Why are some people on this forum so negative when it comes to evaluations?

<p>Ever so often, I would look at a post of a person chancing himself for MIT, yale harvard, etc. He would have nice grades, SATs and good EC's. Then people would say that he's got no chance because his scores don't seem high enough.</p>

<p>Are they over exaggerating the intensity of college admission, are they just too skeptical? Or is it really that competitive? I mean normally, we don't post our recommendations, interview results and essays on this forum. The scores, grades and EC's are only half of it</p>

<p>they're just jealous of the poster's stunningly good looks</p>

<p>Envy, D'oh!</p>

<p>I suppose there are always instances where those chances are over-critical, but i think thats better than giving someone a false sense of security.</p>

<p>For schools like MIT, Harvard, Princeton, and etc. it usually isn't enough just to have gpa, awards, ec, scores, and etc. . The numbers are usually against you, according to the admit %'s. I think i've read that a really high number of applicants are qualified for those schools, but there simply isnt enough spots. So when these people ask for chances, they are usually qualified, but they might not be likely to get an acceptance to that uni.</p>

<p>Honestly, a lot of people just do this either (1) to brag, because they already know that their scores are good, or (2) to get more comfort when people say that you have a good shot.</p>

<p>It's kind of ridiculous asking people for chances, because it's not like we are admissions officers or anything. I didn't think I'd get into Swarthmore, and I did. And I'm sure a lot of people think that someone will get in even though they didn't, so it can be very disappointing.</p>

<p>I actually think people are too nice with chances to HYPMSC on these threads, especially if the chancers themselves did not apply to top tier schools and don't really understand what kind of applicant quality is required.</p>

<p>sometimes its sarcasm, sometimes the person really has no shot, but i think most of the times it's because you really can't tell with these schools. The applicants you refer to may be perfectly capable of thriving in schools like MIT, Yale, or Harvard, but the sad reality is that these schools are EXTREMELY competitive. There's no use beating around the bush because many many qualified applicants will be rejected just because there are way to many people applying for so few spots. We're just trying not to get these applicants' hopes up because the chance of rejection at schools like these is always high, no matter who you are.</p>

<p>What I found it to be interesting from few chances threads I've read, that most of the times people would just step all over applicants who have almost perfect scores, various EC's etc. that worry if they'd get rejected by HYPMS etc.
On the other side, when someone with actually low scores for CC posts their stats (500's), many times that thread will get only a few replies and those few that post there would advice them to raise the score and then see. And all that without really being harsh.
Going through the archives I noticed it wasn't exactly so few years ago when people with low scores would just get crashed immediately, but now, it seems to be improving.
I thought it was interesting how people would get angered by nearly perfect applicants, but still have compassion for the companions who might actually have low chances. People are probably getting more and more aware that admissions really is a crap-shoot, not only scores ;)
Just my opinion.</p>

<p>many people want to know their chances just so they can post their 800 800 and 790 scores and their 4.0 uw gpa's so many people tel them they have no chance in attempt to crush their egos...i'm guilty of this and sarcastic comments all the time towards the braggers...other case is the person is being legit and truly wants to know chances and lots of the bragging people tell him or her that they have no chance b/c of low SATs just to show that they had such a high SAT that they thought a 2100 was low.....it ****es me off a lot</p>

<p>I think we should be nicer to the kids with 2300s and high GPAs and good ECs who are applying to HYP! By all means, don't stroke their egos by cooing over how perfect they are, but HYP is rejecting more and more of these "perfect" kids... that poster still has less than 50% chance, usually.</p>

<p>i think people are usually just being honest/realistic (with a few exceptions, of course- there is plenty of sarcasm on the boards)</p>

<p>Well, it really is that difficult to get in. </p>

<p>I think when people say "you have no chance at all," that's slightly unrealistic because as you said, the essays and recs are a big part of it. It's better not to give false hope to people, though, so I think many live by that idea.</p>

