Applying to 20 schools, crazy or not?

[Anonymous]

Kid applied to 3 EA, 1 ED and will apply to 6 RD. Fool is waiting till Dec 15th to see if he gets in to any school first because why waste time writing more essays?? All safeties and matches he says. But is Princeton a match? Fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kid applied to 3 EA, 1 ED and will apply to 6 RD. Fool is waiting till Dec 15th to see if he gets in to any school first because why waste time writing more essays?? All safeties and matches he says. But is Princeton a match? Fool.

Right! Start churning out those essays for the next 5 schools this weekend. It can only improve or not affect his odds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kid applied to 3 EA, 1 ED and will apply to 6 RD. Fool is waiting till Dec 15th to see if he gets in to any school first because why waste time writing more essays?? All safeties and matches he says. But is Princeton a match? Fool.

princeton doesn't have ED....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. There is some serious logical fallacy going on in responses above. I have a 3.98 UW with 15 AP/IB classes before I graduate. All As except for 1 A- last year. 1530 SAT.

The only reason not to increase number of applications is the time and fees it costs.

People who think that the quality of applications goes down after 10 apps have it exactly wrong. My 11th essay is much sharper and wittier than my first, when I was finding my voice.

If you are gunning for top 20, submitting all of those apps certainly won’t decrease your chances. My DD has stats just slightly below yours and isn’t applying to any top 20 schools. In her case, 8 applications seemed fine. Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. There is some serious logical fallacy going on in responses above. I have a 3.98 UW with 15 AP/IB classes before I graduate. All As except for 1 A- last year. 1530 SAT.

The only reason not to increase number of applications is the time and fees it costs.

People who think that the quality of applications goes down after 10 apps have it exactly wrong. My 11th essay is much sharper and wittier than my first, when I was finding my voice.

The biggest logical fallacy above is that applying to more of the same types of colleges greatly improves your chances of admission. Although the odds are so low at some of these schools that people refer to them as a "lottery," it's not really. They don't dump in all the similarly situated kids in a container and pull them blindly. They look at other factors -- honors, activities, letters of recommendation. Are a legacy, first gen, URM, geographically diverse, development case? One kid with exactly your stats may have won the International Science and Engineering Fair, be a nationally ranked debater, or done something else unique and interesting that catches the AD's eye. They are all looking for the same thing. What is appealing to one elite college is likely to also appeal to another.

I'm not saying that students necessarily need to limit themselves, but they need to be realistic about their chances. To the degree that there is some element of luck in catching the application reader on a good day, or finding the person with whom your application resonates, applying to more colleges doesn't lower your chances. But applying to 20 schools with 5% acceptance rates does not give you a 100% chance of acceptance, or anything close to it. You need to apply to a wide range of types of schools, just not more of the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you had asked me last year I would have said crazy, but I don’t think it is anymore.

Not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. There is some serious logical fallacy going on in responses above. I have a 3.98 UW with 15 AP/IB classes before I graduate. All As except for 1 A- last year. 1530 SAT.

The only reason not to increase number of applications is the time and fees it costs.

People who think that the quality of applications goes down after 10 apps have it exactly wrong. My 11th essay is much sharper and wittier than my first, when I was finding my voice.

The biggest logical fallacy above is that applying to more of the same types of colleges greatly improves your chances of admission. Although the odds are so low at some of these schools that people refer to them as a "lottery," it's not really. They don't dump in all the similarly situated kids in a container and pull them blindly. They look at other factors -- honors, activities, letters of recommendation. Are a legacy, first gen, URM, geographically diverse, development case? One kid with exactly your stats may have won the International Science and Engineering Fair, be a nationally ranked debater, or done something else unique and interesting that catches the AD's eye. They are all looking for the same thing. What is appealing to one elite college is likely to also appeal to another.

I'm not saying that students necessarily need to limit themselves, but they need to be realistic about their chances. To the degree that there is some element of luck in catching the application reader on a good day, or finding the person with whom your application resonates, applying to more colleges doesn't lower your chances. But applying to 20 schools with 5% acceptance rates does not give you a 100% chance of acceptance, or anything close to it. You need to apply to a wide range of types of schools, just not more of the same.

Came here to write, but PP said it much better. Cautionary tale for OP: DD, who is a senior, has a friend that graduated last year and her app process was Texas chain saw massacre. Top student with GPA and scores better than the OP. Outstanding ECs, played sports, lots of leadership. One of the top students in an otherwise unranked class (no one is ranked, but the top folks know where they sit on the "ladder"). The kid got caught sideways in what was tumultuous admissions last year for some students. The kid got dinged at an Ivy, then at ED2 NESCAC, and she just kept cascading down. She ended up at a public, though not one of the top 3. The year is going fine for her and understand she is trying to transfer. My DD has certainly thought about it with her list, including more EAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. There is some serious logical fallacy going on in responses above. I have a 3.98 UW with 15 AP/IB classes before I graduate. All As except for 1 A- last year. 1530 SAT.

