Selectivity question

[Anonymous]

We're new to the process, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

Obviously colleges like Harvard hover around 5%...but of the 95% who are required, what percent were legitimate candidates in the first place? I.e., how many applied on a whim with a 2.8 GPA, how many didn't actually complete the application, etc?

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're new to the process, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

Obviously colleges like Harvard hover around 5%...but of the 95% who are required, what percent were legitimate candidates in the first place? I.e., how many applied on a whim with a 2.8 GPA, how many didn't actually complete the application, etc?

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

There was a change in the last year that schools can only report submitted applications, not ones that were only started. Some people theorize this is why some schools are playing games with yield protection this year. Given the number of essays for these selective schools, I doubt you have many kids with 2.8 submitting applications. Test optional does increase the number applications.

[Anonymous]

You should assume most applicants are qualified. That they could fill their classes ten times over with qualified applicants. If your kid is in the 75th percentiles for stats at a school with an acceptance rate under 20% (meaning you student’s stats are in the top 25% of accepted students stats) it is a reach. In RD my student was in that position and was WL multiple times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're new to the process, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

Obviously colleges like Harvard hover around 5%...but of the 95% who are required, what percent were legitimate candidates in the first place? I.e., how many applied on a whim with a 2.8 GPA, how many didn't actually complete the application, etc?

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

Instead of trying to make the numbers go higher, recognize that they are much, much lower. Take out URM, Questbridge, VIP kids, athletes, major donors, geographic diversity, first gen, and a slice of international students. The vast majority of normal, high stats unhooked kids have a 0% chance of admission. The rest have a 1% chance — and that’s rounded. Unhooked kids should never, ever apply to SCEA schools at this point…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're new to the process, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

Obviously colleges like Harvard hover around 5%...but of the 95% who are required, what percent were legitimate candidates in the first place? I.e., how many applied on a whim with a 2.8 GPA, how many didn't actually complete the application, etc?

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

The answer, unfortunately, is the one that you don't want.

Schools with a sub 10% (20%?) acceptance rate are generally a reach for everyone, and most importantly there is no data you can use to accurately handicap any one applicant's chances at them. Top 20 colleges routinely reject students with perfect academic stats. Top 5 or so reject the majority of perfect stats students who apply.

Take your shot for sure, but know that "Reach Match Safety" is the recommended approach for this reason.

[Anonymous]

The counselor will often try to dissuade those with no chance.

You’ll see people here claim the counselors are bad actors for doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're new to the process, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

Obviously colleges like Harvard hover around 5%...but of the 95% who are required, what percent were legitimate candidates in the first place? I.e., how many applied on a whim with a 2.8 GPA, how many didn't actually complete the application, etc?

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

Instead of trying to make the numbers go higher, recognize that they are much, much lower. Take out URM, Questbridge, VIP kids, athletes, major donors, geographic diversity, first gen, and a slice of international students. The vast majority of normal, high stats unhooked kids have a 0% chance of admission. The rest have a 1% chance — and that’s rounded. Unhooked kids should never, ever apply to SCEA schools at this point…

This is correct. Be doing lots of research beyond the top 75

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're new to the process, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

Obviously colleges like Harvard hover around 5%...but of the 95% who are required, what percent were legitimate candidates in the first place? I.e., how many applied on a whim with a 2.8 GPA, how many didn't actually complete the application, etc?

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

There was a change in the last year that schools can only report submitted applications, not ones that were only started. Some people theorize this is why some schools are playing games with yield protection this year. Given the number of essays for these selective schools, I doubt you have many kids with 2.8 submitting applications. Test optional does increase the number applications.

Agreed. But I doubt someone is going TO with a 3.5 gpa even. Most are likely 3.9+ UW and have a very competitive resume (think 8+ APs, competitive ECs, etc) , just don't do well at standardized testing. I think 90%+ of the actual applications are highly competitive. With 2-5 extra essays for the elite schools, kids with a 3.2 GPA simply are not saying, oh let me apply TO. Schools like NEU that have no extra essays are getting the kids who apply just on a whim, but even then, nobody with a 3.2 GPA is likely applying because they know they have no chance.

[Anonymous]

Is this still going on?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/207903.page#2155927

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this still going on?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/207903.page#2155927

No longer allowed:

The Education Department recently clarified IPEDS data collection practices for the 2022-23 cycle, stating explicitly that colleges may no longer include incomplete applications in their reported count. That may mean some institutions’ admissions rates will rise as the application numbers they disclose to IPEDS shrink.

https://www.highereddive.com/news/federal-data-change-means-colleges-cant-count-unfinished-applications-in-a/633355/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're new to the process, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

Obviously colleges like Harvard hover around 5%...but of the 95% who are required, what percent were legitimate candidates in the first place? I.e., how many applied on a whim with a 2.8 GPA, how many didn't actually complete the application, etc?

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

Instead of trying to make the numbers go higher, recognize that they are much, much lower. Take out URM, Questbridge, VIP kids, athletes, major donors, geographic diversity, first gen, and a slice of international students. The vast majority of normal, high stats unhooked kids have a 0% chance of admission. The rest have a 1% chance — and that’s rounded. Unhooked kids should never, ever apply to SCEA schools at this point…

+1 My friend's DD was really disappointed to not get into a highly selective SLAC. Then we sat down and worked through the numbers. Assume x freshman spots, y yield = they need to take, for example, 2,000 students. Ok, half of those are going to be girls so you are competing for 1K spots. But they also want racial diversity, so assume half of those are for white girls, now 500 spots. They want some regional diversity, probably not taking more than 20% from the mid-Atlantic, now you are down to 100 spots. And we haven't even factored in athletes, say 1/3, now you are down to 67. Some of those will be legacies/big donors, so maybe really you are in play for 50 spots (and I didn't even factor in 1st gen or the star musician etc.)at this school that has a bajillion applicants and guess what, white girls from affluent suburbs are the most common type of person in their pool. The school is looking to build the class they want and you are competing in your particular bucket. Your shot is vanishingly small. Sure, take the shot but the expected outcome is a deny. It's not personal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

Instead of trying to make the numbers go higher, recognize that they are much, much lower. Take out URM, Questbridge, VIP kids, athletes, major donors, geographic diversity, first gen, and a slice of international students. The vast majority of normal, high stats unhooked kids have a 0% chance of admission. The rest have a 1% chance — and that’s rounded. Unhooked kids should never, ever apply to SCEA schools at this point…

What are SCEA schools?

[Anonymous]

Harvard is like buying a lottery ticket. I'm sure there are a lot who are not qualified who just apply, just like you would a lottery ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this still going on?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/207903.page#2155927

No that was 2012. Higher Ed has changed dramatically in the last 12 years across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just curious. I know highly selective schools are still highly selectivce, but I'm curious if things like this are taken into account when people talk percentages.

Instead of trying to make the numbers go higher, recognize that they are much, much lower. Take out URM, Questbridge, VIP kids, athletes, major donors, geographic diversity, first gen, and a slice of international students. The vast majority of normal, high stats unhooked kids have a 0% chance of admission. The rest have a 1% chance — and that’s rounded. Unhooked kids should never, ever apply to SCEA schools at this point…

What are SCEA schools?

Selective choice early action. Princeton has it