What happened across Letrado’s historical outcomes.
Aggregate offers, acceptance-rate comparisons, and the broader ways Letrado defines a successful decision.
This page reports aggregate historical outcomes and school-level comparisons. For the complete story of how individual students started, worked, decided, and ultimately chose, explore Client Journeys.
Aggregate offers, acceptance-rate comparisons, and the broader ways Letrado defines a successful decision.
Forty anonymized histories covering context, challenges, advisory work, offers, and final choices.
Explore all 40 client journeys →Reported across the five most recently completed admissions cycles. Offer totals count individual school or program offers, so one student may contribute more than one offer.
The preference was recorded before decisions were released.
A historical comparison across the same or closest available admission cycles.
Individual school offers across the reporting period.
Individual school offers across the reporting period.
Individual school offers across the reporting period.
Across business, STEM, law, and the social sciences.
Unless otherwise noted, figures summarize Letrado-advised applications and offers across the five most recently completed admissions cycles. Offer totals count individual school or program offers, so one student may contribute more than one offer; figures marked ‘+’ are rounded down. ‘Top choice’ refers to a program recorded as a preferred option before decisions were released. Acceptance-rate comparisons divide Letrado-advised offers by submitted applications and compare that result with the published general rate for the same institution and the same or closest available cycle. Past results do not guarantee an individual outcome.
These comparisons place historical Letrado-advised applicant outcomes beside published general acceptance rates across the five most recently completed admissions cycles. They describe past cohorts, not a prediction or guarantee for any individual applicant.
| University | General rate | Advised rate |
|---|---|---|
| Princeton | 4.3% | 24.4% |
| MIT | 4.6% | 27.6% |
| Harvard | 4.2% | 23.2% |
| Stanford | 3.8% | 28.1% |
| Yale | 4.2% | 20.6% |
| University of Chicago | 4.4% | 42.3% |
| Duke | 4.7% | 32.2% |
| Johns Hopkins | 6.1% | 37.3% |
| Northwestern | 7.0% | 26.9% |
| University of Pennsylvania | 4.9% | 40.3% |
| Caltech | 3.0% | 44.2% |
| Cornell | 7.0% | 54.1% |
| Brown | 5.4% | 17.5% |
| Dartmouth | 5.8% | 28.4% |
| Columbia | 4.9% | 30.0% |
| UC Berkeley | 11.0% | 53.4% |
| UCLA | 9.0% | 49.0% |
One example from each admissions category shows why the same headline outcome can represent very different work and decisions.
Browse the complete journey library →
Representative imageK.T. entered the process with strong academics, a modest activity list and little interest in performing a larger personality. Her work focused on school fit, fuller interview answers and writing that showed how she thinks. With offers from Hotchkiss, Exeter and Choate, she chose Choate for its academic range, advising and community fit.
Read the complete journey →
Representative imageD.K. began with excellent academics, too many competing activities and an essay that sounded more like an argument than a person. Her application became clearer when it centered on economics, philosophy and her willingness to revise a belief. Admitted to Yale, Penn and UChicago, she selected Penn after comparing aid, curriculum and fit.
Read the complete journey →
Representative imageA.O. brought four years of practical public-service work, an older weakness in statistics and no globally famous employer. Her application became stronger by narrowing its claims and showing recent quantitative preparation. With offers from Princeton, Harvard Kennedy and Penn Fels, she chose Princeton after a detailed funding and curriculum review.
Read the complete journey →
Representative imageK.A. had steady regional progression, limited formal management and no need for a founder narrative. Her application became clearer through verifiable decisions and a specific product-operations goal. Admitted to INSEAD, London Business School and HEC Paris, she selected INSEAD after weighing geography, program length and opportunity cost.
Read the complete journey →A university where the student can be challenged without disappearing.
An informed decision about cost, aid, scholarships, and long-term value.
An application the student can explain, defend, and feel proud to have submitted.
Stronger understanding of interests, strengths, and the questions worth pursuing next.

“The best result is not just an acceptance. It is an applicant who understands the choices that brought them there.”
We will listen carefully and tell you whether we believe Letrado is the right fit. If another resource would serve you better, we will be honest about that too.
See If We Are a Fit