for a school the “got to be in it to win it” lottery approach is a complete waste of time, effort and hope. Better to add an attainable reach so the student may have more options to choose from. No one wants to tell their child they worked very hard but Ivy’s and their sort are out of the question but sadly about 20,000 kids applying at each ivy are in that exact situation per year and no one says anything. Not to be dramatic but in my opinion I it amounts to an abdication of our parental responsibilities to knowingly set a kid up to fail, and then blame circumstances, “the system”, athletic recruiting, the affluent and legacy, affirmative action, influx of foreign students etc…for a rejection letter.

Sorry for the rant but every time you talk to a parent that was disappointed with their kids landing spot you hear excuse after excuse. Very rarely do you hear someone “own” a disappointment and by extension value the achievement of those lucky few that did manage to get into the most exclusive of school’s.

23

I think it’s super important to be honest with kids. Even perfect stat kids are rejected by top schools. No matter how tippy top you think your child is, they are competing in a much larger pool than high school, or their region, or their state. For average excellent students, that applies even more so. The other message to our children should be that getting college rejections is part of the process. It says nothing about a students’ hard work or future potential. It could be as simple as demographic balancing. Rejections WILL come if you have reach schools on the list, no matter how great you think your kid is. Prepare for it so you and your student can brush it off, and move on to a school that is excited to have them.

I also think people aren’t realistic about matches and safeties. How many posts do we see where OOS kids think U Michigan is a match. Schools with 20% admit rates are not matches. Even less so for OOS publics that highly favor in state residents.

And for goodness sakes, have safeties that everyone is excited about it, preferably that offer rolling admission. It’s psychologically awesome to know you have an acceptance in October and that you will be going somewhere!

Lastly, kids need to look at the stats for their intended major when creating their list. For example, many schools have much high SAT/ACT/GPA averages for engineering and CS, with lower acceptance rates than the overall stats for the school. This totally burned one of my daughter’s close friends who ended up at a safety he hates (and only applied to because the GC said he had to have a safety on his list). His entire list was low, medium and high reach schools. The schools he thought were matches and safeties have very low admit rates for his intended major but his mom sang his praises saying “of course” he’s going to get into college A, B and C which just reinforced the pain for both of them when he was rejected and wait listed everywhere.

Be realistic!

24

Just to clarify: here’s what @TheBigChef said about Naviance: “If your place on the chart is surrounded by red X’s guess what, you’re not getting in.”

I think Naviance is a wonderful tool. But all it can do is give you a snapshot of what has happened in the past. As others have said, it doesn’t fill in the details, and it isn’t a crystal ball into the future.

But if your scores are indeed surrounded by a bunch of big red X’s, the odds are pretty good that you’re in over your head.

I think that part of the problem is that kids assume they’re invincible. It’s a function of their age. They assume that, even if someone else had a bad experience, they’ll be smart or lucky enough to have better results. They assume that they’ll be the exception that proves the rule. They assume that being a big fish in a small pond still means that they’re a big fish, big enough to compete in that large, immense ocean. (Yeah, I know. I’m going from fresh water to salt-- a bad combo for fish. But play along with me.)

I think my daughter (and son)'s guidance counselor gave them a much, MUCH better idea of where to apply than they could have gotten here on CC. (But then again, they’re not top students in any pond.) But the real push of where to apply came from me. So, yes, if you read my threads you’ll see that there were some mis-steps. My daughter’s #1 choice was a reach, and she didn’t get in But I knew her stats, and I knew enough to do the homework. We found schools where getting accepted was a real possibility. And when January came around, and she wasn’t thrilled with the acceptances in her hand, we did more homework-- and found the school that has her twitching with excitement as leaving day approaches.

. And a reach or two are OK. But I think that kids need to really internalize the idea of a reach. It means that the odds are overwhelming that they’ll be getting one of those dreaded skinny envelopes in a few months. So, sure, apply to one or two. But build a list of schools that you probably WILL get into, that you can afford, that are a comfortable distance from home, and where you can see yourself living and learning for 4 years. So that when April approaches, you have some real choices to make-- you’re not attending by default.

SOMEONE has to do the homework. The kid, the guidance counselor, the parent-- someone. And to be honest, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that the guidance counselor has the time. As parents, we have one kid, or two, (or, if you like reality TV, 19,lol.) But college placement counselors in my school have something like 120 kids each… and my school is fortunate enough to have college placement in addition to regular guidance counselors. (And all also teach a full courseload by the way.) So I don’t think it’s realistic for them to find that hidden gem that may be the perfect fit for your son or daughter. I think that the best we can expect of them is a list of schools that in the past have accepted kids like yours-- from there on, it’s up to each family to have someone who will do the homework.

25

The idea that, if you have “good stats/qualifications for those lottery schools,” you should apply to more of them too often misses what the “qualifications” are. That’s not another synonym for stats. Misleads many. You can apply to 20 top colleges with the stats and not have the rest. This is about discerning.

