Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:16
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Anonymous wrote:Look at it another way. Do you really think that an applicant those stats are in the top 25% of accepted applicants to T20 and checks most boxes, has less than a coin flip chance (55% assuming 4% at each) of getting into at least one of the T20, assuming they apply to all 20?
You have no idea what that person’s odds are of getting into a top 20 college is the fn point. No formula can tell you.
If it were as simple as you make it, advisors would tell kids “You don’t need reach-match-safety, just apply to all top 20 and you’ll likely get into one!”
They don’t do that. Why do you think that is?
Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:15
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
no one is trying to determine an actual probability , to calculate insurance premiums or whateverAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you realize how low of chance 4% already is? It is the same as having 1 thru 25 numbered balls in a binding and picking the right one on the first try. Very hard.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:compare to getting into a car crash. A car crash is simply physics of one car hitting another for whatever reason. You don't have someone pulling numbers out of a hat. But you can model the probability and insurance companies do it all the time.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
Every time this board had a high stats kid rejected from all t20, every one jumped out to say, oh but college admission is a lottery!
Is it? Is it not? Feels like catch 22.
Yes, they do it all the time, for a large group of people, not just for one person. College applicants are one person. Why is this so hard to understand?
Do you think every applicant with the stats for Harvard has the same 4% chance of admission?
No no no no no no no.
You have essentially said that every applicant has the same chance of admission.
They don’t. And no applicant knows the difference. Certainly not enough to use a probability formula to develop an application strategy.
It is not the same as picking a number from a finite set. You have no idea how many balls are in the jar, so you don’t know what the odds are of you picking the right one. It’s a useless number with no practical application.
It is enough to point out
1) they are independent events
2) there is enough randomness
3) that only one acceptance is sufficient
Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:13
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Anonymous wrote:Do you realize how low of chance 4% already is? It is the same as having 1 thru 25 numbered balls in a binding and picking the right one on the first try. Very hard.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:compare to getting into a car crash. A car crash is simply physics of one car hitting another for whatever reason. You don't have someone pulling numbers out of a hat. But you can model the probability and insurance companies do it all the time.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
Every time this board had a high stats kid rejected from all t20, every one jumped out to say, oh but college admission is a lottery!
Is it? Is it not? Feels like catch 22.
Yes, they do it all the time, for a large group of people, not just for one person. College applicants are one person. Why is this so hard to understand?
Do you think every applicant with the stats for Harvard has the same 4% chance of admission?
No no no no no no no.
You have essentially said that every applicant has the same chance of admission.
They don’t. And no applicant knows the difference. Certainly not enough to use a probability formula to develop an application strategy.
It is not the same as picking a number from a finite set. You have no idea how many balls are in the jar, so you don’t know what the odds are of you picking the right one. It’s a useless number with no practical application.
Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:12
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Look at it another way. Do you really think that an applicant those stats are in the top 25% of accepted applicants to T20 and checks most boxes, has less than a coin flip chance (55% assuming 4% at each) of getting into at least one of the T20, assuming they apply to all 20?
Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:09
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Do you realize how low of chance 4% already is? It is the same as having 1 thru 25 numbered balls in a binding and picking the right one on the first try. Very hard.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:compare to getting into a car crash. A car crash is simply physics of one car hitting another for whatever reason. You don't have someone pulling numbers out of a hat. But you can model the probability and insurance companies do it all the time.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
Every time this board had a high stats kid rejected from all t20, every one jumped out to say, oh but college admission is a lottery!
Is it? Is it not? Feels like catch 22.
Yes, they do it all the time, for a large group of people, not just for one person. College applicants are one person. Why is this so hard to understand?
Do you think every applicant with the stats for Harvard has the same 4% chance of admission?
Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:06
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Anonymous wrote:compare to getting into a car crash. A car crash is simply physics of one car hitting another for whatever reason. You don't have someone pulling numbers out of a hat. But you can model the probability and insurance companies do it all the time.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
Every time this board had a high stats kid rejected from all t20, every one jumped out to say, oh but college admission is a lottery!
Is it? Is it not? Feels like catch 22.
Yes, they do it all the time, for a large group of people, not just for one person. College applicants are one person. Why is this so hard to understand?
Do you think every applicant with the stats for Harvard has the same 4% chance of admission?
Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:03
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
that makes it more random, not lessAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why would the students chances be 0% if their scores are in top 25% of accepted students and check most or all the boxes?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Certainly the exact probability may be lower or higher than 4%. But if a students scores are in the top 50% for a colleges accepted students, and they check most of the boxes, it would be a reasonable estimate to assume at least half (2%).Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
No, it would NOT be. You have no idea if that student's chances are 0%. Multiple posters have told you this.
