Does the "system" work?

Parents Forum
1

<p>Couple of observations. There are a LOT of Ss and Ds here on the master list who have 3-5 acceptances; one has, by my count 13, several others have 5 or 6. </p>

<p>That's great for those kids and parents, who have choices, not so good for the colleges and those waitlisted.</p>

<p>I haven't done the math, but I think that means this list will, when SIRs are due, "free up" 2-3x the number of actual admission spots being offered here.</p>

<p>Elsewhere, in the WUSTL thread, there are a large number of HS posters befuddled why so many of them and their colleagues have been waitlisted.</p>

<p>Aren't these two phenomena related, and reinforcing?</p>

<p>Everyone paying attention here here knows how competitive admissions are, so most applicants now apply to 5, 10, or even 15 schools (in contrast to when I applied, 30+ years ago, I applied one place only). That leads to numbers like, in the case of WUSTL, 22,000 applications for 1,300 spots.</p>

<p>I'm sure the reason so many kids are lamenting their waitlist status in the WUSTL thread is, lots of those kids who have been accepted to WUSTL actually have WUSTL only as a backup. THe WUSTL administration has some inkling of this, so, to avoid getting less yield than they need to actually fill 1300 spots, WUSTL has an inordinately large waitlist as THEIR saftey net, to counter the pool of kids who have applied to WUSTL as THEIR safety net.</p>

<p>The kids waitlisted who really want to go to WUSTL have to be on pins and needles, and keep their other options waiting until they "clear" the waitlist.</p>

<p>Isn't there a better way, for the kids and the colleges, than this reinforcing cycle that leaves both sides in limbo? Is ED (or rolling admissions - which not too many colleges offer) the "only way out" of this conundrum?</p>

2

<p>one solution would be for people to just stop worrying about yield, but I dont see that happening anytime soon.</p>

3

<p>The way around it is to choose colleges more carefully. But this requires knowledge of admissions.</p>

<p>When my older son applied we were so clueless he applied to 19 schools --clearly, ridiculous, something that became especially apparent as he started to get into a number of very top choices; we realized all those "safeties" and "matches" were overkill, but there was no one to tell us that up front, not even the GC, who had no idea. </p>

<p>With son #2 and some experience we picked a small number of schools very carefully, six in all. Then he added on two more out of last-minute anxiety; it was not needed, as I now know due to two acceptances from the first six to date.</p>

<p>The solution is to apply to a smaller number of carefully-targeted schools. This will benefit the students and the colleges, but only someone experienced (as I was the second time around) may be able to target things correctly. I might not have it targeted just right for older son because I lacked experience in admissions and had no guidance, and he might have lost wonderful opportunities. </p>

<p>For son #2, prior experience enabled us to play this right with limited apps --and still too many imo.</p>

4

<p>I'm sorry, - I don't see the problem.</p>

<p>Multiple acceptances? Colleges know this goes on. That's why they admit more (sometimes many more) than they have space for. </p>

<p>Scattershot admissions? Could this be because the admissons "process" is such a black art that we parents and our kids feel pretty clueless? See a process that's pretty random?</p>

<p>Waitlists? I firmly believe, having watched the process for a few years, that waitlists are anything but what they're called. They seem to be a subtle way of rejecting a kid without insulting them. A WL is frequently used for legacies, and for managing HS counselor expectations.</p>

<p>It is so easy to forget that colleges created this "monster" of multiple applications. Why? because it serves their purposes, in rather perverse ways.</p>

5

<p>Well, newmassdad - which is it:
[quote]
"I'm sorry, - I don't see the problem."