The only reason not to increase number of applications is the time and fees it costs.

People who think that the quality of applications goes down after 10 apps have it exactly wrong. My 11th essay is much sharper and wittier than my first, when I was finding my voice.

The biggest logical fallacy above is that applying to more of the same types of colleges greatly improves your chances of admission. Although the odds are so low at some of these schools that people refer to them as a "lottery," it's not really. They don't dump in all the similarly situated kids in a container and pull them blindly. They look at other factors -- honors, activities, letters of recommendation. Are a legacy, first gen, URM, geographically diverse, development case? One kid with exactly your stats may have won the International Science and Engineering Fair, be a nationally ranked debater, or done something else unique and interesting that catches the AD's eye. They are all looking for the same thing. What is appealing to one elite college is likely to also appeal to another.

I'm not saying that students necessarily need to limit themselves, but they need to be realistic about their chances. To the degree that there is some element of luck in catching the application reader on a good day, or finding the person with whom your application resonates, applying to more colleges doesn't lower your chances. But applying to 20 schools with 5% acceptance rates does not give you a 100% chance of acceptance, or anything close to it. You need to apply to a wide range of types of schools, just not more of the same.

Strawmen. Of course your 20 at 5% example doesn’t yield 100%. Of course there are other factors. The relevant issue is, to the extent there is randomness and controlling for factors that are not random, then more applications improves odds. Thats pretty realistic. I’d argue more realistic than deciding to limit yourself to some random number of 8 or 10 because “fit”—that seems like fantasy and not seeing the numbers.

[Anonymous]

It isn’t crazy but it is a hell of a lot of work. My kid is applying to about 20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. There is some serious logical fallacy going on in responses above. I have a 3.98 UW with 15 AP/IB classes before I graduate. All As except for 1 A- last year. 1530 SAT.

The only reason not to increase number of applications is the time and fees it costs.

People who think that the quality of applications goes down after 10 apps have it exactly wrong. My 11th essay is much sharper and wittier than my first, when I was finding my voice.

The biggest logical fallacy above is that applying to more of the same types of colleges greatly improves your chances of admission. Although the odds are so low at some of these schools that people refer to them as a "lottery," it's not really. They don't dump in all the similarly situated kids in a container and pull them blindly. They look at other factors -- honors, activities, letters of recommendation. Are a legacy, first gen, URM, geographically diverse, development case? One kid with exactly your stats may have won the International Science and Engineering Fair, be a nationally ranked debater, or done something else unique and interesting that catches the AD's eye. They are all looking for the same thing. What is appealing to one elite college is likely to also appeal to another.

I'm not saying that students necessarily need to limit themselves, but they need to be realistic about their chances. To the degree that there is some element of luck in catching the application reader on a good day, or finding the person with whom your application resonates, applying to more colleges doesn't lower your chances. But applying to 20 schools with 5% acceptance rates does not give you a 100% chance of acceptance, or anything close to it. You need to apply to a wide range of types of schools, just not more of the same.

Yep. My impression is that at elite schools, in particular, your stats -- GPA, rigor, test scores -- are necessary but certainly not sufficient for acceptance. They'll get you an interview -- so to speak -- but not the job. At that point, it's all about your resume, your intangibles, your essays, et al.

Also, it may not be "crazy" in the sense that each application may incrementally increase your odds of getting admitted to at least one school. But it's an expensive strategy, and I do think it's "crazy" to spend $500-1000 in order to gain a slight statistical advantage when you could just as easily accomplish the same by applying to one school with less competitive admissions that might still be a good match for you.

I drove by a church today with dozens of cars in line for food distribution. There were people in line at the church door and the queue wrapped all the way around the block.

To me, that's "crazy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crazy. Make better, more focused choices.

What’s your thinking here? Why not open up to more opportunity?

Because it takes a lot of time to apply to all those schools. Are you visiting 20 colleges? Often interest makes a difference, so you have to at least do virtual visits.

Why not narrow it down? 20 colleges is unfocused. If your kid wants to spend all that time, well, no reason not to, but it seems a silly waste of time and money.

+1 Because it takes too much time, and those essays have to be researched. You can do all that, but how are you not going to blow your GPA doing that? Focus on your GPA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. There is some serious logical fallacy going on in responses above. I have a 3.98 UW with 15 AP/IB classes before I graduate. All As except for 1 A- last year. 1530 SAT.

The only reason not to increase number of applications is the time and fees it costs.

