I just checked the Bucknell website. Would someone please explain to me how Bucknell managed to increase their application numbers from approximately 7,800 to 10,800 in one year?
It seems strange to me that the world somehow discovered Bucknell all of a sudden and that’s the basis for this “surge”. And I shudder to think that someone there is up to something that he/she thinks will make the school appear more competitive.
My view is that no one likes being fooled, nor should they. It was only a couple of years ago that Bucknell was discovered to be misreporting upwards their accepted students’ SAT scores.
An article in the Bucknell Daily Item from January 2015 indicates that they eliminated an essay question, reduced the application fee, and contacted many more potential applicants from the south and west. This resulted in a 39% increase in applications.
There was a similar surge in applications at Boston University when they eliminated the SAT II requirement and reduced the supplemental essays from 3 to 1.
How “popular” Bucknell is relates to their way of attracting larger numbers of applications by apparently
reducing the rigor and content of the application itself. And to what end? A 35% increase in one year to make Bucknell appear to me a more desirable school and leapfrog its peer group as if it were in the top tier of US colleges and universities, without any effort on its part.
Here is an expose on the practice which is also now being practiced by top tier Swarthmore and Colby:
Apparently they share with Bucknell and F&M an interest in sharp marketing practices which will achieve for them a paradigm shift based on a transparent breakthrough strategy. These are shenanigans from the corporate world that should not fool anyone.
@markham I am sure that Bucknell will take the increased selectivity and resulting increases in rankings; however, one of the main drivers in trying to increase applications is President Bravman’s push to increase the diversity on campus among the student body and faculty. Admissions considered the supplement (which contained 3 supplemental essays I believe) to be a significant barrier to entry for many URMs and other students who do not typically think of Bucknell. Based on this past year’s results–not just increased applications but also increased diversity and strong academic qualifications for matriculating students–I would say it was a worthwhile strategy. I believe it is quite disingenuous for anyone to claim that any college (or business for that matter) doesn’t need to look at their marketing efforts very carefully.
Oh my, @markham is back, this time on a Bucknell thread, gratuitously stirring the pot and denigrating one of Colgate’s peer schools. Given the history on these boards, it’s fair to call this out. I don’t mean to direct it personally – only at the content – but I don’t think these shenanigans are what CC boards should be about. I am familiar with this strategy from Hamilton and other school threads – I gather most any school that is or could fairly be construed as a Colgate peer school. Scan the boards and you will see: @markham is a very enthusiastic Colgate alum who sometimes offers insightful tidbits about his school but just as often proactively posts elsewhere to slight other schools on various fronts.
So, okay, I’ll bite: is there really a legitimate concern here re Bucknell? Are you hoping to launch an investigation of sorts? Or was it an opportunity to inject talk of the so-called SAT business and plant a seed that something sinister must be going on in Lewisburg because the world couldn’t possibly have discovered this fine school? @momofzag explained things pretty well. And we can all point to scores of examples of schools maneuvering about, altering admissions practices, moving to the common app, reducing supplement burdens or eliminating them altogether, going to early admit programs, attempting to diversify and/or increasing financial aid, going need blind, sending reps further afield to increase profile in underrepresented areas, building sparkly new facilities (ahem) and/or funding certain programs to appeal more to potential applicants, going after patently underqualified kids via sleazy marketing efforts, doctoring numbers (admittedly appalling) and making other moves that by design (and/or just happily) increase application numbers. Where to start?! Of course colleges do some of this stuff and are concerned about numbers and perception and rank. Every one of them, including Colgate! Omitting the supplemental essay isn’t exactly sinister and Bucknell is hardly alone in doing it. But why is @markham so skeptical and bothered such that he would launch a Bucknell thread and then arguing and going at it, even posting articles about Swarthmore and Colby? Why so determined to think that something more is going on – and, again, gratuitously dropping that SAT reference? There is only one reasonable explanation: Bucknell’s increased ## and popularity (and, yep: we have definitely seen a surge in interest out west among families typically interested in NESCAC, Ivy, and similar schools – Bucknell strikes me as a school on the rise). It plainly troubles or threatens @markham.
Given what I’ve seen in the past, I do not believe this was a genuine post of inquiry or concern. Take it all with a grain of salt, folks. I’ve said it before and will say it again: ultimately, I don’t think this brand of idle and negative alumni commentary reflects well on the alma mater.
I was wondering about Bucknell which I had just heard about and asked the question. And ultimately received some answers. But now that you bring this up again, I stand corrected in that the surge in one year re Bucknell’s application numbers is 39% and not the 35% I mentioned. I only saw this after rereading another poster’s comment.
And if you don’t like the flow of the discourse, I am sorry for you. Believe it or not, I came across the Bloomberg story
which specifically names Bucknell, Swarthmore and Colby during the course of the CC discussion. You didn’t choose to mention it and so I am glad I did so. Don’t you find it interesting?
It seems that Bucknell’s management team, the strategists who have achieved a 39% rise in applications in one year, are on to something. Who would have thought that reducing the demands of an application would gain such traction and attention? They did so, obviously. I imagine you think this is a good thing and that other schools will be following suit. We will see if they feel the need to do and, if they do, we can discuss what the real benefits are to attracting the types of students they were seeking.
I’m really confused why you seem to hate Bucknell so much. Your posts come across almost as if Colgate is paying you for each student that decides to apply there and not to Bucknell. I’m happy you love the college you attended - that’s great. But loving your college does not have to mean writing negative things about the other colleges attracting the same types of students. And the tone of what you are writing is quite sarcastic. You can fool yourself and say that you are merely sharing facts, but it really doesn’t read that way.
I wonder what you say you are confused about. And then there are those words “hate”, “negativity”, and “sarcastic”.
This IS about a surprise 39% increase in one year in applications and the Bloomberg article which followed Bucknell’s apparently deliberate falsification of their admitted students’s SAT scores. And this is about their motivations for doing so.
Do I hate Bucknell? What’s there to hate?
Do I have an agenda? Am I afraid to ask questions about what comes across to me as sharp practice? No and obviously not.
Sorry if your feathers are ruffled. But the facts speak for themselves, just as the Bloomberg article, as I learned after my initial post about this topic, explains.
If other colleges follow Bucknell’s lead regarding the application process and/or if Bucknell gets whatever results they are aiming for with this tactic- that of reducing the scope and content of the completed application - those interested in marketing their colleges will have learned something. They may even follow suit. Somehow I doubt they will.
Back to Bucknell and its SAT statistics reporting and applications. You can love it, leave it or continue to discuss it. But hate it? That’s hardly the issue, is it?
I have a S who graduated from Colgate and a D who graduated from Bucknell. Markham, I find your posts stupid and offensive.
Regarding the previous false reporting by Bucknell. When Bucknell administrators learned of the reporting of false SAT and other stats by a reportedly single person, they immediately reported it to USNews and whomever collected the data. USNews said it didn’t change the ranking. Bucknell also received one of its highest donations becauce of its upfront honesty in reporting false info.
As far as trying to increase applicants, what school isn’t trying to do this. All stats indicate that the number of students that will be applying to college is shrinking after ballooning a few tears ago.i work at a state ( not PA) college and we are all concerned about this. Bucknell’s trying to attract a larger amount of student applicants in a shrinking total population indicates it is trying to maintain its academic standards by having more choice.