Plenty of kids hit pay dirt on the first try, but that’s usually the colleges with a less arduous review. It’s rare that those are the reaches. Need to have your eyes wide open. That’s a lot more than the Naviance look at…stats.

We never looked at Nav. It would have reflected only my girls’ one small hs and I knew there’d be plenty of competition not on those charts.

Nor is the CDS your handy guide.

26

Competitive schools have certain GPAs and test scores that they won’t dip below for unhooked kids. Those lines are not difficult to discern if you look at Naviance. For example, I know from looking at Naviance that a GPA below 95 and an ACT score in the low 30s is not good enough to get an unhooked kid into Cornell or Brown coming out of my kid’s HS. Yet every year, there are several unhooked kids who apply to Cornell or Brown with these stats who tell themselves, “If I apply ED, I have an outside shot of getting in.” These are the lottery players that OP was talking about. The kids who do get into Cornell and Brown have GPAs in the high 90s and ACT scores of 34 or higher (or the SAT equivalent). Of course there are kids with those high stats who don’t get in as well. That’s where the other stuff that doesn’t show up on Naviance comes into play (ECs, LORs, course rigor etc …). For these reasons, Naviance is much better at predicting who will not get in than who will get in.

27

If you’re talking about someone just applying to super reach schools then I agree with the OP. If you’re talking about a kid who’s stats are on the low end of the range for those type of schools I would always say go for it, provided your matches and safety schools are in place. Be realistic about your chances but got for it.
In this era of an holistic approach to applications, absolutely I would say go for it, especially if you have strong LORs, extra curriculars and can write a killer essay.

28

Several decades ago when I applied to college, the teachers would strongly advise students to apply only to schools for which they had a chance to gain admittance. Over the years, friends and family members have asked me to write letters of recommendation or help them with gaining admittance to an Ivy league school I attended and from which I hold multiple degrees. Although it was hard, I refused on most occasions. I told the applicants ( it was usually the parents) that their scores really weren’t going to allow them admittance and that they should consider other options.
There is no lottery to these top schools. They are not going to take Jonny or Jane from the pile and accept him/her because s/he’s a great kid. Not going to happen. Worse that that, this takes away ENERGY from applying to schools where they have a chance.
If someone asked me and they had a special skill ( national/international in ability), high level athletic ability or some profound outstanding trait, I would absolutely write a letter and advise. I would do this even if they were at the low end of the stats (but not too low). I would also write it if someone was particularly good in one field and poor in another ( great in Math or languages but terrible in English or Science).
During my many years at Ivy schools, I met maybe a handful of kids whose presence I could not understand. I found out one’s Dad ran a department, another’s was a prominent banker and a third was a diplomat from a developing nation. A few others I had no idea ( but I’m sure they had similar stories).
Today even legacies and kids with super scores are not likely to gain admittance. If I were advising my kiddos, I’d tell them to apply ED and make it crystal clear that is the school for you. I would also tell them to write stand out essays with personality.

29

Keep in mind all hooks are not created equal: legacy is no longer a certainty.

Look at the many chance me’s here on CC where a kid says I have a 27 or a 31 ACT or a 1300 SAT , I’m african american or ethiopian or hispanic or first gen or a female who wants to be a physics major with a mediocre ACT --and they want to go to an Ivy or chance me for these top 25 schools. If a non URM kid (i.e asian or white) asked these questions with the same stats they would be, and are, eviscerated for their temerity…LOL. What does they say about the value of the URM/1st gen hook?

And Naviance doesnt tell you any of the real stuff that matters about outliers.

30

Jon234 and Bigchef I am in agreement with all points made.

As an aside the kids in Jon234’s post who are just below range are the ones I have tended to pull for the most. Unfortunately when they dont get accepted I have found these kids parents to be the ones that complain and make the most excuses. They refuse to acknowledge their own kids shortcomings. Typically they assert it was demographic or socio-economic bias that eliminated their kid. Easy to understand a bit of disappointment or sour grapes but they fail to realise that in doing so they diminish the achievment of kids that got in bases on hard Work and had the numbers.

A pet peeve.

31

But. “I know from looking at Naviance that a GPA below 95 and an ACT score in the low 30s…” Of course, low 30’s isn’t good enough to bet the farm. But, assuming the grading range is 90-100 for excellent (what the rest of us would call an A grade,) then below 95 is still an A equivalent. A top adcom isn’t going to sweat the difference. Saying it has to be 95+ is like saying an A- isn’t good enough. The problem is:

This convo is turning back to stats alone. It misleads. It takes more than high stats and a few titles or awards to get an admit. Plenty of kids so miss the point of the app package that they don’t present their full strong picture. Nor is it just about writing a “great essay” when you consider most don’t know what a good essay is, much less, a great one.

Frankly, any kid who comes on CC with attitude suffers the same risk of a swift point toward safeties and matches.

Don’t confuse CC “encouragement” with the work actual adcoms do. Especially not from the peanut gallery.