I guess it needs to be repeated again - you can't use game theory without knowing the actual odds. It does not work and is a TERRIBLE way to design an application strategy.
A variety of possibilities. Sometimes an admissions office has a list of high schools that they aren’t accepting from that year. Not to mention that “all of the boxes” can vary over the course of an admissions season, and the day an application is read and the person reading it can make the difference between a chance and no chance.
Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:01
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Anonymous wrote:Why would the students chances be 0% if their scores are in top 25% of accepted students and check most or all the boxes?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Certainly the exact probability may be lower or higher than 4%. But if a students scores are in the top 50% for a colleges accepted students, and they check most of the boxes, it would be a reasonable estimate to assume at least half (2%).Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
No, it would NOT be. You have no idea if that student's chances are 0%. Multiple posters have told you this.
I guess it needs to be repeated again - you can't use game theory without knowing the actual odds. It does not work and is a TERRIBLE way to design an application strategy.
Problem is you don’t know if it is or isn’t. And you also don’t know what “boxes they check” or don’t. Any formula that starts with a guess/assumption/number from your butt gives a result that is a guess/assumption/number from your butt. Whether applying to college or playing blackjack.
Game theory is a terrible way to design a college application strategy. If it weren’t then every college counselor would be advocating it. They don’t.
Anonymous
04/06/2025 20:00
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Anonymous wrote:Why would the students chances be 0% if their scores are in top 25% of accepted students and check most or all the boxes?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Certainly the exact probability may be lower or higher than 4%. But if a students scores are in the top 50% for a colleges accepted students, and they check most of the boxes, it would be a reasonable estimate to assume at least half (2%).Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
No, it would NOT be. You have no idea if that student's chances are 0%. Multiple posters have told you this.
I guess it needs to be repeated again - you can't use game theory without knowing the actual odds. It does not work and is a TERRIBLE way to design an application strategy.
A variety of possibilities. Sometimes an admissions office has a list of high schools that they aren’t accepting from that year. Not to mention that “all of the boxes” can vary over the course of an admissions season, and the day an application is read and the person reading it can make the difference between a chance and no chance.
Anonymous
04/06/2025 19:16
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Anonymous wrote:Also please stop using the term game theory.
Yes, as I stated earlier, I was confused as to why this concept was being invoked. John Nash didn't win his Nobel on a topic remotely close to what we have been discussing here.
Anonymous
04/06/2025 19:15
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
compare to getting into a car crash. A car crash is simply physics of one car hitting another for whatever reason. You don't have someone pulling numbers out of a hat. But you can model the probability and insurance companies do it all the time.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
Every time this board had a high stats kid rejected from all t20, every one jumped out to say, oh but college admission is a lottery!
Is it? Is it not? Feels like catch 22.
Anonymous
04/06/2025 19:09
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Math is hard, people are stupid, the two don’t mix well in the majority of cases.
College admissions is not game theory nor is it all about just academic credentials.
Kids need to have realistic expectations pick targets, reaches and safeties that make sense for them.
College admissions is not game theory nor is it all about just academic credentials.
Kids need to have realistic expectations pick targets, reaches and safeties that make sense for them.
Anonymous
04/06/2025 19:07
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
Every time this board had a high stats kid rejected from all t20, every one jumped out to say, oh but college admission is a lottery!
Is it? Is it not? Feels like catch 22.
Anonymous
04/06/2025 18:41
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Also please stop using the term game theory. This is simple high school probability, although it might be in Harvards remedial math class
Anonymous
04/06/2025 18:40
Subject: Assuming they are all independent separate events, the probability of receiving at least one acceptance is 33% if you ap
Why would the students chances be 0% if their scores are in top 25% of accepted students and check most or all the boxes?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Certainly the exact probability may be lower or higher than 4%. But if a students scores are in the top 50% for a colleges accepted students, and they check most of the boxes, it would be a reasonable estimate to assume at least half (2%).Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Two or three of you in this topic understand both the math and social science aspects of probability estimates. If you guys had usernames, I'd single you out.
This one (04/06/2025 06:00) correctly highlighted the difference between dependent and independent events. But I have not seen anyone point out the fact that game theory cannot work because the people in the selection pool do not have equal chances of being selected.
Applications are read and the selection of any candidate for any particular school is a curated event. Selection is deterministic based on the reading of an application; it is not random. Game theory does not work in this instance.
Yes, I feel like this is what OP is missing. OP’s math only works if admissions are all random lotteries of applicants.
No, it would NOT be. You have no idea if that student's chances are 0%. Multiple posters have told you this.
I guess it needs to be repeated again - you can't use game theory without knowing the actual odds. It does not work and is a TERRIBLE way to design an application strategy.