[/quote]
or
[quote]
"It is so easy to forget that colleges created this "monster" of multiple applications. Why? because it serves their purposes, in rather perverse ways."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If it's a "monster", then isn't there a problem with the system working?</p>

<p>I'm not trying to affix blame as to WHO created the system - just assessing whether this is a system that actually works. It looks to me more like a numbers game that's out of control.</p>

6

<p>The "system" as it currently operates creates a HUGE amount of stress tho I'm not sure how it can be fiex any time soon. I know that my son was much better about gauging his chances & carefully targetting the schools he wanted to apply to than I was or even his GC. Once he got his 1st acceptance with significant merit aid, we agreed he didn't need to apply to a school that he was just going to use as a back up financial safety (that he really didn't want to attend anyway).</p>

<p>My niece was able to stop applying because she got into her top choice (Notre Dame) as an EA student--she waited to send her other aps until the last minute, hoping she'd hear from her EA school & once she heard, she stopped sending in aps (but hasn't withdrawn the aps she did submit, just in case she has a change of heart).</p>

<p>It is a monster that has been created, but since it is tough for anyone to KNOW which of the highly selective schools will select/reject which students, it is important to have a wide enough selection of schools & show interest, as Andi & Andison have aptly demonstrated over the past 1.5 years. When merit & need aid are factored in, folks apply even more broadly & have even tougher decisions to make in April.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
It looks to me more like a numbers game that's out of control.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps from the point of view of parents. Not from the POV of the schools, I think, because if the schools felt that way, they'd fix it.</p>

8

<p>Intersting article in the Amherst Student - quoting the Dean of Admissions on applicants for 2010. 6135 apps received and processed. Mean SAT of 691Verbal and 689 math. Average ACT 30. 298 African-American, 348 Latinos, 606 Asian-Americans, 359 mixed heritage, 17 Native Americans and 741 internationals. highest female percentage ever at 55%. Said some LAC's are using affirmative action for males, but not Amherst. Has historically been 50-50 without trying to be. Target class size is 428. Already accepted 120 ED deposits, leaving just 308 slots. Estimate accepting between 975-1025, hoping for a 30 percent matriculation rate. They use a model, which shows that legacies tend to matriculate at a higher percentage, (10% of the class), how many go abroad, etc. for spaces available. The model has worked well in the past, but they say that even a deviation of from 30 to 35 percent could potentially represent a nightmare scenario - no room in the inn. "We's much rather wind up with too few students than too many," Parker said. "Ideally, we would come in 20-25 students short and then go to the waitlist. There are always going to be some amazingly talented kids on the waitlist, kids we look at and say, 'How could we not have let then in in the first place?'"<br>
Another article said that they rate students 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., with 1 being the highest. Those are the students with exceptional GPA's, class ranks and SAT scores. Most of those are issued Early Writes. They issued in excess of 200 Early Writes this year. They then go to the 2's and rarely to the 3's. Quite frankly, the whole admissions process seemed such a mystery to me last year. With Dean Parker speaking out, at least I understand the process a lot better at Amherst, anyway. But much of it applies to other schools, as well.</p>

9

<br>


<br>

<p>I'm sure that parents and students would be thrilled if they only had to apply to a couple of schools. But that is never going to happen until they can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty where they will and won't be accepted. And that's not going to happen until the selection methods at the selective school get a lot less subjective and a lot more transparent. </p>

<p>Until those things change at the colleges, you can expect students to keep covering their bases with a dozen or more applications, trying to find the best ("best" being defined many individual ways) school that will accept them. </p>

<p>And since we also often can't predict which schools WON'T accept a given student, we will also continue to have a lot of kids taking "what the heck" shots at schools for which they have no chance.</p>

<p>Taken together, these two flip sides add up to the current mess we have. I don't see it going away any time soon.</p>

10

<p>The WUSTL board is extremely interesting....the quality of the waitlisted kids is unbelievable. Near perfect stats with acceptances to Harvard and MIT getting waitlisted at WUSTL? Come on...that's a yield game. When you don't have to include acceptances from the waitlist in the yield computation, it's pretty obvious what is going on.</p>

11

<p>Avwh ~ I have a couple of thoughts for you. First, in answer to your question about kids applying to so many schools that they can rack up 5-6 acceptances before the last schools have even announced, and this leading to a huge waitlist, well I am tempted to say "no," these things are not truly related.</p>

