<p>@lookingforawrd, Is Habitat asking you to send a trial money that will be forfeited if you don’t get their membership? Sure nonprofts have to get people’s attention. That’s all they got. They don’t have a “product” to sell unlike colleges. Colleges have something to sell and they promised to sell it responsibly.</p>
<p>token,
It is the keeping up in the rankings that costs the money.</p>
<p>Igloo- why don’t families research the colleges, once their attention is captured? Why are they “helpless?” </p>
<p>When U Chi sent D2 materials, I left them out, for susceptible hs friends to be impressed. No way was she qualfied for Chi. Period. When D1 got a card from the Flight Attendants Academy, I taped it up because it was so absurd. D1 was also “recruited” by a top 30 for a sport- and she was likely one of the worst on a losing team. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there are kids who learn about misc 2nd tier schools from these mailings, look into them, like them, assess thier chances responsibly and decide to apply.</p>
<p>Is the problem that one is “insulted” by a mailing from Chi or Harvard? Forced to face the reality that they only have a chance if lightning strikes?</p>
<p>ps. The rankings that matter to colleges are not USNWR- it’s peer and institutional factors. Retention, % to grad school, depth of achievement in STEM, % of alumni giving (which is a bar for many foundation grants,) etc.</p>
<p>lookingforward, why didn’t Bernie Madoff victims do the research themselves? Why are they so “helpless”? Theye are the suckers of the day. Why are we and the government helping them to prosecute and recoup from him? They had money, smart, connection, power. They had all they needed to vet him. I think we should lock them up together, the victims and Madoffs and let them settle the score. How does that sound to you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s an artificial problem created by colleges preying on students and parents to promote their brand. It’s just like anything else. If you really look under the hood, the students and parents are really in the driver’s seat yet everyone runs around like a chicken with it’s head cut off trying to please the schools. Just look at Canada and Europe and realize that they produce many successful and happy people without having to go through this ridiculous system of holistic admissions. </p>
<p>To solve the problem students (and parents) need to take back their lives and understand the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There should be no dream school. Your dream should be who the adult is who you want to become not the school you want to attend. When you’re middle aged, 4 years will seem like a very short time and it probably won’t make that much difference where you went to college as long as you found a way to sufficiently challenge yourself. There are plenty of schools that are easier to get in then to get out. Whoever that adult is that you want to be, there are multiple, probably equally good, ways of getting there and the primary factor in how successful you will be is YOU, not the school you attended (within reason). </p></li>
<li><p>Students should work to become whoever they want to be, do the best they can. THEN apply to college. Life’s too short to let the tail wag the dog. </p></li>
<li><p>This whole bit about doing ECs for college is complete excrement (I think I can say that word right?). Do what you want to do. Grow yourself. Make an impact. Experiment. Try new things always even if the college admissions books say not to. Spend some quality time just hanging out with your friends just “being” happy. Don’t live your life for college admissions. I don’t know why anyone would want to go to school with people who only lived their life for the sake of college admissions. If a college rejects you, it’s their loss. If it helps, get offended and reject them back. My D did this with waitlists too. Who are THEY to reject YOU. They had their chance at you and they blew it. Don’t let a bunch of admissions officers who make a living doing social engineering determine your self-worth. They aren’t actually that good at it anyway, but they have a job to do so they do it for better or worse. Many of them will tell you that, just check out the MIT admissions blogs. YOU are in charge of your life. YOU determine your own destiny. </p></li>
<li><p>Figure out how to be happy. If you can’t figure out how to make yourself happy in HS, it’s going to be harder to figure out how to make yourself happy in college and later as an adult. Experiment, but the goal is to make yourself happy, not to get into HYP</p></li>
<li><p>Take the best curriculum for you. Different people learn in different styles and different rates and there is no single right way or right pace. You can drive yourself crazy trying to game this college admissions system. There are plenty of good colleges that will take your money that will be happy to educate you. </p></li>
