No Yale = No Hope?

[jmancer]

How random is this process in terms of the types of students top programs look for? do some schools focus more on mathy types than others that favor more creative, applied types?

basically, by not getting into yale, should we lose hope regarding our changes for other top programs? or is this process so random or do program preferences differ enough that its not reasonable to conclude that those of us who didnt get in have no shot at other places

[polkaparty]

basically, by not getting into yale, should we lose hope regarding our changes for other top programs?

I already mentioned this in the yale thread. Read this (Harvard admission). There is hope.

[macbookpro]

Q: what is the singular form of data?
A: anecdote

[polkaparty]

Q: what is the singular form of data?
A: anecdote

I proved that P(admit at other top school | reject yale) > 0

Thus hope exists, answering the question which I quoted. geez....

[macbookpro]

sorry, I didnt mean to be harsh

[Internationalstudent08]

I will say something controversial here, but I believe there is something in it: We all believe that the process is random to some extent. Otherwise, nobody would apply to all top 5 schools. We would realize that if we don't get into one of them, it's not possible to get into any of them (assuming that the chance is approximately equal). So, we'd just pick the one we like the most and we would apply to fewer schools overall. The fact that some of us apply to 10 schools that are in the same range (whether this is 1-20. 10-30, 30-40 or whatever) is the best indication that we consider the process to be kinda random. The second line in my argument is that we can't be THAT stupid. Of course, we don't have good information about the admission process, but still we rely on the experiences of people who applied in the past and on the advices of our profs (one of my recommenders told me to apply to all top-10... i think that he overestimated my chances, but anyway i ended up applying to 8 out of the top 15 + 2 others).

[needeconhelp]

One of my recommender asked me to apply to 20 places. I am guessing top-20 because he believed that I could get into a top-5.

[asianecon]

I will say something controversial here, but I believe there is something in it: We all believe that the process is random to some extent. Otherwise, nobody would apply to all top 5 schools. We would realize that if we don't get into one of them, it's not possible to get into any of them (assuming that the chance is approximately equal). So, we'd just pick the one we like the most and we would apply to fewer schools overall. The fact that some of us apply to 10 schools that are in the same range (whether this is 1-20. 10-30, 30-40 or whatever) is the best indication that we consider the process to be kinda random. The second line in my argument is that we can't be THAT stupid. Of course, we don't have good information about the admission process, but still we rely on the experiences of people who applied in the past and on the advices of our profs (one of my recommenders told me to apply to all top-10... i think that he overestimated my chances, but anyway i ended up applying to 8 out of the top 15 + 2 others).

I love this talk about "randomness". For me I'd rather see it as applicants having incomplete information when estimating how good their profiles would predict the probability of getting admitted. I can envision 3 types of applicants: Those who estimate their chances by

1. Simple OLS with omitted variables, ie estimates might be totally off regardless of how many schools you apply to

2. Consistent but inefficient, ie those who play the numbers game (interestingly, if someone say uses a purely parametric discrete choice model, heteroskedasticity can lead to inconsistency!)

3. Consistent and efficient, ie those who apply to 5-10 schools within the same range only to average out the heterogeneity among similarly ranked schools

I'd love to get some data on applications and see where most people (e.g. in TM) fit.

[trentnin]

I got interviewed by Harvard Bus. Econ but got rejected by Yale today. If I get in HBS, my case will be a counter-example of the statement that no Yale = no hope.

I thought getting an interview for HBS is a good indicator of the strength of my profile, so I was kind of confident in getting accepted to Yale. I got extremely nervous today.
BTW, as looking at the results of the last year, I found a guy who got in most of top 5 schools but got rejected by Berkeley, which I think is comparable to Yale.

[needeconhelp]

I love this talk about "randomness". For me I'd rather see it as applicants having incomplete information when estimating how good their profiles would predict the probability of getting admitted. I can envision 3 types of applicants: Those who estimate their chances by

1. Simple OLS with omitted variables, ie estimates might be totally off regardless of how many schools you apply to

2. Consistent but inefficient, ie those who play the numbers game

3. Consistent and efficient, ie those who apply to 5-10 schools within the same range only to average out the heterogeneity among similarly ranked schools

I'd love to get some data on applications and see where most people (e.g. in TM) fit.

Why don't you use Roll call 2007 and Roll Call 2006.