<p>thumper Isn’t application fees cost $$. No, I’m just trying to be logical.</p>
<p>Oh dear they “they have been sued” position. We don’t have the Gods on Olympus striking down mortals. We have mortals suing other mortals and institutions, for all sorts of reasons. Some good, some nonsense. </p>
<p>An application fee is just that…an application fee. </p>
<p>
Macy’s is a poor analogy because Macy’s isn’t a hot destination. </p>
<p>A better analogy would be a trendy nightclub where potential customers still queue up around the block no matter how rude and arrogant the bouncer is.</p>
<p>GMTplus7 said:
“Lottery games are a poor analogy for college admissions.”</p>
<p>Correct. It’s a horrible analogy. But many of the clients I have buy ridiculous categories and numbers of “tickets” for levels of “prizes” their students cannot meet (for the most part). </p>
<p>There is no “qualification” to participate in a financial lottery. </p>
<p>“Based on the delusional posts I read in CC, most of the kids who apply to the far-reach schools believe they have a shot at admission.”</p>
<p>Yes. IOW, they believe that it IS, literally, equivalently, a lottery. (if so, the colleges would do well to save all that trouble and just put the tickets in the PowerBall machine.) When a 3.4 unhooked student thinks he “has a chance” at Yale, you absolutely know that that family believes deep-down that there is zero deliberation/consideration involved, and pure chance is the dynamic. (I confronted the family about the irrationality of this; the parents’ response was that “Yale has been a dream since childhood; it’s just a dream, so we want to apply.”)</p>
<p>Sounds good to me. After all, it’s been my dream since childhood to live in Buckingham Palace. “Therefore,” I must have “just as good a CHANCE as anyone else does.” Maybe if I just keep dreaming and buy a lottery ticket, it’ll be my residence soon. 8-| </p>
<p>thumper it is money that colleges take from applicants and in return the applicants expect to be treated fairly. In most cases, the colleges take the money with absolute confidence that the applicant will never get admitted to the school. That is just wrong.</p>
<p>epiphany the difference between your dream of living in Buckingham Palace and those who apply to Yale is that Yale says you have a shot by applying while BP will tell you in no uncertain term that you cannot live there ever.</p>
<p>Harvard admissions staffers decide who receives an admission letter. Their opinion as to who <em>deserves</em> admission is really no better than mine.</p>
<p>“Harvard admissions staffers decide who receives an admission letter. Their opinion as to who <em>deserves</em> admission is really no better than mine.”</p>
<p>But their opinion about whom Harvard most <em>values</em> this round is much better than your opinion or my opinion about that, because they, not you or I, do have superior information about that. And who is getting admitted to H this year is based on whom Harvard values most.</p>
<p>“epiphany the difference between your dream of living in Buckingham Palace and those who apply to Yale is that Yale says you have a shot by applying while BP will tell you in no uncertain term that you cannot live there ever.”</p>
<p>Incorrect. For the minimum past 15 years, Yale would tell an unhooked (non-special-category) student, in no uncertain terms that he cannot live in a Yale dorm because he is unqualified. 3.4 students without hooks have not been admitted to Yale in over 15 years, minimum. HE DOES NOT HAVE “A SHOT.” Stop perpetuating such myths, please. It does no service to parents or students on this forum.</p>
<p>The “holistic” admission policies in super selective elite colleges seemed to be more “class ranking” and “peer group” based, which gives HS graduates the impression that if one graduates as one of the top students in one’s class then even if one has lower “absolute” grades/scores, one still has a shot. Those who do not even the have the “class ranking” may have other hooks. All added together, let’s say roughly the top 5% of all HS graduates would apply to Harvard (Granted, it wouldn’t take the 5% cut to be out of the top students cohort in a mega high school. Then in better public, magnet and private schools, the top 10-20% will be considered top students…), then that translates to 34million*5%. If there’s any truth in this calculation, I see Harvard’s admit rate still has potential to go lower. Can you blame the students for having false hope? They are - by the definition of elite colleges - top students, aren’t they?</p>
<p>UK schools including Oxford and Cambridge have higher admit rates but in reality are not any easier to get in. They do have the “minimum” requirements, which is the A level requirements. So it may help for US colleges to set up minimum requirements of some sort.</p>