<li><p>Get enough sleep. Your brain is developing and chronic sleep deprivation can cause permanent cognitive damage. Google it if you don’t believe me. </p></li>
<li><p>Schools should have Naviance or something equivalent, and take the database seriously. When it comes time for college admissions, students ought to be able to estimate their probability of admissions. An application strategy with reaches, matches and safeties ought to be formed based on student preferences. If your first choice is a safety and you can afford it, you need only apply to 1 school. Rankings are useful to identify colleges you might not have heard of, but for the most part, they really don’t have a role beyond that. There are plenty of good colleges, and you should find the best fit for yourself GIVEN YOUR OPTIONS after careful due diligence. It’s your life. You are the customer. The first rule of business is THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So, it still holds- there are suckers out there, “chickens with their heads cut off,” and anger. Caveat Emptor.</p>
<p>Not in marketing, not particularly sophisticated, don’t have a degree from a selective school myself – but I think it’s na</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally agree with this and plan to hold my ground. All I am asking is respected universities help kids do just that by recruiting responsibly. It’s not asking much, is it?</p>
<p>frazzled, it’s not just glossy brochures. From what I hear, it’s more personalized, a letter complete with the application form, “We think you have what it takes to be a member of H, etc.”</p>
<p>“Experience keeps a dear school, but Fools will learn in no other.”
[1743 B. Franklin Poor Richard’s Almanack (Dec.)]</p>
<p>One such example:
“My kid may not be perfect, but he’s still Harvard material.”</p>
<p>lookingforward,</p>
<p>What if we agree that, in a perfect world, everyone would be as savvy and astute as you and your family, but also agree that the world is not perfect and others will fall for a misleading sales pitch.</p>
<p>So accepting as a given that their are pigeons to be had, should colleges and universities set about bagging them?</p>
<p>I say yes. Why should cold calling stock brokers, distraught Nigerian royalty, and three card monty dealers have all the fun.</p>
<p>I REAALLY liked our post, ClassicRockerDad!
Should be saved and a classic.</p>
<p>frazzled,
do you not know how lotteries work?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh please. Every single household in this country receives direct marketing efforts from various companies (car companies, local restaurants, dry cleaners, clothing catalogs, etc.) every single day of the week. We all know that our names were put on a database because we met some criteria of interest and they want to sell us something and that’s that. It has nothing to do with being “in the biz” (I don’t do direct marketing, anyway).</p>
<p>frazzled,
Apologies for sounding so harsh.
What I meant was that it is human nature for humans to take a gamble, if they have nothing to lose. (game theory of economics)
That is how the State Lotteries have grown so huge- the ticket to play is not that high, and the winnings are enormous. Never mind that the odds are ridiculous! You cannot win if you do not play, and no biggie to play (kinda like the Common App).
Obviously, college selections and applications should not be played as a lottery, but it is human nature to rank, search for “chances” (awfully familiar, isn’t it!), and play the game.
The Common App sets the entry fee very low.
The marketing and USNWR publicity and those variables enhance awareness, prestige and participation. The winnings keep getting bigger as the acceptance rates go down.</p>
<p>Lookingforward,
With all due respect, do the colleges REALLY need so many applicants? Aren’t they reaching diminishing returns (quality and diversity of pools leading to “better” classes), so as to really stress out the AdComms and perhaps reduce the quality of their hard work going through so many darn apps every year? Signs of this would be the constant simplification and standardization of the applications, the word limits on the essays, the growing disinterest in Art Supplements, etc.
And, honestly, lookingforward, do you not think yield management and Tufts syndrome and “show the love” are signs that the tails is wagging the dog?</p>
<p>p.s. I am just SOOOOO glad that this thread started BEFORE the results for this app cycle have really started to come out- otherwise, everyone would be saying that critics have sour grapes, but cannot say that now.</p>
<p>One of my all-time favorites is “9 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest.”
