I applied to 5 schools and based on my 'record' (ignoring 'chances'):

7.41%
28%
35%
50%
71.43%

All 5 cycles.

Also, I promise to divulge the algorithm once I fix it. I realize the many, many flaws with it, and I will try to perfect and then divulge it so that people will know about it. When it is done, it will probably do all sorts of things, including giving more weight to recent applicants and such.

This is true, though I am not applying to a school of the caliber of NYU. I assume that admissions have gotten tougher for many schools are the years have gone on, but the ones I checked on LSN have stayed relatively consistent (except for some like UNC which have gone down...and the site doesn't take into account that I'm an NC resident).

Hey, if it's a site that'll make me feel a bit better about my chances, I'll take it. I'm tired of freaking out

Sigh:



Chance is off, obviously, but my numbers are looking good for Harvard and below and not so good for YS. Funny how that works

That's awesome, and I'm sure some other people may have ideas to improve it further as well (I'm not a math wiz or anything, I just like to see how the numbers got there).

Very impressive site.

please please delete the chances column. it is highly misleading.

My UVA, Duke and Georgetown all have chances below 75%, even though the record column is 100% for all 3!!!

otherwise the site is great, and I have wondered why no one has been using the LSN data. I have used it in a bunch of my own excel spreadsheets.

I like how my chances for BU are 24%, yet 77% of the people with my numbers last year got in. Not really sure how that works.

Yes, other than the chances column, seems great if reliable.

Yeah I'm a lock at Cooley!

However, Georgetown says I'm a 19 percent chance, despite the fact that only 3 % of people were rejected with better stats, and the similar stats "record" was 72%

Me thinks its a bit skewed.

Sorry Malena, Stanford doesn't like your kind. 180s... they find them to be flashy... gaudy if you will.

I dropped it down to 178 to get a bigger sample and Stanford was still 0-12. Makes me wonder if it's even worth applying :/ All this emphasis on "GPA" and "grades" and "success in college" - lame!

Do you weigh the more recent years higher?

He said in a previous post that it doesn't give more weight to more recent years now, but that he'll probably adjust the algorithm to do that in the future.

For everyone saying that the calculator is not very accurate, remember that this is an early version and it's still being worked on. It's good to give feedback on how the numbers are off for you, but saying things like "this sucks" and "take X part off because it doesn't work" isn't really productive.

For me, I think the chances column is overly optimistic, as it gives me over a 50% chance at everyone outside of HYS with a 177/3.5. This doesn't seem right to me, especially for say, Berkeley.

I don't think anything will ever accurately predict Berkeley though...

...or Stanford, for that matter.

or Yale...

Hmm the chances % seem good for me, but my record is 0-0 everywhere.

It's lonely at the top, huh?

If 30 out of 39 people with my numbers are in at Columbia, how do I have a 30% chance? The site is a fabulous idea, but this 'chances' thing needs to be fixed or explained before you give some pathetic kid a heart attack.

Well if I have a 77% chance at Yale....well!

But then I bet most of those people cured cancer as well as gotten the same numbers as me...

As some people have already stated, I'm skeptical of the chances calculation. I've already been accepted to a school where I have around a 22% chance to get in. Also, I doubt BYU is as difficult to get into as WUSTL. My percentages seem to indicate that they are roughly comparable.

The chances are certainly off, but why do you doubt that for BYU and WUSTL? WUSTL has 165, 3.45 medians, with a 28% acceptance rate. BYU has 164, 3.60 medians, with a 28% acceptance rate. Seems likely to be pretty similar to me.

1) what is a "depth algorith?"
2) what constitute "similar numbers?"

"depth algorith" = some al gore rhythm with data from previous years, I suppose, in some fancy data analysis

This deserves a bump.

Malena: What Are your stats???