<p>So therefore, are you saying our hypothetical elite school shouldn’t waste any mail on East Bumble, AL…"
Pizza, my post included the abbreviations “etc, etc”. That means the prior 3 examples were by no means the ONLY examples of the kind of information used to target students. No where did I say, or even imply that EM companies send mailings to zip codes based ONLY on past enrollment patterns. They use reams of data gathered from multiple sources, not just data relating to past accepted students. </p>
<p>“So if you think that they should target based on who has attended in the <em>past</em> - don’t you think you’re going to get a lot of targeting of the zip codes around elite boarding schools and affluent public schools?”</p>
<p>I dont have any dog in this fight, nor am I trying to suggest where EMC’s SHOULD look for the “needle in the haystack” kid. I’m just stating that fact that they DO use multiple sources of information and data in compiling their various mailing lists. And that recipients of those mailings should not project their own hopes and dreams upon receiving a piece of mail. Thats all. So we do agree on that point. </p>
<p>I would appreciate it if you not jump to conclusions that match your own assumptions quite so quickly. You seem to be looking for something to continue to argue about regarding this topic.</p>
<p>I think it should be teenager’s responsibilities to determine what college they should apply to. All of the information is online. That’s the only thing I’ve used in my search, and the advice of everybody else, including my parents, has been profoundly unhelpful. Kids need to wake up and take a close look at their stats to determine whether it is worth applying to the school. Harvard and MIT sent me mailings too but I never thought I could get into either of them. </p>
<p>On the other hand, how does a college know that they’ll reject a future applicant? I think colleges tend to send out their applications based on test scores, and they don’t obviously mean everything.</p>
<p>My thought is that they are wooing your lower stat child so they can count her app and reject her and ignoring your higher stat child figuring she would not go there even if accepted.</p>
<p>Way back on the first page, several CUNY schools were listed as having low acceptance rates. The reason for that, IMHO, is that there are so many kids in NYC schools and many of them apply to CUNYs for financial reasons or to have safeties. I would certainly not compare CUNY schools to Harvard. Before I get flamed, let me add that I myself attended a CUNY and wound up a lawyer, so they have their place financially.</p>
<p>My son (1410 M + CR, 30 ACT, NM commended but 3.3 GPA) has received so many of these on line apps and materials in the mail. I don’t think we’ll need kindling this year for the fireplace as we have so many college catalogues. Most of these schools will not take him with his sub-par (for his ability) GPA but they want him to apply. If they can get a fee, great; if they offer it free, they can say they turned down a 1410/30.</p>
Actually, my son received marketing material from Andover - at the time it was pretty clear what had triggered it though I forget now. Might have been from MathCounts.</p>
<p>I haven’t read through this thread but it caught my eye because I have been shaking my head about the volume of mail and e mail my son has received from the University of Chicago, an unmatch for him in every way. I was particularly amused by the email that promoted the athletic opportunites. If I had no prior knowledge of the school I would have a completely different image of the school. I think that people may initially be skeptical but after a while I’ll bet the shear volume of recruitment materials may wear down the resistance of unsuspecting students and parents who begin to believe that the school really wants them.</p>
<p>My son just told me that he applied to Fordham. They offered him a free application by email, so he went ahead and submitted it. He has a sub-3.0 GPA and I can’t imagine there is any chance he will be admitted. They never sent him a single piece of postal mail. I think they just want to count his app and reject him, as Joan 52 says. It’s a little irritating. </p>
<p>Other than that, though, I think the colleges that have sent him lots of mail and offered free “priority applications” were for the most part colleges where he would have at least some chance of being accepted. He’s definitely not getting mail from Harvard and Chicago.</p>
<p>mathmom,
I should have said that BS do not BLANKET the market!!!</p>
<p>Their marketing is targeted to kids like your son based on some affiliation with a performance-based program, which is very different from what we are seeing from the colleges.
Andover and Exeter do need to fill a good number of spaces, and they and many others do have the endowment to fund scholarships and really hope for all sorts of interesting kids from all over the place with a variety of interests from a diverse backgrounds, and also believe that it is their mission to provide opportunity through education to those who are not automatically in the know about them. These schools also have a decent number of international kids.
