Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone wanna answer why they won’t have their kid apoly outside of the T50? Seems like only a T25 or bust problem. You’re making the problems yourself instead. But again, no PP answers this question. They just wanna cry and wail their precious didn’t get into Duke or Stanford like they wanted so they have to settle for UMD with the poors. ):

My DC was in the 75% for the T10 and and wanted those schools so didn't apply outside of T50

Anonymous wrote:Anyone wanna answer why they won’t have their kid apoly outside of the T50? Seems like only a T25 or bust problem. You’re making the problems yourself instead. But again, no PP answers this question. They just wanna cry and wail their precious didn’t get into Duke or Stanford like they wanted so they have to settle for UMD with the poors. ):

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this very interesting. How were the top-20 colleges able to increase their yield from 40 to 50%?

Let's do some modeling. 50% yield for the top-20 colleges means that for every 2 students they admit, one will attend.

Based on past trends, we know that if students apply to colleges in the top 20, they not only apply to one, but to many if not all.

If admissions decisions were objective, admissions decisions to similar (top) colleges would be correlated, that is, students that are accepted by one top-20 college will also likely be accepted by another and conversely, if they are rejected by one, others are more likely to reject them too.

This would mean that most students would either be accepted by most top-20 colleges or rejected by most. A student, however, can attend only one college, which means that each top college's yield could only be 1/n where n is the average number of top colleges that accepted an applicant that was accepted. n should be larger than 2, much larger: probably 4 or 5.

So how is it that the top students applying to many top-20 colleges receive, on average, only 2 admissions even though they, on average, applied to many more similar colleges and should be receiving many more, or none?
(A yield of 40% means that they had 2.5 admissions.)

To me, the answer is clear: college admissions are less correlated than you would expect, and they are less objective; they are basically crap shots.

Only collusion or randomness can explain these numbers.

Agreed!

Anonymous wrote:I found this very interesting. How were the top-20 colleges able to increase their yield from 40 to 50%?

Let's do some modeling. 50% yield for the top-20 colleges means that for every 2 students they admit, one will attend.

Based on past trends, we know that if students apply to colleges in the top 20, they not only apply to one, but to many if not all.

If admissions decisions were objective, admissions decisions to similar (top) colleges would be correlated, that is, students that are accepted by one top-20 college will also likely be accepted by another and conversely, if they are rejected by one, others are more likely to reject them too.

This would mean that most students would either be accepted by most top-20 colleges or rejected by most. A student, however, can attend only one college, which means that each top college's yield could only be 1/n where n is the average number of top colleges that accepted an applicant that was accepted. n should be larger than 2, much larger: probably 4 or 5.

So how is it that the top students applying to many top-20 colleges receive, on average, only 2 admissions even though they, on average, applied to many more similar colleges and should be receiving many more, or none?
(A yield of 40% means that they had 2.5 admissions.)

To me, the answer is clear: college admissions are less correlated than you would expect, and they are less objective; they are basically crap shots.

Only collusion or randomness can explain these numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this very interesting. How were the top-20 colleges able to increase their yield from 40 to 50%?

Let's do some modeling. 50% yield for the top-20 colleges means that for every 2 students they admit, one will attend.

Based on past trends, we know that if students apply to colleges in the top 20, they not only apply to one, but to many if not all.

If admissions decisions were objective, admissions decisions to similar (top) colleges would be correlated, that is, students that are accepted by one top-20 college will also likely be accepted by another and conversely, if they are rejected by one, others are more likely to reject them too.

This would mean that most students would either be accepted by most top-20 colleges or rejected by most. A student, however, can attend only one college, which means that each top college's yield could only be 1/n where n is the average number of top colleges that accepted an applicant that was accepted. n should be larger than 2, much larger: probably 4 or 5.

So how is it that the top students applying to many top-20 colleges receive, on average, only 2 admissions even though they, on average, applied to many more similar colleges and should be receiving many more, or none?
(A yield of 40% means that they had 2.5 admissions.)

To me, the answer is clear: college admissions are less correlated than you would expect, and they are less objective; they are basically crap shots.

Only collusion or randomness can explain these numbers.

Think about ED — which is basically collusion, and could be made illegal easily, though the idea of doing this inexplicably offends many posters.

Because ED also greatly benefits students as well. If you have a top choice, are willing to pay the NPC estimates, then you can be done in Dec and enjoy senior year with much less stress.
Yes you have to do the work an apply to the others, most likely by Nov 1, but you know where you are going before xmas break.

And yes, anyone can do ED if they want to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this very interesting. How were the top-20 colleges able to increase their yield from 40 to 50%?

Let's do some modeling. 50% yield for the top-20 colleges means that for every 2 students they admit, one will attend.

Based on past trends, we know that if students apply to colleges in the top 20, they not only apply to one, but to many if not all.

If admissions decisions were objective, admissions decisions to similar (top) colleges would be correlated, that is, students that are accepted by one top-20 college will also likely be accepted by another and conversely, if they are rejected by one, others are more likely to reject them too.

