<p>RE Posts 16, 18.</p>
<p>That's why I suggest a re-definition/new parameters for "ED." Decision would be binding, but only to the maximum terms the candidate would be willing to accede to, including financial terms. Candidates who could only attend if full COA were covered, or if full gap aid were granted, would need to state that, or be bound to the aid that the U were then free to offer.</p>
<p><a href="1">quote</a> Decision within consortia. (i.e., Ivy League as one consortium, U.C.'s as another, LAC's as another, other publics with several campuses could be stand-alones or join with similar-profile publics in a consortium) Alternatively or in addition, there could be regional consortia.
[/quote]
The IVY league used to do something like this ... the schools used to share lists of applicants and stear applicants to the best fit school .. they were sued for restraint of trade ... they settled the case. The courts have been consistent ... schools can not share lists of candidates, intentions about admissions, or about financial aid ... the courts believe the schools acting independently is in the best interest of the applicants. I tend to agree ... although this begs the question of, how then, is the medical school residency matching program legal? And could a similar matching system be developed for undergrads? (not saying I would be in favor but could one pass legal muster)</p>
<p>The elite universities are contributing to the general misery by shamelessly marketing themselves to all and sundry, thereby raising expectations to an unreasonable level. My daughter received, unsolicited, an application for Harvard, as well as glossy viewbooks from several of the other ivies. Fortunately she knows herself pretty well and had guidance from an excellent college counselor, so she only applied to schools that were a good fit, with happy results. But I can certainly understand a kid being disappointed when she is rejected from a school that appeared to be recruiting her.</p>
<p>Everyone knows that Harvard and Yale exist - they don't need to send out unsolicited glossies. And a kid who's bright and accomplished enough to get in there is smart enough to figure out whether the school is a fit.</p>
<p>"The thing that I've noticed is that because kids feel obliged to apply to multiple Ivies (back in the day we picked one), many aren't getting into their favorite of the bunch."</p>
<p>That's one of the indications that selectivity is declining.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>What about EBAY as a trading platform?<<<</p> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Markr, this isn't as crazy at it sounds. How about this: Every student starts off with an equal "pool" of points. You give them extra points for certain things - low income, minority, test score results, number of AP/honors classes taken, maybe even geographic location. Each kid can then use his/her points to "bid" on a certain number of colleges through an ebay-like system. The colleges would be divided up by selectivity, and students would be limited to the number of colleges in each selectivity category they could bid on. Therefore, every student would automatically be forced to choose reaches, matches and safe bets, and they'd be guaranteed admissions to at least one college. :) The colleges would have an indicator of demonstrated interest simply by the number of points a student was willing to bid. It <em>might</em> work. Except for the blackmarket that would undoubtably instantly crop up for "Ivy league bids."</p>
<p>^^--^^</p>
<p>Well, aren't there students who would never know that an education at Harvard and Yale is possible ... without that darn glib brochure. Aren't there plenty of students who simply turn to their local college or community college because of an ERRONEOUS belief they could not afford it? </p>
<p>The position that "if you're smart enough to attend HYPS, you should be smart enough to know it well" is a canard. </p>
<p>Mastering the arcane world of college admissions and college funding is not a matter or intelligence. Many "smart" students simply lack the necessary support system at their school or at home. For instance, for too many students, the first letter of FAFSA may very well stand for Foreign. Thousands of extremely well educated people stare at those forms in disbelief ... imagine how they appear to families in the inner-cities or other impoverished areas. </p>
<p>The glossy brochures are not printed for 5th Avenue in New York City but for the many 5th Avenue in the US that will never see a Starbucks or a ... library.</p>
<p>I have heard about the dire prospects for college admissions for several years, and have fallen prey to the stress caused by it.</p>
<p>However, whenever I look for tangible evidence of it, I don't see it.</p>
<p>Among my relatives and at my kids' school, just about every top student gets into a top college, the middle get into the middle tier, etc. I have literally NEVER heard of a qualified student not getting in anywhere decent. (Altho' maybe not their top choice).</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's one of the indications that selectivity is declining.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, Mini - a growing pool does not mean the selectivity --as it should be known-- is declining, especially when the opposite is true. </p>
<p>Fwiw, Mini, do you believe the selectivity of a school is based on its pool of applicants or its admitted and enrolled students?</p>
<p>The top kids in our high school all got into top colleges. They just didn't get into all of them. That's okay. I'd just love a system that could maximize getting into first choices. EA helps there. It just seems unfortunate that the kid who wants to go to Brown is going to Cornell. The kid going to Cornell wanted Columbia. And the Columbia kid wanted Brown. Are the institutional needs of the colleges really so exact that a trading system wouldn't result in three happier kids? I know it's probably impractical, but hey, I can dream!</p>