My point is that they do not need to send zillions and zillions and zillions of brochures out to accomplish this.</p>
<p>Colleges, unlike BS, have a near-universal market as it is the “typical” milestone after HS. But college in the U.S. is generally not a free default like HS is.</p>
<p>BS is very atypical in U.S. The BS’s are not going to waste resources to mass-spam kids who have a default free place in present HS.</p>
<p>My daughter’s college, Elon, is bucking this trend by actually making it HARDER to apply. They refuse to join the Common App, and last year they eliminated the “topic of your choice” from their essays. If you want to apply there, you have to be willing to fill out a separate application and write an essay tailored to their essay prompts. Their philosophy: we only want kids applying who really want to go here. </p>
<p>Result? Last year their number of applications dropped 15%, and their selectivity dropped slightly as well since they admitted a higher percent to keep the same size freshman class. They really don’t seem to care about their selectivity. They love their rankings, but their rankings haven’t dropped. Students and parents are still raving, and it’s still known as one of the colleges to watch, a rapidly rising school that’s getting noticed for all the RIGHT reasons. (Why? Because they are great at engaged learning and they’re reasonably priced).</p>
<p>I’m proud of them for not playing the selectivity game, but another poster wrote on the Elon board, “I would like to see Elon’s acceptance rate decrease…” WHY? So we can brag to other people that our kids got in? </p>
<p>More rejected applicants does not equal a better college.</p>
<p>The colleges don’t place your kid into their application pool. Your kid does that, when an application is submitted. Yes, it only costs $75 to dream of Harvard and throw your hat into the ring. But kids should go into this with their eyes open and their thinking caps on. It’s college. </p>
<p>If the colleges wrote to my kids and said: we want you and have pulled all your records, you’ll hear back in x days, I would be a lot more annoyed.</p>
<p>I’m sorry MenloParkMom, but you know not of what you write.</p>
<p>Sure, some colleges/universities do use agencies that do enrollment management agencies. But they are mostly the least selective institutions.</p>
<p>The most selective schools do not use these companies. They buy names directly from the College Board or ETS using their own parameters that they establish - e.g. “everyone who says they want to get a 4-year-degree who has scored at least XXXX and has at least X.X gpa” (or whatever parameters we decide upon). They dump the names into their prospect database and churn out whatever it is that they want to churn out as a result (a letter, an email, what have you). It’s strategic only in the sense that they are getting your son/daughter’s address information or email. </p>
<p>You don’t have to believe me (you likely won’t), but I know from experience that your statements/assumptions are untrue. Particularly about Harvard and schools of its ilk. Ironically, and almost in an inverse of what we see in the business world, the more selective the institution, in my professional experience, the less research and strategic thinking goes into the recruitment and admissions process than at less selective institutions. </p>
<p>Additionally, the “value-add” so to speak that a currently top 10 institution would get from lowering its admissions rate a point or two (or whatever it might be) is not likely to significantly change its ranking. </p>
<p>Highly selective schools like Harvard, Princeton, etc. really do hope to get the “best and the brightest.” I know many of you are cynical about these schools’ motives in sending out materials to your children - in that they are ploys to get them to apply (and pro forma reject them) - but very selective, expensive, prestigious schools do face prejudice amongst some of the very candidates they hope to attract - particularly incredibly bright low-income kids from underserved urban or very rural communities. These are the kids on farms in South Dakota, in South Central LA, in rural West Virginia, in Brownsville, etc., who think that a place like Harvard or Yale or _<em>Insert “Fancy” Highly Ranked Insittution Here </em> are too expensive, Upper-Class, etc. etc. to admit them or to enroll them. These are the kids that the top schools are trying to ferret out with their marketing materials.</p>
<p>I believe you. Because that is pretty much just the process the reporter briefly describes in the linked article back in post #66 about how Harvard recruits applicants.</p>
<p>The reporter in the #66 oversimplifies, as usual. I’d go so far as to say, got some info, pre-digested it and gave out just enough info to make the article attract some attention (ie, succeed as a media article.)</p>
<p>I highly doubt Harvard is stuffing its own envelopes to those 70,000 kids. It would be interesting to know how some posters (on whichever side of the issue) are so certain in their beliefs. When has the mythmaking so spun our heads that we think we understand and when do we know from some inside connection? Oh, wait, plenty of stuff on CC was heard directly from some adcom and kids took it at face value.</p>
<p>Two questions:
(1) What does a “real” likely letter look like?
(2) College mailings don’t actually make good kindling, do they? I’d think the glossy paper would smoke and give off nasty chemicals, no?</p>
<p>Yeah, in much the same way it would be interesting to know how you became so certain in your beliefs that you know just what the reporter did in writing this article. Or that you know better than the reporter who actually interviewed the Dean what Harvard admissions is or isn’t doing.</p>
<p>I don’t know better than the author. And, didnt say that. I have a healthy skepticism about the media, less inclination to assume they always get it right. All this talk about manipulating the number of apps to, uh, improve their USNWR ratings is baloney. As if USNWR were some universally accepted source of truth. Maybe kids and their parents think so. Adcoms I know roll their eyes at the mention of it.
I work for an Ivy. The description of “regional committees” leaves out a great deal about the review process, how it starts, who’s looking at the apps and what the layers are, before it gets to the very final rounds. I am also quite familiar with the uber-cautious nature of admissions-speak and even direct quotes from senior adcoms need to be carefully read. Sure, maybe the author accurately and completely described what H does. I personally doubt it. I also doubted the impression left when another media report mentioned Amherst (was it Amherst or Williams?) adcoms laughing at an applicant. That was taken out of context and caused a hubbub on CC.</p>
<p>We do have a range of posters on this thread- yes, I’m curious how some came to their conclusions.</p>
<p>I don’t know how USNWR’s weighting works but I suspect that the mid-50% range has more weight than the acceptance rate. If a 999th ranked school made the top 2000 highest score students in the nation to apply, that would do some good to the school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that case, if one targets a kid while another doesn’t, can the kid assume the other school doesn’t want her to apply (for some reasons)? I wonder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I listened to that report again the other day, and I don’t believe “like music only” or “chicken nuggets” alone got one kid rejected while the other accepted.</p>