<p>D was also sad to reject her acceptances and happy for the chance to explain why. We appreciated the schools that indicated they'd keep the door open for her as well. She put a lot of work into the list and maintains loyalty to all of the "almosts" as well.</p>
<p>Igglesfan,
My son felt the same way. He says he'd have been very happy attending several of his schools. In fact, UVA gave him a wonderful FA pkg (and he was very interested while interviewing for the Jefferson Scholarship - but he didn't get it). He had other good choices as well, but in the end, he chose the guaranteed med school program. I'm really not sure what he would have done if all his choices were straight undergrad programs.</p>
<p>It seems to me there should be a quid pro quo. If the schools want info. about why they were rejected, they should be prepared to offer the same kind of info. to applicants they rejected.</p>
<p>Excellent point, mini!</p>
<p>Many colleges will talk to a student about why there were denied admission. We take hundreds of "decision calls" in April from students and parents.</p>
<p>You survey everyone, right? So why don't you provide the same service back, or provide a survey they can return to get your response?</p>
<p>Dear XXX College,</p>
<p>After long deliberation I am sorry to inform you that I was unable to accept your offer of admission. The decision was not easy, nor was it quick. There were many qualified schools this year, but I could accept only one. With so many excellent schools from which to choose, and such a narrow decision space, I know that a number of schools would have to be disappointed. I know that you will go on to have a very successful entering class, and continued sucess in the Newsweek rankings even if your yield rate does go down a bit. Yield rate isn't everything! You're still a great school, and I'm sure that many, many students will be happy to pay your fees.</p>
<p>I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, but please understand that there can be no reconsideration, and my decision is final.</p>
<p>Best of luck in your future endeavors,</p>
<p>Not your freshman</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
You survey everyone, right? So why don't you provide the same service back, or provide a survey they can return to get your response?
[/QUOTE]
It's an Admitted Student Questionnaire. The ASQs are managed by a program and the respondant is the decision maker (the student). I think you're suggesting something that's close to logistically impossible. Each file is ready by anywhere from 2-12+ people (in our office and in many others). You're suggesting that the officers who read each application gather at a computer and answer a survey, correct? It'd take months.</p>
<p>As I wrote, some schools will talk to a student about why they were denied. In our case, our numbers prevent us from writing personalized notes to each student (we had 18,000 applicants and 12 officers this past year), so we make it known that we'll speak to them by phone if they have questions about why they were denied or waitlisted. </p>
<p>Sometimes, when a student calls, I'll ask them what they think might have been the weak points in their application and they often know (except when it comes to essays...everyone seems to think they "aced" the essay).</p>
<p>So the student spends hours and hours, days and weeks, filling out the best possible application, gathering recommendations, and transcripts, staying on top of the application, and then receives a three-paragraph form letter denying her admission, based on, maybe an hour's work (I doubt it's that much, given the conversations I've had with, and working as a consultant for, admissions offices, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)</p>
<p>But then you want a personalized questionnaire answered by all the folks who turned you down. For the life of me, I can't see why those rejected aren't entitled to the same.</p>
<p>What happens if the stats/ECs/etc are all within range but the letters of recommendation were lukewarm (and this was a deciding factor)? These are confidential.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>I think you are being unreasonable. If you want that kind of service from a state school perhaps you should agree to increase your taxes so that they can hire more admissions reps. </p>
<p>We made a point of filling out the survey from UNC to make sure that the University looked favorably on other applicants from my son's school. It took 15 minutes.</p>
<p>I think it is actually MORE reasonable for a state school, especially where GPA and standardized tests are more heavily weighted. And I would also think that legislative committees in state government would have an interest in it, especially when the state institutions come begging for more money.</p>
<p>In fact, they can even do a pre-packaged chart of what percentage of applicants were accepted at various GPA and SAT levels. Since most of the large state schools have this computerized, it wouldn't take more than a day to prepare (or least my quantitative assistant, working in state government, suggests it wouldn't take even that long), and they then can plot the applicant's GPA/SATs against it.</p>
<p>I think the real answer is that they don't want to make it standard practice for applicants to know.</p>
<p>As for the privates, the one thing you will never get from them are the acceptance/rejection rates at various income levels. Wouldn't you really want to know how they end up consistently (in a so-called "need-blind" situation) with 50% of the student body coming from the top 3% of the population in income? (They may actually be rejecting even higher percentages of 3%ers, but there is no way for anyone to know - it is "proprietary".)</p>