This would mean that most students would either be accepted by most top-20 colleges or rejected by most. A student, however, can attend only one college, which means that each top college's yield could only be 1/n where n is the average number of top colleges that accepted an applicant that was accepted. n should be larger than 2, much larger: probably 4 or 5.

So how is it that the top students applying to many top-20 colleges receive, on average, only 2 admissions even though they, on average, applied to many more similar colleges and should be receiving many more, or none?
(A yield of 40% means that they had 2.5 admissions.)

To me, the answer is clear: college admissions are less correlated than you would expect, and they are less objective; they are basically crap shots.

Only collusion or randomness can explain these numbers.

Think about ED — which is basically collusion, and could be made illegal easily, though the idea of doing this inexplicably offends many posters.

Anonymous wrote:Applying to colleges should not be as stressful as it has become. Colleges shouldn’t be as expensive as they are now. High school students shouldn’t be expected to win national awards, present themselves as prodigies, professional athletes etc. They are just teens beginning their lives. They might not know what they want to do in college and yet they already expected to have achieved so much success in various fields. Its insane! They should instead be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, which in the current system is not allowed. Imagine the stress when KIDS are not allowed to make mistakes. Cause one mistake (one B or C) can mean no chance at the elite schools.
Then we wonder why our kids are anxious and stressed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this very interesting. How were the top-20 colleges able to increase their yield from 40 to 50%?

Let's do some modeling. 50% yield for the top-20 colleges means that for every 2 students they admit, one will attend.

Based on past trends, we know that if students apply to colleges in the top 20, they not only apply to one, but to many if not all.

If admissions decisions were objective, admissions decisions to similar (top) colleges would be correlated, that is, students that are accepted by one top-20 college will also likely be accepted by another and conversely, if they are rejected by one, others are more likely to reject them too.

This would mean that most students would either be accepted by most top-20 colleges or rejected by most. A student, however, can attend only one college, which means that each top college's yield could only be 1/n where n is the average number of top colleges that accepted an applicant that was accepted. n should be larger than 2, much larger: probably 4 or 5.

So how is it that the top students applying to many top-20 colleges receive, on average, only 2 admissions even though they, on average, applied to many more similar colleges and should be receiving many more, or none?
(A yield of 40% means that they had 2.5 admissions.)

To me, the answer is clear: college admissions are less correlated than you would expect, and they are less objective; they are basically crap shots.

Only collusion or randomness can explain these numbers.

Think about ED — which is basically collusion, and could be made illegal easily, though the idea of doing this inexplicably offends many posters.

Anonymous wrote:I found this very interesting. How were the top-20 colleges able to increase their yield from 40 to 50%?

Let's do some modeling. 50% yield for the top-20 colleges means that for every 2 students they admit, one will attend.

Based on past trends, we know that if students apply to colleges in the top 20, they not only apply to one, but to many if not all.

If admissions decisions were objective, admissions decisions to similar (top) colleges would be correlated, that is, students that are accepted by one top-20 college will also likely be accepted by another and conversely, if they are rejected by one, others are more likely to reject them too.

This would mean that most students would either be accepted by most top-20 colleges or rejected by most. A student, however, can attend only one college, which means that each top college's yield could only be 1/n where n is the average number of top colleges that accepted an applicant that was accepted. n should be larger than 2, much larger: probably 4 or 5.

So how is it that the top students applying to many top-20 colleges receive, on average, only 2 admissions even though they, on average, applied to many more similar colleges and should be receiving many more, or none?
(A yield of 40% means that they had 2.5 admissions.)

To me, the answer is clear: college admissions are less correlated than you would expect, and they are less objective; they are basically crap shots.

Only collusion or randomness can explain these numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Its stacked against applicants because there are not enough seats to cover demand. How is this a revelation?

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Applying to colleges should not be as stressful as it has become. Colleges shouldn’t be as expensive as they are now. High school students shouldn’t be expected to win national awards, present themselves as prodigies, professional athletes etc. They are just teens beginning their lives. They might not know what they want to do in college and yet they already expected to have achieved so much success in various fields. Its insane! They should instead be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, which in the current system is not allowed. Imagine the stress when KIDS are not allowed to make mistakes. Cause one mistake (one B or C) can mean no chance at the elite schools.
Then we wonder why our kids are anxious and stressed.

This. Honestly, the influx of highly educated Asians has poisoned the system. The cheating and willingness to do anything to appease the tiger parents has destroyed academic integrity and learning environment. These aren’t inherently bad kids but they are molded into obedient jerks who will lie, claw and cheat their way through the system.

Wow. The biggest cheats at my kid’s schools are white. Both male and female. Kids who have no conscience and don’t think twice of copying someone’s answers, using a stolen test, or coordinating cheating schemes among friends. Just as counter point!

The cheating is rampant at my kids’ Catholic schools. I was surprised by this; it was not the case at my Catholic school in the 90s. No idea what changed but even the top of the class cheats. It’s a bummer.

At our school, the teachers and administrators cheat. They want bragging rights — who got how many kids into which elite schools. They will ruin innocent kids’ lives so they can boast about it. If they are rich, the bribery starts. 60K+ to get bragging rights for my kid’s admission to HYPSM!!!