Hi All,

I've been reading so much my eyes are bleeding now

I've been seeing people saying and agreeing that you should apply to either a throw-away school or a weaker school first, since your first application will be the worst. My question is, what will you get better at with future applications? I know your essays will probably get better since you would have thought up some extra ideas while writing the first ones (and your writing will get better too), but what else will make your application that much better?

Your GMAT score, GPA, resume, work history, and extracurricular lists will probably stay the same, right?

Any help on this would be great!
Thanks!

Not answering your question ..

One modification to the "Apply to a throw-away school first" rule that I am making is that I will try to complete the application-1 in the time-frame that I've planned, but won't submit it. Then I will review this application of mine after I'm done with 2 other applications .. so that I can upgrade the application-1 based on what I've learned from the other two applications.

Hopefully this will save me from one wasted application-1. I can't afford wasted applications as I am not planning to apply to more than 3 schools in R1 anyway.

good modification mNeo. I was considering doing that anyways.

I'm applying to these three in R1 for sure:

UCLA, Berkeley, and Stanford.

I'll probably write my UCLA first, keep it, then do Berkeley and Stanford, and come back to revisit UCLA before submitting it.

Then review Stanford and submit that.

Finally, Berkeley has the latest deadline, so I'll do a final review of that again before submitting.

that's what I did, mNeo. I had the Cornell one mostly done, but then held on to it. I worked on the other ones some, then finalized the Cornell one and sent it in. The others all went in in the following 5 days or so.

One thing to watch out for: your apps and the schools themselves will all begin to run together. It's a good idea to have each app at least MOST of the way finished before moving onto the next.

As far as what you learn, I don't know, really. But you get quicker, learn to articulate your goals more clearly, etc. I came up with nice little turns of phrase that I liked more than the first way. And you'll have had more time for introspection, which will lead to clearer, more thoughtful answers across the board.

You find that the last application is the one you think is best, and then get the worst result at that school out of all you applied to.

fun fun fun.

I thought my last was my worst. Mine all came due within a week of each other, and I was BURNED OUT. I just didn't care about it at that point.

I have the schools I am planning on applying to at this point arranged by due date. 3 or 4 R1, then 2 or 3 R2, and if need be a safety for R3. All the schools have different due dates so I am going to stagger them out. The first one due is probably not the first one I will finish since I want to visit that school. I think it also depends who releases essay questions and applications first. I plan on starting in August and having a couple completed by Sept, the ones I am not visiting. Then the schools I am going to visit I will have rough drafts that I can then add details of my visits to.

I want to spread out the due dates not so much for my essays but for the recs, I dont want to push someone to get me 4 recs within a two week period.

My first was definitely my worst, and it showed. Ding without interview.

I felt pretty burned out by my last one (I did 10), and I almost didn't turn it in at all. The only reason I followed through was because my recommenders had already submitted their recommendations, and I felt I owed it to them to hold up my end of the bargain. As it turns out, that was a good thing; I got an admit and a full scholarship and I'm headed there in the fall.

Of course, a few weeks after that last deadline and a few dings later, I was looking for additional schools I could turn in applications to. Funny how that works.