<p>I'd also be shocked if most state universities don't already have the data. They pay enrollment management companies hundreds of thousands of dollars, and spend hundreds of thousands more for data operations to support them.</p>
<p>Mini, get a grip. My so-so State U does a decent job providing higher education for the citizens of my state-- I'd be happy to have my taxes raised so they could either admit more low income kids or improve the quality if its educational offerings, but that won't happen anytime soon. I don't think they "owe" the rejected applicants anything beyond the three paragraph form letter, and I'll be damned if I'll have my taxes raised to support more of this %^&*. How about putting resources into educating, and let the hurt feelings of some kids who thought they were auto-admits subside on their own?</p>
<p>My state U is pretty clear about its admissions policies. GPA of X and SAT scores not below Y are a sure bet. A felony conviction can get you rejected even if your numbers are over the threshold. Where's the mystery here? You're always looking for a conspiracy theory lurking in the admissions files. Kids in my area who get rejected from State U do so for two reasons:
1- they can't read. application went in past the deadline. I say the taxpayers don't have to subsidize your college education if you can't read.</p>
<p>2- they can't read a simple chart. Therefore, they assumed that the matrix which shows GPA and SAT's doesn't apply to them. I also feel no explanation is necessary if a kid with a 2.8 GPA can't get into the flagship U, and feel even less obligation to send out a personal letter explaining how to read a matrix.</p>
<p>My d filled out her surveys, and sent personal letters explaining her decision to four schools who had offered her honors programs and pretty big scholarship money. She addressed them to the admissions deans and the faculty in charge of the honors program. (One dean was my former boss, so there was no way she was getting out of writing those letters, even if she had wanted. ;) )</p>
<p>Might as well start practicing those real world common courtesy skills, imho.</p>
<p>I think it is common courtesy and I'm glad my son agreed.</p>
<p>mini</p>
<p>I really can't see private schools becoming way more transparent about admissions. They'd just be opening themselves up to even more cries about unfairness, lawsuits and who knows what. There are too many variables involved for people to agree about fairness. If the state Uni's admit more on the basis of stats, then there's no need for them to be more transparent--the higher stats kids are the ones who get in. In VT, our state flagship U gets little $$ from the state so it has to admit a lot of OOS students who pay more $$. That means some B+ students from VT don't get in these days. Economic reality.</p>
<p>with respect to one of mini's comments about private institutions - </p>
<p>simple fact: many more students from the highest two income deciles in this country apply to private schools, notably the elite ones. there is no conspiracy lurking at these schools - they simply attract more wealthy applicants than do other institutions and the number of wealthier students in our privates schools' classrooms is a reflection of the applicant pool at these schools, not who the institutions are actively selecting in their admissions process. </p>
<p>i did a study looking at admit rates at several highly selective, need-sensitive, private schools; in it, i compared admit rates for students with different need levels. i had to sign my life away to get access to the data and i had to agree to not name the institutions - not because the schools were afraid for criticism, but because there were privacy issues to deal with (like income-sensitive information about students). in fact, i was surprised at how excited these schools were that i was doing this work...they had nothing to hide. </p>
<p>my findings indicated that admit rates for students with no need were much higher than students with minimal to medium need-levels ($100 to $25,000). students with the highest amount of need ($35,000 to $45,000) also had much higher admit rates than the mid-level need students. the number of students applying who did not apply for financial aid was staggering - sometimes over 50% of the applicants at these schools. in addition, about another 10-20% of the applicants (depending on the school) did not qualify for aid (at any level). at one school (a very prominent one, i should add), over 65% of the applicants either did not apply for aid or did not qualify; of those that did apply for aid, the highest admit rate was in the group with the highest need ($40,000-$45,000). however, these students made up less than 1% of the total applicant pool!!!!</p>
<p>this is a sad reflection of the reality of higher education admissions in this country: the privileged continue to excel in the process because they have access to the best secondary schools in the country, the best college counseling around, and they have access to information about college admissions. many low income students haven't the slightest idea when it comes to college admissions and financial aid, nor to they get the encouragement to reach for the top. in fact, there is often active discouragement aimed at these students in our schools. it should not be a surprise that the applicant pools at many prominent, private institutions are made up of predominantly wealthy (highest 20% of the income distribution in this country) students and that this would be reflected in the student bodies of these schools.</p>