<p>*, i.m.o., it does NOT serve, within the context of the argument. Rolling admissions is one of the few relatively sane vehicles that students now have, & a way to be responsible & rational about the process.</p>
<p>e - I couldn't agree more. I keep on thinking "all that glitters is not gold" - within the context of all the debate and discussion to curtail the "admissions frenzy" and to reform admission policy this effort to justify an end to rolling admissions seems like fools gold to me. In this context, it is really quite absurd.</p>
<p>I just finished reading the Overachievers, by Alexandra Robbins. One thing I wonder about is her first recommendation as to what colleges can do to ease the frenzy -- and that is to boycott publications that put schools in ranked order. In her view, one can't do a precise objective ordering of colleges (which is how many people view US News rankings -- we've all heard kids on CC argue about the rankings). She states that she asked admissions officers why their schools didn't boycott the rankings, and according to her, "the most common answer was 'fear.'" They worry that if "they don't provide information, they will lose applicants and prestige." (page 393) [She notes that Reed College didn't suffer loss of quality applicants when it declined to provide info to US News.]</p>
<p>I believe that would help ease the competition-with-peers aspect of college admissions if a school like Harvard took the lead and refused to provide info to US News and similar publications that purport to rank "the best" colleges and universities. It could work in tandem with its new policy of dropping SCEA starting in 2007. Hopefully other schools would follow. Then students can focus a bit more on which school would be right for them. </p>
<p>What do people think? (Or has this been discussed above, I haven't read everything?)</p>
<p>I DO think it would help if HYP etc refused to send stats to USN &WR, however, parents need to take some responsibility. I'm not so perfect either, but when we started the college search in Jr, year, I sat down with my son and asked him what he was looking for. In his case, he wanted a school with high quality academics, intellectually curious students, small classes, accessible profs, not preppy, not highly invested in sports, low (or preferably no) Greek presence, opportunity for great study abroad, drama and a cappella groups. Also a certain quirkiness factor (hard to define, but you know it when you see it).</p>
<p>I took that info and read through college guides, putting post-it notes on good fits. I came up with about 30. He narrowed it down to 20 schools. We visited them all and he came up with 10 to apply to. Though his stats are great, none of the Ivies met his criteria, nor did ASW or Stanford, Cal-Tech or MIT. All great schools, but not a great fit for him.</p>
<p>It's hard for parents to let go of the prestige factor (fueled heavily by USN&WR) and think only (ONLY???!?) of fit, but it's important, imo.</p>
<p>bethievt, kudos to you and your son! I certainly agree on both points - that it is hard for parents to let go and see through the prestige factor to "get" to the heart of the concept of fit - I am sure all of us are guilty on that score to one degree or another. Then again, for some the prestige factor is "it" plain and simple. Since I don't think that HYPS - or the University of Chicago for that matter - are going to stop sending in stats to USNWR anytime soon (I think I ran across references to an attempt to rally support for a boycott organized in 1998 or 1999 by students at MIT (?) but it didn't get anywhere...) students and parents just have to learn how to wisely use and not abuse the information that the ranking systems' people make available to us in our college searches.</p>
<p>Well, I guess I am not the only one confused and bemused by all the early, interim, binding, nonbinding, and just plain regular options currently out there. Since I admit that I am bewildered just going to Starbucks to order coffee or to the supermarket to buy a toothbrush - and I don't expect anyone to clarify anything related to the process of early admissions reform anytime soon - I just had to laugh when I read this Inside Higher Ed article entitled "Decisions and Revisions". </p>
<p>
[quote]
early revisions: this curious term signifies that percentage of accepted students who , well before the deadline, decide that they want to matriculate elsewhere.</p>
<p>late action: a polite term for what used to be called the waiting list, or those applicants who have no reasonable hope of getting in unless someone else opts out.</p>
<p>early faction: any admitted students likely to become a cohesive group, such as the College Republicans.</p>
<p>proactive admissions: the new term for offers extended ahead of time to athletes wholl be snapped up by other schools if another day goes by.</p>
<p>early derision: a cover for those admitted students who in retrospect were ludicrous choices, such as those with bad debts or probation officers.</p>
<p>easy submissives and early emissions: dont go there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exceptionally thoughtful - and thought provoking - contribution to the early admissions reform debate by Henry Broaddus, dean of admission at the College of William and Mary. I think the last paragraph makes a stunning point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Recent announcements by Harvard, Princeton and the University of Virginia that they will discontinue use of early admission bring new attention to an ongoing debate within circles of admissions officers. Unfortunately, the notion that across-the-board abandonment of early admission will benefit low-income students is, at best, overstated. At worst it's a potential distraction from more substantive obstacles to growing the pool of low-income students who apply to top-tier institutions and receive adequate financial assistance. Early admission programs must be evaluated by individual institutions on an ongoing basis, but at the College of William and Mary we believe early decision works well for our prospective students...</p>