<p>The “holistic” admission policies in super selective elite colleges seem to be more “class ranking” and “peer group” based, which gives HS graduates the impression that if one graduates as one of the top students in one’s class then even if one has lower “absolute” grades/scores, one still has a shot. Those who do not even the have the “class ranking” may have other hooks. All added together, let’s say roughly the top 5% of all HS graduates would apply to Harvard (Granted, it wouldn’t take the 5% cut to be out of the top students cohort in a mega high school. Then in better public, magnet and private schools, the top 10-20% will be considered top students…), then that translates to 34million*5%. If there’s any truth in this calculation, I see Harvard’s admit rate still has potential to go lower. Can you blame the students for having false hope? They are - by the definition of elite colleges - top students, aren’t they?</p>
<p>UK schools including Oxford and Cambridge have higher admit rates but in reality are not any easier to get in. They do have the “minimum” requirements, which is the A level requirements. So it may help for US colleges to set up minimum requirements of some sort.</p>
<p>
Are u also going to rant about the wrongness of state governments taking money with absolute confidence from poor people when 99.999999% of them will never win the Powerball Lottery.</p>
<p>epiphany Then why does Yale not just state so in it’s application page. Did I miss it when going to the website?
GMT That too, but I’m sticking to the college admission process.</p>
<p>Don’t claim to seek logic but lace it with the illogical or speculative. That’s challenge or confrontation masquerading as reason. </p>
<p>Parsing when someone is a customer at Macy’s is silly. Many of us see “potential customer.” Just as applicants are “potential students.” And when there are expectations to meet, not all potentials will convert. You pay an app fee for their time and consideration. No guarantees of the outcome.</p>
<p>In most cases, the colleges take the money with absolute confidence that the applicant will never get admitted to the school. That is just wrong. So what, they should refund if you don’t like the results? Or Harvard should limit the number of apps to 10,000 who meet your qualifications? And your experience is…?</p>
<p>Same to QM. Now you know more than Harvard? </p>
<p>lookingforward you see nothing wrong with taking money from students and their families when the applicant is an autoreject. Yes, I think the school should refund the money to kids that would never have applied had the school just put down the bare minimum requirements in the first place. </p>
<p>There are lots of things u have to pay an application fee w no guarantee of outcome. It costs a 100 bucks to apply for Global Entry. There’s no guarantee of approval.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with having an app fee. (And it is clearly stated on the web sites.) I know some dreamers are unqualified, but who is forcing them to ask for consideration? Who? You going to claim getting some mailers is forcing them to abandon their good sense? You have so little expectations from these kids applying to tippy tops? They’re just pawns? Eeek. Think about it.</p>
<p>You want this hand holding and then seem to want to get all hot about these kids who don’t do the vetting, can’t assess their qualifications to apply, and then get a thin envelope. Maybe you can start a thread about the injustice and see what traction it gets on its own. On this thread , it seems confrontational.</p>
<p>And the notion of auto-rejects is vague, to begin with. Some guy who’s in jail, an incomplete app after all deadlines, some kid who scribbles aimless, random words- sure. But who sent the app? </p>
<p>I think you’re just looking to argue.</p>
<p>lookingforward The group that colleges are appealing to apply are kids who are 16, 17 and 18 years old so yes, I do feel a need to protect them.</p>
<p>GMT $1 will get you $35 on the roulette wheel. Everyone understands that and that there are 37 numbers on the wheel. So play enough and you will lose over the long run. The odds are not so clearly posted when applying to colleges. The numbers are nebulous at best.</p>
<p>
It takes time and effort to read an application. Why should a school screen uncompetitive candidates for free? </p>
<p>“In most cases, the colleges take the money with absolute confidence that the applicant will never get admitted to the school. That is just wrong.”</p>
<p>lol “Take” the money? So the students, the parents, and the GCs bear no responsibility in making a rational decision on the relative worth of spending $100 based on the mountains of data available? That’s ridiculous. </p>