Prefer it over what? Sand? Mashed potatoes? Prefer it for what? Oral hygeine or getting white rings off your table?</p>
<p>PerfMom- I personally toy with the idea only the first x number of applicants should be allowed into the competition- applicants who meet some achievement threshhold. Or, that there should be some limit to the number of apps one kid can submit. Then, let it be holistic.</p>
<p>I have no objection to holistic because campuses need more than freshmen with successful stats. I believe ECs show maturity, perspective and ability to commit to something other than your own narrow interests, a willingness to branch out and try new things. I believe essays show a depth and perspective in thinking that stats can’t show. I believe all this- maturity perspective, depth and breadth, willingness to go for new experiences- are what makes people successful. Not just stats.</p>
<p>I dunno, PG, I just feel like “branding” is not a really appropriate activity for colleges. the Branding seems to be pretty vague, not all that helpful in helping kids find a fit or self-select.
Why not advertise the stats, the special qualities of the college? Instead it is all abstractions, invitations to come to Info Sessions and learn more, etc.
And the wording of the letters DOES make it sound as if the kid was selected specially for some (unknown) reason.
Why not: If YOU are interested in X or Y or Z actvities/ areas of study, areas of the country, whatever, and have grades and scores like this and want to learn more about us, come! Before you RSVP, be sure to read our web-site thoroughly about our programs, the costs, and the criteria for recent admits. The acceptance rate has been very very low at R%…</p>
<p>The Legal profession was prohibited from advertising for many years- maybe education should be treated that way.</p>
<p>Dry Cleaners who have way too much business and turn down 95% of those seeking their service (and probably over 80% of those who clothes qualify for their type of dry cleaning) do not send out flyers. Only lotteries do something like this!</p>
<p>LF, I think limiting the number of apps per applicant would be a GREAT idea!
It would force more research into fit and chances by the high schoolers, and would limit the flood of apps, by now overwhelming the top colleges, no doubt.
And maybe the colleges would be more careful about how they brand themselves, and also more selective in targeting their market LOL. I think it would be fair for all.</p>
<p>Funny thing: part of the attraction to a college “brand” is that it is hard to get it!</p>
<p>The adcoms at say Harvard or Stanford, et al already have to read 30 thousand or so apps. Just looking at that stack waiting to be read would be enough to make me cry if I were on that committee. Do you really think they want to read 10 thousand more for the sake of driving their already minuscule admission rates another percentage point or two lower?</p>
<p>Nor do I think they cynically send marketing materials to any given student with the intention of rejecting that specific student. What they are dealing with in the brochure game is populations, not individuals. They are hoping to uncover that one hidden pearl who otherwise would not have thought to apply. And in order to trigger that application they blanket certain populations with marketing material, knowing full well that the vast majority of those kids will ultimately be rejected. (They certainly know their own acceptance rates). But if they find the pearl, it’s been worth it for the school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most college students in the US attend either community colleges (open admissions, or first come first served), or moderately selective state universities (probably mostly admit by GPA and test scores or a formula derived from such). Holistic admissions are more of a characteristic of highly selective schools which get huge numbers of “near maximum” GPA and test scores applicants.</p>
<p>Ah, H couldn’t do any wrong, could they? To find just one little gem, just like Jesus, will travel hazards to find the lost lamb sending application forms for the show since everyone is applying on line? I sure hope our most venerable instituion is more capable and able to find and target market rather than blanketing it.</p>
<p>coureur,</p>
<p>Depending on the rules of the game, they may have won the game when they received the applications; if you get a few students out of it, all the better.</p>
<p>Maybe their motivations are altruistic, I don’t know. A bit of cycnicism seems warranted.</p>
<p>In the event that the mailings are, at least in part, motivated by USNWR metrics; well, I think Harvard and Stanford, et.al., should not be in the mass marketing/ infomercial/ sandwich board business (even if the most perceptive, highly intelligent, market sensitive consumers see through the ruse).</p>