<p>Recent announcements by Harvard, Princeton and the University of Virginia that they will discontinue use of early admission bring new attention to an ongoing debate within circles of admissions officers. Unfortunately, the notion that across-the-board abandonment of early admission will benefit low-income students is, at best, overstated. At worst it's a potential distraction from more substantive obstacles to growing the pool of low-income students who apply to top-tier institutions and receive adequate financial assistance. Early admission programs must be evaluated by individual institutions on an ongoing basis, but at the College of William and Mary we believe early decision works well for our prospective students...</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I fear that the elimination of early admission will no more improve access to elite universities for low-income students than the elimination of call-ahead seating would make dining out more affordable. Harvard, Princeton and the University of Virginia all have made significant and laudable investments toward diversifying their pools, but I do not put their decision to end early admission in the same category.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there is still limited social good in many early admission programs. For the right student who wants the academic reputation and personal attention William and Mary offers, early decision can shorten the admission process and curb some of the anxiety about it. Where there is a clear match to be made, waiting for regular decision neither benefits the student nor prevents a mistake. Moreover, why should a highly qualified applicant who knows he or she wants to enroll at William and Mary also apply elsewhere, and in effect take away another offer of admission from someone else more interested in it?</p>
<p>One unintended consequence of fewer early admission options may be the inflation of applicant pools during regular decision. Students who would have opted out of other pools after gaining early admission may file more applications than they otherwise would. In effect they would contribute to lower overall admission rates that serve only to escalate the anxiety attendant to college admissions.</p>
<p>Ultimately, cynicism about early admission programs and abuse of them by families (as a perceived way to improve one's odds of admission) and by institutions (as an actual way to inflate their yields) may reach the point where we're better off without them altogether. I hope we have not reached that point yet, but if we do, I hope even more fervently that we do not mistake the correction of that problem for true progress toward the correction of a larger one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think kids worry as much about prestige as some parents. And while it is a great goal for all to shun the prestige factor, the reality is that it exists. That is why, I believe that great strides would be made for Harvard and others to abandon cooperation with USNews. Everyone knows that Harvard is number one (or 2 this year) so what do they have to lose? Nothing. (Same with abandoning SCEA -- Harvard isn't jeopardizing anything, but taking the lead for the greater good and/or for great PR.) I think the rankings feed the frenzy. Maybe not everywhere, but certainly in the college-focused high schools. </p>
<p>Re: early admissions. I think the outreach that Harvard is planning to do in tandem with abandoning SCEA for a few years -- to get into high schools with kids from underrepresented socioeconomic backgrounds -- is the right idea. They will do a service to all to get out there and explain the process in general, the process as specific to Harvard, and the financial availability of a college education to kids who don't have ready access to this information.</p>
<p>Abandoning cooperation with US News won't do anything. The information US News works with to come up with their rankings is, for the most part, from the Common Data Set information. And many school's CDS is easily obtained. Reed has made a big fuss about their lack of cooperation with US News, but they're still ranked based on the available information. </p>
<p>So the magazine will rank whether colleges cooperate or not. And students/parents who are obsessive about it will still be obsessive no matter what the colleges themselves say. </p>
<p>Truth be told, I don't care much about the ranking either way. But I do love the US News paid online service. It's a fantastic place to get a ton of helpful information about a lot of colleges, all in one place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Abandoning cooperation with US News won't do anything
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lderochi, you're right about USN&WR continuing to "rank" Reed, despite the college's refusal to provide data. Their CDS is readily available and that's used, however imperfectly. However, there's a subtler point worth mentioning. USN&WR rankings not only report -- they profoundly influence the way colleges do business. For example, "elite" colleges, and those that wish to be regarded as such, spend millions on marketing to inflate applicant numbers and thus increase "selectivity" rating. The influence creeps into many other areas as well and that influence is generally not in the best interest of students, or the general good.</p>
<p>"College Unranked," ed. Lloyd Thacker, is a collection of essays by various college admins (Harvard, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Clark -- and, yes, my favorite, Reed) discussing the problem. Highly recommended. Of course all of this has been discussed on CC before, and there are those who'll flame me yet again, but just go read the darn book and judge for yourself.</p>
<p>"The information US News works with to come up with their rankings is, for the most part, from the Common Data Set information."</p>
<p>How the CDS is fudged to move up in the rankings is covered on CC often. SAT-optional is an issue. There aren't many defenders of the USNWR ranking, owing to the manipulation.</p>
<p>I understand that USN&WR can feed into the frenzy but I also think they provide a great service. They have tried to put together what they consider to be an objective measure. They explain their criteria so you can see where the numbers come from. </p>
<p>Additionally, as Odyssey points out, they are more than just rankings, they influence behavior. I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing. First, let's look at a few of the criteria, student to teacher ratio, 6 year graduation rate, classes with fewer than 20 and greater than 50 students and teachers holding a terminal degree. These are all generally things that we all would agree with so if these components influence a school I see that as a good thing.</p>
<p>What I would like to see is for US News provide an ability to provide our own weighting to each of the criteria and then get the results. Further, I would like to be able to drill down into the data a bit more to see what special programs are available at each school that would make it a better fit for the student. Something like the computer counselor available on an another site only with more specific reasons why a school makes sense.</p>
