<p>I think a board made up of well educated, generally affluent parents in the northeast and California really doesn’t understand that the elite schools are not top of mind everywhere, as justmytwocents’ posts demonstrates.</p>
<p>These are the kids that the top schools are trying to ferret out with their marketing materials.</p>
<p>Well then that explains some of the schools that targeted D, I was wondering why Princeton et. al. was sending stuff to D who was attending inner city public school, when her sister who attended fancy private hadn’t been targeted with better numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is true, why do the top schools reject those with very high SAT scores, or those in the top 10% of their class, while accepting those with lower SAT scores and those that may not be in the top 10% of their class, for example?</p>
<p>@warbrain, </p>
<p>“If this is true, why do the top schools reject those with very high SAT scores, or those in the top 10% of their class”</p>
<p>Maybe because the kids are Asian?</p>
<p>I think it also might be that different colleges have different purposes for their mail campaigns. I just find it hard to believe that Harvard and the other top selective schools would spend their money on trying to get more applicants that they can reject. It would really be a waste. I have to think that they are looking for more variety in the applicants that they can accept–that’s what they say they are doing, and it makes sense to me.
I certainly think that schools that are less well known (ie, Transylvania University), or schools that have a geographical strike against them (i.e., Grinnell), are doing their campaigns to get more (and better) applicants that they can take.
It’s certainly possible that there are schools that are cynically trying to increase the number of rejections so they can increase their selectivity numbers. But I can’t imagine why any of the Ivies would spend a penny to do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In order to have a happy class, they also feel a need to get a set of students who would be happy being at the bottom of the class. That’s why they recruit athletes, actors/actresses, legacies, and famous people who have enough self confidence with what they do bring to the table, that they wouldn’t be upset at the bottom of the class.</p>
<p>That’s why at these schools it’s even harder that you would think to get in and it’s so hard to predict.</p>
<p>Face it, it is the director of admissions job to get as many applications as possible so that they can reject them and please their students and alumni as being the most selective. If he didn’t do that he wouldn’t be doing his job. Nondorf at UChicago, basically said this proudly and without shame at the Open House I attended with D1 when he first got there in 2009. </p>
<p>The only way to combat this is for students to broaden their dreams to more tangible aspirations, and not make a particular school a dream school. The only proper attitude is “if I get in great, if I don’t, to hell with you, what do you know anyway, I’m still going to be great, and when I’m a rich and successful, some other school is going to get my donations.” </p>
<p>I think that we parents have an obligation to our kids to help them see that.</p>
<p>“In order to have a happy class, they also feel a need to get a set of students who would be happy being at the bottom of the class. That’s why they recruit athletes, actors/actresses, legacies, and famous people who have enough self confidence with what they do bring to the table, that they wouldn’t be upset at the bottom of the class.”</p>
<p>Excuse me? Do you think hunt’s son and my son were not fully competitive to get into elite schools? </p>
<p>And as for actors/actresses, I’m proud to say I went to a school that valued artistic and creative talent by having top music and theater schools. Certainly preferable to someplace that doesn’t value those things – blech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I said that. What I meant was that these schools often look for students who are extraordinary in some other area besides academics so that the whole school isn’t filled with academics, 25% of whom would be unhappy being in the bottom quartile of the class. </p>
<p>I really don’t think Emma Watson is looking for an investment banking job. I have no idea whether she is an academic superstar too, but I don’t think she had to be. In our generation it was Brooke Shields.</p>
<p>What ClassicRockerDad says is sort of true, but it has nothing to do with being happy to be in the bottom quartile of the class. At the most selective schools, the phrase “bottom quartile of the class” essentially has no meaning. There isn’t a quarter of the class with a bunch of Cs. There may be a few really bottom students, but most students do reasonably well.
But it’s certainly true that selective colleges look for people who can play sports, or who are extraordinary in other ways–who might not have gotten in on academics alone. However, at least at the most selective schools, all those kids also get good grades and keep up with few problems. It’s getting in that’s the issue.</p>
<p>Here is a well known enrollment management company, who is proud of their methods of increasing enrollment and “tuition revenue” [Helping</a> colleges and universities grow their institutions via student recruitment](<a href=“http://www.royall.com/proven-approaches/grow-my-institution]Helping”>http://www.royall.com/proven-approaches/grow-my-institution). This is marketing at its finest, IMO Here’s a sampling of some of their presentationa <a href=“http://www.royall.com/resources/conferences#277[/url]”>http://www.royall.com/resources/conferences#277</a></p>
<p>Wow, I looked at the website. Some of the services they provide:</p>
<pre><code>Grow My Institution
Shape My Class
Increase My Tuition Revenue
</code></pre>
<p>Free enterprise is alive and well…</p>
<p>If it’s OK to want to do something, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with hiring a consultant to help you do it. Some colleges apparently really need to find more full-pays.</p>
<p>^^^ That can’t be a surprise, can it?</p>
<p>I asked ds2, a HS junior, whether he thinks his classmates are sophisticated enough to get the marketing for what it is, and he said yes. The only exception he mentioned was a kid who has an inflated opinion of himself and is sure he’ll play DI ball. That kid truly believes everyone wants him. :)</p>
<p>There is absolutely nothing wrong with hiring a consultant. Its just a tad naive to think that these fancy mailings arent marketing, imo</p>
<p>@jym626, agreed</p>
<p>My point is that if kids and their parents would learn not to view college admissions as an assessment of their own or their kids’ self-worth, then none of this stuff would matter, and there wouldn’t be a “problem” that needs a “solution”. </p>
<p>I was pointing out that if people understand that
- it’s not a meritocracy
- college are businesses
- there are plenty of colleges that can nurture talent </p>
<p>then who cares what these schools do to drum up business.</p>
<p>A lot of kids & parents are new to the whole college admissions process and are not aware of the ferocity of the marketing.</p>
<p>I’m not advocating a ban on the marketing. I just want to promote awareness.</p>
<p>Hey, check this out. Fordham uses Royall for its marketing/enrollment management. [Our</a> clients enjoy maximum results for their recruitment dollars](<a href=“http://www.royall.com/company/clients/]Our”>http://www.royall.com/company/clients/) Maybe those who were stymied by Fordham’s strategy should inquire with Royall as to their procedures, or contact John Buckley, who said
</p>
<p>Surely no college is using a consultant to decide which applicants to admit?</p>
<p>I think a lot of these lists are based on PSAT scores plus demographic information only. That’s a pretty crude tool.</p>