GCDad

Arcadia here we come!
Good luck to all....

Arcadia here we come!
Good luck to all....

Arcadia here we come!
Good luck to all....

Arcadia here we come!
Good luck to all....

Arcadia here we come!
Good luck to all....

sunT - You are correct. The lack of independence of candidates does increase your chances (e.g. if the same 100 candidates interviewed at 5 schools, each of which only accepted 20 students a year, they would all get in somewhere.  So your chance for acceptance would be 100%, not what you would get with my formula (1 - .805 = 67%).  So my formula should be considered a lower bound.
Anyway, daughter mortified that I'm posting on this board, so I will retreat to the sidelines...

sunT - You are correct. The lack of independence of candidates does increase your chances (e.g. if the same 100 candidates interviewed at 5 schools, each of which only accepted 20 students a year, they would all get in somewhere.  So your chance for acceptance would be 100%, not what you would get with my formula (1 - .805 = 67%).  So my formula should be considered a lower bound.
Anyway, daughter mortified that I'm posting on this board, so I will retreat to the sidelines...

sunT - You are correct. The lack of independence of candidates does increase your chances (e.g. if the same 100 candidates interviewed at 5 schools, each of which only accepted 20 students a year, they would all get in somewhere.  So your chance for acceptance would be 100%, not what you would get with my formula (1 - .805 = 67%).  So my formula should be considered a lower bound.
Anyway, daughter mortified that I'm posting on this board, so I will retreat to the sidelines...

sunT - You are correct. The lack of independence of candidates does increase your chances (e.g. if the same 100 candidates interviewed at 5 schools, each of which only accepted 20 students a year, they would all get in somewhere.  So your chance for acceptance would be 100%, not what you would get with my formula (1 - .805 = 67%).  So my formula should be considered a lower bound.
Anyway, daughter mortified that I'm posting on this board, so I will retreat to the sidelines...

We got some intel from one of our interviews that the school enrolls roughly 22% of those interviewed.
Assuming all interviewed applicants about equally qualified (a big "if"), and that the 22% rate is similar at all schools, your odds of being matched can be calculated based on the number of places you interviewed:
 Probability of being rejected = 1 - probability of being accepted = 1 - 22% = 78%
Probability you are accepted to at least one program = 1 - the probability you rejected everywhere =
1 - .78(number of interviews) 
So, say you are a beast like AJM19 interviewing at 9 schools, her (or his) odds of being accepted somewhere would be:
1 - .789  =  89%
Again, some candidates are probably objectively stronger applicants, so it's not a random draw from those interviewed.  AJM19 might be a particularly strong candidate even among those called in for interviews so her (or his) odds might be higher than 89%.
 

sunT - You are correct. The lack of independence of candidates does increase your chances (e.g. if the same 100 candidates interviewed at 5 schools, each of which only accepted 20 students a year, they would all get in somewhere.  So your chance for acceptance would be 100%, not what you would get with my formula (1 - .805 = 67%).  So my formula should be considered a lower bound.
Anyway, daughter mortified that I'm posting on this board, so I will retreat to the sidelines...

Friggin' Stanislaus.  Whomp, Whomp....