<p>However, sometimes people on CC go into the realm of just being insulting which is probably crossing the line.</p>

<p>There is no way in the world to ensure admission to the most selective schools. No way (let's not play the "If your parent is the President and you won the Olympics and you donated ten million dollars..." game). Every year, applicants with 2400 SAT's, 4.0 unweighted GPA's, and lengthy lists of unbelievable EC's are rejected. We all know that. What often gets forgotten is that many applicants with <2400 SAT's, <4.0 unweighted GPA's, and impressive-but-not-unbelievable EC's are accepted. The kids who are accepted are awesome kids, but most of those rejected are also perfectly well-qualified. For us to try and predict or make sense of the distinctions is senseless.</p>

<p>It's easy to say "My friend had a 2400 and a 4.0 and was rejected by Harvard, and you only have a 2300 and a 3.8, so you have no chance." But the friend's rejection doesn't necessarily mean he was unqualified. It might just mean that he lost the lottery (it also might mean that there was a problem elsewhere in his application). As major of a role as merit plays, there's still an element of chance to all of this. At most schools, applicant selection is a human process. </p>

<p>When it comes to the very most selective schools, it's not a matter of being overly harsh or of "just being honest." IMO, it boils down to the fact that we can't possibly know. Numbers, which are what most "Chances..." responses are based on, become largely meaningless. These schools have enough high-stats kids applying that good numbers are no guarantee, and they'll accept + enroll enough such students that a few "SAT outliers" will be of no negative consequence to their rankings. </p>

<p>So in answer to the OP, yes, admission to "MIT, Yale, Harvard, etc." really is that competitive. What "Chances..." threads often ignore is that it's not competitive in a way that we can predict. And for the record, when I see "Chances..." threads for this sort of school, it's not because of envy that I get irritated; rather, it's because any poster intelligent enough to apply to such schools should also be intelligent enough to see the ridiculousness of posting a "Chances..." thread for them.</p>

<p>That said, this process can blind people to reason, and there's never an excuse to reply with rudeness.</p>

<p>People aren't right to say that HYPMS are a 'crapshoot' because that makes it sound like everyone has an equal chance and it comes down to luck. There are strong applicants and then there are weak applicants. Consoling weak and "average" applicants by telling them that HYPMS is a crapshoot doesn't help them .. except perhaps to make them feel temporarily better until decision day comes around.</p>

<p>its cause we're all overly bitter about being rejected. hahah
but seirously, its probly cuase its better to not gety our hopes up high and get in that the other way around</p>

<p>Colleges don't want someone who could potentially gain a spot in a season of Beauty and the Geek; they don't want stupid people or people with no social skills. Colleges want their graduates to be successful and make their college more famous, so they are looking for an improbable mix between the two. Which make it difficult...to say the least.</p>

<p>And personal experience tells me that in many cases the two are inversely related(9th grade math anyone?). So idk...this could be why people who should have gotten in didn't</p>

<p>^^ That's a bit debatable because I have older friends with the social skills of a rock who've made schools including MIT, Harvard, and Princeton. It's possible to be desirable to top schools even (or because) you'd qualify for the Geek part of Beauty and the Geek if you can make up for that by being really, really good at something.</p>

<p>yea we're too nice with HYPMSC schools, i think, but i really don't like to say things like "sorry, very low chances" when obviously the person has worked hard to get great test scores and GPA. and if they're really nervous and anticipatory.</p>

<p>When I look at chances threads, I see responders who are too negative, but also a lot that are too positive. In some cases, the people posting those threads really do need a reality check, because they've been told by uninformed guidance counselors or family members that they're a sure bet to get into a highly selective school. People in that situation need to understand the real hurdles, and need to have a good strategy with realistic reaches, matches, and safeties.</p>

<p>Now that we're all so close to decisions, people have started to become more negative about other chances. It's fine actually; the little college admissions guy in all of us just wants to say that he's the best. So in a way, we're all just reassuring ourselves that we'll make the cut.</p>