<p>mathmom-</p>
<p>I guess the "top colleges" would rather pick and choose among the "top students," rather than having the students pick and choose among them!!!</p>
<p>"Fwiw, Mini, do you believe the selectivity of a school is based on its pool of applicants or its admitted and enrolled students?"</p>
<p>I believe that "selectivity" is a joint enterprise for school and students. Selectivity is where students knowledgably choose a school for what the school has to offer, and schools choose those who, meeting their requirements, are best able to serve their institutional mission, and actually have them attend. In other words, 'selectivity' reflects the degree to which knowledgable students (or parents - buyers/consumers) and institutions "select" each year, and that such selection results in actual attendance.</p>
<p>There is a "tipping point" (and exactly where, I honest don't know) where the odds of this actually happening most effectively goes down as the number of applicants applying (and hence needing to be rejected) increases.</p>
<p>A growing pool does not necesarily mean that either selectivity of the school or the quality of the pool increases. From the data reported in the Princeton paper, for (a bad) example, the percentage of applicants reporting SAT scores (for what's that worth) under 2100 did not change year over year.</p>
<p>"The elite universities are contributing to the general misery by shamelessly marketing themselves to all and sundry, thereby raising expectations to an unreasonable level."</p>
<p>I agree. As to the glossies, only Y sent us anything, though (among the Ivies). We had to go search out the others for ourselves. But the counterpart also applies: I don't think it's any more efficient or responsible for low-tier colleges to be marketing to upper-tier students, than for the upper-tiers to market themselves to the entire universe.</p>
<p>The mass, undirected, indiscriminate mailers should stop, period.</p>
<p>"So yields will decline most places because of more "soft" applications; and schools who played it safe on the yield front will go to the wait list for more students than usual."</p>
<p>In theory this is what should be happening. But is it happening in reality? I don't see yields declining and schools turning to their waitlists. Instead, we hear how schools can't find beds for their large freshmen classes, and how the waitlists are hardly being used at all.</p>
<p>In the years to come, Americans will look back at these as the good old days when Aemrican students with top stats and ECs had a 10% chance of getting into HYP.</p>
<p>(Mind you, it will take the Intl community a couple of decades to cotton on to the benefits of ECs).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe that "selectivity" is a joint enterprise for school and students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mini, thank you for offering your definition of the term selectivity. I'm afraid I'll have to stick with the USNews version.</p>
<p>Xiggi - I totally agree with you about the need to reach out to deserving kids who think that an ivy-league education is out of their reach, but these marketing pieces are a poor way to accomplish that. First, the mass mailings are based on PSAT/SAT scores, which correlate more closely to demographics than to anything else. UC uses ELC (eligibility in the local context), which identifies the top-performing kids in each hs. Probably not perfect by any means, but a better place to start. Second, if the elite colleges were really trying to reach those kids they wouldn't be sending brochures to our zip code - trust me. Finally, the mailings by-and-large don't communicate the kind of information you are suggesting is important - down and dirty info on how to afford the school. They tend to be light on info and heavy on pretty pictures. My daughter found that her (public) school counseling office was a better source of info than the glossies. </p>
<p>I didn't object to mail that was obviously targeted towards high-achieving girls interested in EE, just to the general "look how cool and fun our school is" mail.</p>
<p>And the quantity!!! We were deluged with mail - often the same piece sent several times. Baskets and bundles and barrels full. What a waste.</p>
<p>Funny thing - the schools she ended up applying to were the ones that were the most restrained in their marketing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you can read what the two schools wrote themselves, and interpret accordingly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I did read them several times, and my cynical interpretation is that dropping ED and SCEA is in the best interest of fulfilling the mission of Uni, of which the lil ol admissions office is a small part, albeit likely a larger part in NJ. But, I have no reason to believe that the matriculating classes next year at both schools will look any different than this year's class. As you have pointed out yourself many times, mini, these schools and many like than continue to admit 50%+ full pay students, and have for years. Why will changing early admissions make a dent in that number? Why would they want to? (If they really wanted more low income apps, colleges could start holding HS visits in the low income inner cities, as opposed to the fine suburban public and private high schools.)</p>
<p>Since they are full of extremely bright people, I have no doubt that both schools also looked to mend, not end their early programs. By mending, meaning cut back the early admissions from ~50% to 25% or so. But, that large of a reduction could mean a lot of unhappy developmental folks and borderline legacy folks after your oft-named quarterback and pitchers get in early. :)</p>
<p>Addendum: A local neighbor had P'ton as her first choice. Applied ED and was deferred. Ten more apps in the mail Dec 31. Accepted to Princeton RD, as well as Harvard and Brown, and wait-listed at Yale. But, unfortunately for P'ton and girl who would prefer P, parents are pushing Harvard.</p>