I think the Chance Me threads are useful for some students–particularly those who need a reality check, re: what they think is a safety/match/reach–but generally agree that they are silly. I especially don’t get the “chance me; I’ll chance back!” quid pro quo: what on earth would a fellow teenager know about your admissions chances that you couldn’t Google yourself? (ie: common data sets, etc.) Otherwise, with high stat students it’s often a waste of time to do chances because they already meet the base qualifications for application to the top schools–beyond that it’s holistic and we can’t see their entire admissions package. At that point, the answer is always the same “you might get in, you might not. Good luck.” LOL.
@jym626 Wasn’t that really a chance me thread?
No, I wouldn’t consider that thread from the U Mich forum a “chance me” post. It was a young HSer asking some questions about what he/she needs to do to be more competitive for U Mich. The “chance me” threads are supposed to stay in one forum, but they tend sometimes to ooze out elsewhere.
I think that most of the parents on this thread roll their eyes each and every time a “chance me and I’ll chance you back” thread pops up under “Latest Posts.” We tend to avoid the Chance posts because we recognize them for exactly what they are.
If you need someone else to chance you, then you’re probably not the most reliable source to chance someone else.
The best sources for chances are the statistics, and you can find them under the Common Data Set for your school.
And, oh yeah. Ignore my screen name and the 2,500+ other posts I’ve made. I’m actually a 17 year old genius, with a perfect score on each of the 19 SATs I’ve taken.
There absolutely is value in a Chance Me thread, but it is not in the actual GPA and SAT stats of the poster but what is listed in the extracurriculars and number/types of AP. Anyone can look up a Common Data Set and get a fantastic idea of where they stand. What they can’t determine is all the “Holistic” criteria that those other applicants are bringing to the table. Sure it’s just a minuscule slice of those that apply and maybe not a very representative slice at that, but it is extra information and these days every little bit of extra information is helpful. So while a Chance me thread may have little or no value to the OP it may have value to others.
But I think the problem so many of us have with these threads is that the answers are coming from high school students, who themselves haven’t been through the process yet. They hope they know what they’re talking about, but they don’t yet know.
If the threads were answered by admissions personnel, then my opinion would be drastically different.
^^This.
A bit of a self-indulgent blog piece by GT . . . imho.
Some schools do a good job on their websites and looking at Georgia Tech, they are one of them. I think CC could help by putting links to some of the more helpful places on a school’s website including the common data set. Not all students would read them but those who frequent those forums could point to them a little easier. Keeping the links fresh would be a bit of a headache though. It is scary to me how many high schoolers believe the advice of other high schoolers without any other evidence besides their word.
I don’t go to the Chance Me forum- can’t speak to that.
I know lots of college admissions professionals who don’t like cc because they see so much bad advice on here. I agree that if you only dally on here and don’t learn who really knows what they’re talking about, you could end up with bad advice and undue stress. I think cc works best when you start early in the process and are picky about whose advice to take.
There’s a crowd-sourced version on CC, a thread we attempt to keep updated. Keeping links fresh is always a headache, for anything 
When I first started reading CC I looked at the chance me threads and was totally flummoxed by them. It seems like a huge waste of time at best, and at worst, sending a kid false hope.
There are some really good parts to CC, but the chance me threads really aren’t, imo.
MotherOfDragons - YES to what you posted. “There are some really good parts to CC, but the chance me threads really aren’t, imo.”
You can look up the CDS, but it only tells you where your stats fall. If you’re on top, great, it’s a start. But it’s not the rest of the story.
Plenty of top stats kids aren’t reading what the colleges say on their own web pages (not marketing, not what someone told you someone else heard someone say.) That’ a pretty big loss, maybe a defining loss, from the start.
Sometimes, you just have to say, if those kids are satisfied to let the blind lead the blind, that’s on them. I just wait to see results.
Often when the score in the chance me thread ends in a 00, and starts with a 23 or 24 - just saying.
When the chance me is a first post and the story is over the top to get responses…
But then there are:
- real posts from entitled students used to getting everything they ask for scrambling for advice
- real posts from normal kids just seeking advice
- real posts from parents seeking direction
If only CC could develop a notation on each profile where other people could give kudos! Maybe, say… green squares? :-?
Stop it @soccerguy315 , I loved those squares…
But they couldn’t reflect who really knew what they were talking about.
As a metro Atlanta resident, I can tell you that there are a great many people scratching their heads at GT’s admissions this year. Very strange the caliber of students that were rejected. Last year, GT joined the common app and there were 10000 more applicants in 2014-2015 than in 2012-2013.
What is puzzling is that Tech has never had that high of a yield and this year, at least, didn’t admit (or they were deferred) students who were likely to enroll with stats that would lead one to believe they would be successful at GT.
@lookingforward they did accurately reflect who figured out the algorithm for getting the most squares and how to maximize connections with others to get them. Or who could find the green square gift thread.
So, you know, it measured…something.
From OP’s GA Tech blog article. This is his argument for why no one knows who will get in.
“Nearly 600 of our denied students had either a 35-36 ACT or 1500-1600 SAT (CR+M). The vast majority of students who were denied or deferred have taken AP Calculus or higher and are in the top 10% of their class and taking the toughest curriculum in that context. In other words, numbers are by no means the whole story.”
True, but you can make educated guesses and do a lot better than chance.
For example, he talks about rejecting 35 and 36 ACT scorers. I bet that with that score, if you are in the top 5% of your class and not an ORM, you are very likely to get in. Of the 600 they rejected, how many do you think are Top 5% and not ORM? I bet not very many.