<p>For example, it could recommend a honors college within a regional school like Villanova over some standard fare at a more "prestigious" school from the national rankings.</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, etc taking their data away goes against the trend toward transparency. In fact, I believe it is not USNews that has caused the feeding frenzy it is the policies of the schools. There are books like "The Early Admissions Game" out that show that there is a dramatically higher chance of getting accepted ED/SCEA than in the regular pool I think you will continue to see the feeding frenzy.</p>
<p>In the case of some of the schools, I do think it will reduce the tension some if the applicants think that they will be treated equally to those who apply early.</p>
<p>Vossron,</p>
<p>I would point out that USNews does not fudge the data . . . the schools do. So as Odyssey said, they influence the behavior of the schools. However, being a more numbers driven person myself, I like being able to get a lot of the stats on each of the schools in one place . . . disregarding the ranking component.</p>
<p>And I'm not defending the US News ranking, I'm simply saying that I don't think colleges refusing to cooperate with US News will accomplish anything. </p>
<p>US News will rank the schools based on the available numbers regardless of whether the college cooperates with the magazine or not. </p>
<p>A school that wants to manipulate its practices to improve its ranking will do so even if the school doesn't actively cooperate with US News. </p>
<p>Students/Parents who obsess over the minute differences in rankings among HYPS or AWS or Michigan/California/UVA/UNC will obsess over the rankings no matter how much the colleges tell them not to.</p>
<p>asterikea,</p>
<p>One more point before I forget it. You are right that the last sentence or the quote from the William and Mary representative is the shocking one:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ultimately, cynicism about early admission programs and abuse of them by families (as a perceived way to improve one's odds of admission) and by institutions (as an actual way to inflate their yields) may reach the point where we're better off without them altogether. I hope we have not reached that point yet, but if we do, I hope even more fervently that we do not mistake the correction of that problem for true progress toward the correction of a larger one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To me he is really talking about encouraging more students to apply to certain schools. These students (and their parents) are often concerned about financial aid and the impact upon their ability to attend. What is 100% of financial need? It is pretty undefined. As such I think you will continue to see students apply to large number of schools so they can balance the best fit with their families ability to pay.</p>
<p>Finally, don't get me going on certain schools reaching out to under-represented schools. I read a thread on the Princeton site where some of their alumni were concerned that Princeton admissions department wasn't visiting and accepting as many students from certain traditionally strong schools enough. I am not sure what Princeton's policy is on that or whether they followed the desires of their alumni but that would move the trend in the wrong direction.</p>
<p>One problem is schools' fudging the numbers to move up in the ranking. Another problem is the idea of a "one size fits all" ranking. Reed, for one, participates in publications which do not form a ranking, like Barron's, the Fiske Guide to Colleges, Peterson's, Colleges that Change Lives, Newsweek's College Guide, and the College Board's College Handbook. Get these if you want data without ranking.</p>
<p>Vossron,</p>
<p>I like the financial aid information provided by USNews online. They provide the most complete picture of student financial aid at all of the schools. Much more so than the other publications that you mention. Though while my 2 oldest children went through the process we looked at all of those guides!</p>
<p>I don't think this about calling USN satanic. They provide some useful info and maybe some is more misleading, like that you can give a school a rank that means anything. My son's K-8 public school didn't use letter grades. They did narrative evals, assessed the kids with rubrics--yeah, it's a dumb word--had the kids assess themselves and had standardized test data required by the state. Drove some parents CRAZY! Without that one letter grade, they felt they couldn't tell how their kid was doing. I loved the narrative descriptions that told me so much more. I felt confident that these teachers knew my kid's strengths and "challenges" (can't call them weaknesses, ha ha) and were teaching to both.</p>
<p>Similarly, I get more out of researching the actual characteristics of a school, both academic and social, than I do by looking at the number USN comes up with. My kid isn't a number and I don't judge the value of a school by a number either. Not that useful, and feeds the flames, imo. The only way to get them to stop, though, is if parents stopped buying into it. That's gonna happen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only way to get them to stop, though, is if parents stopped buying into it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're probably right. Sigh. But we're seeing that college admins are beginning to question the need to submit data. If enough heavy-hitters refuse, USN&WR will have to fall back on the CDS exclusively, and their credibility will erode. That, together with greater consumer awareness, might just get the job done.</p>
<p>celloguy</p>
<p>You're right. If parents got a grip (and, believe me, I lose mine frequently) and the schools did the right thing we could start getting somewhere, but I'm not sure most people on CC want to get there and the schools at the "top" don't need to go anywhere else.</p>
<p>It's probably not going to happen, but it would be a modest step in the right directions if colleges and universities simply refused to provide one item to USNWR: peer assessments of their overlaps/competitors. That's surely the most subjective and easily manipulated of the items in USNews's formula, and a large chunk of the total ranking (25%). It wouldn't make the whole house of cards collapse, but it would shift the balance at least a notch away from the current emphasis on overall ranking and toward comparision on a variety of parameters.</p>