People who think that the quality of applications goes down after 10 apps have it exactly wrong. My 11th essay is much sharper and wittier than my first, when I was finding my voice.

The biggest logical fallacy above is that applying to more of the same types of colleges greatly improves your chances of admission. Although the odds are so low at some of these schools that people refer to them as a "lottery," it's not really. They don't dump in all the similarly situated kids in a container and pull them blindly. They look at other factors -- honors, activities, letters of recommendation. Are a legacy, first gen, URM, geographically diverse, development case? One kid with exactly your stats may have won the International Science and Engineering Fair, be a nationally ranked debater, or done something else unique and interesting that catches the AD's eye. They are all looking for the same thing. What is appealing to one elite college is likely to also appeal to another.

I'm not saying that students necessarily need to limit themselves, but they need to be realistic about their chances. To the degree that there is some element of luck in catching the application reader on a good day, or finding the person with whom your application resonates, applying to more colleges doesn't lower your chances. But applying to 20 schools with 5% acceptance rates does not give you a 100% chance of acceptance, or anything close to it. You need to apply to a wide range of types of schools, just not more of the same.

Strawmen. Of course your 20 at 5% example doesn’t yield 100%. Of course there are other factors. The relevant issue is, to the extent there is randomness and controlling for factors that are not random, then more applications improves odds. Thats pretty realistic. I’d argue more realistic than deciding to limit yourself to some random number of 8 or 10 because “fit”—that seems like fantasy and not seeing the numbers.

OP, you don't seem to want to be persuaded. That's fine, but then what are you doing wasting your time on here? Get to work on those applications!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The relevant issue is, to the extent there is randomness and controlling for factors that are not random, then more applications improves odds. Thats pretty realistic. I’d argue more realistic than deciding to limit yourself to some random number of 8 or 10 because “fit”—that seems like fantasy and not seeing the numbers.

The odds of what? Admission to at least one school?

If you want to talk numbers: How random do you imagine the process to be? Or -- really it's the same question -- by how much do you imagine that each additional application increases your odds? (Of at least one admission, yes?)

Are the second ten schools just as selective, more selective, or less selective than the first ten schools you apply to? Are you applying to comparable programs?

So many questions affect this calculus.

Generally speaking, if you control for all other factors, of course applying to twice as many schools you increase your chances of admission.

But you can't control for all other factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. There is some serious logical fallacy going on in responses above. I have a 3.98 UW with 15 AP/IB classes before I graduate. All As except for 1 A- last year. 1530 SAT.

The only reason not to increase number of applications is the time and fees it costs.

People who think that the quality of applications goes down after 10 apps have it exactly wrong. My 11th essay is much sharper and wittier than my first, when I was finding my voice.

The biggest logical fallacy above is that applying to more of the same types of colleges greatly improves your chances of admission. Although the odds are so low at some of these schools that people refer to them as a "lottery," it's not really. They don't dump in all the similarly situated kids in a container and pull them blindly. They look at other factors -- honors, activities, letters of recommendation. Are a legacy, first gen, URM, geographically diverse, development case? One kid with exactly your stats may have won the International Science and Engineering Fair, be a nationally ranked debater, or done something else unique and interesting that catches the AD's eye. They are all looking for the same thing. What is appealing to one elite college is likely to also appeal to another.

I'm not saying that students necessarily need to limit themselves, but they need to be realistic about their chances. To the degree that there is some element of luck in catching the application reader on a good day, or finding the person with whom your application resonates, applying to more colleges doesn't lower your chances. But applying to 20 schools with 5% acceptance rates does not give you a 100% chance of acceptance, or anything close to it. You need to apply to a wide range of types of schools, just not more of the same.

Strawmen. Of course your 20 at 5% example doesn’t yield 100%. Of course there are other factors. The relevant issue is, to the extent there is randomness and controlling for factors that are not random, then more applications improves odds. Thats pretty realistic. I’d argue more realistic than deciding to limit yourself to some random number of 8 or 10 because “fit”—that seems like fantasy and not seeing the numbers.

(A) Based on results from last year, there are people who believe that, and (B) the point is that the increase in odds is lot closer to zero than it is 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Strawmen. Of course your 20 at 5% example doesn’t yield 100%. Of course there are other factors. The relevant issue is, to the extent there is randomness and controlling for factors that are not random, then more applications improves odds. Thats pretty realistic. I’d argue more realistic than deciding to limit yourself to some random number of 8 or 10 because “fit”—that seems like fantasy and not seeing the numbers.

One anecdote that supports the importance of fit for admissions: My kid applied 7 selective schools last year. Got into the one that seemed like the best fit ahead of time. Rejected from the one that was (in my mind) the worst fit. Waitlisted everywhere else.