<p>Think about this: suppose we have our current crazy system, but we somehow impose just this one change; US News announces that from now on any kid given a waitlist letter counts as an acceptance for purposes of yield calculations.</p>

<p>Without sounding cynical, I think most of us understand that if this happened the waitlist size next year at WUSTL and elsewhere would collapse. In other words, the reason the waitlist is so big is not because kids apply to too many schools, it is because schools are manipulating the US News system to artificially inflate their selectivity.</p>

<p>It's all about the schools.</p>

<p>Also, no system of reducing the number of applications can work unless the perceived need for those numerous applications is reduced...in other words, there is no workable solution in which large numbers of parents or applicants just start exhibiting increased levels of focus, targeting, restraint, whatever you want to call it. Instead the trend is going to continue to be towards 15, 20, 25, or 30 applications per kid until applicants can do something to accurately assess and increase their perceived odds of acceptance before they actually apply.</p>

<p>I'm with Coureur: increased transparency is required, both in terms of exactly how the admission decision is made, and in terms of what the real odds of admission for a particular kid are. Can you imagine how kids would take it if they could input their stats on each college's site and get a "calculation" of the real odds of admission? Since a lot of the top schools would be showing single digit odds for all RD applicants, that might suppress those extra applications! Who wants to apply if your real odds of acceptance are 1.3%?</p>

12

<p>I believe WUSTL waitlists alot of kids they think are using it as their "safety" while applying to Ivies,etc.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
Elsewhere, in the WUSTL thread, there are a large number of HS posters befuddled why so many of them and their colleagues have been waitlisted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can't understand the befuddlement -- it's been known for years that WUSTL does this. Tufts too (it is known as the "Tufts Syndrome"). When my daughter was waitlisted last year, we expected it.</p>

<p>The claim has always been that WUSTL tries to admit those students who will actually come, weeding out those who will probably be admitted and prefer an Ivy or those who haven't demonstrated a real interest in the school. They seem to have read my kids correctly. It was my son's first choice and he got in, while it was further down the list for my daughter and she got into her first choice.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
Can you imagine how kids would take it if they could input their stats on each college's site and get a "calculation" of the real odds of admission? Since a lot of the top schools would be showing single digit odds for all RD applicants, that might suppress those extra applications! Who wants to apply if your real odds of acceptance are 1.3%?

[/quote]
Yes, we'd evolve into a system likes lots of other countries ... submit your numbers ... best numbers win ... and I would HATE that system. I LOVE the fact that our schools are trying to pick students and diverse classes. Are there problems with the system sure; but I have not seen anything close to a better solution proposed. </p>

<p>In addition, the problem referenced by the OP is only a problem at the top 100 or so schools of the 3000 schools out there ... the admission process is pretty transparent at 95+% of the schools to which a student might apply ... it is only the toughest admit school with way more qualified applicants than slots where low and unpredicatable admissions become a real issue ... a big enough issue that the only workable strategy for a kid is to apply to quite a few of the tough admit school and hope for the best along with the tons of other higly qualified applicants. This problem is a fairly recent phenoma (the last 30 years or so) as applicant pools have become much more representative of the general population ... we didn't have this problem in the 50s because the solid middle class public HS kid didn't give Brown or Williams much thought and their applicant pools were filled with kids from the feeder prep schools ... to me it's a great evolution and the low admit rates is the bad attribute of a HUGE improvement to the system.</p>

15

<p>3Togo ~ I see your concern, but I don't really agree that the outcome you are worried about would result from increased transparency. You seem to be assuming (but correct me if I have mis-understood!) that I am proposing a system in which every kid could input their SAT I/ SAT II/ AP/ and GPA and then get an estimated percentage chance of admission.</p>

<p>This is not the plan at all.</p>

<p>I am proposing a pre-admission evaluation step that is transparent, not simplified.</p>

<p>So each kid could input his/her information including the scores above but also ethnicity (assuming the school uses this info)/ family income/ rank in class/ big hurdles overcome/ whatever floats the boat of the admissions committee at the school in question.</p>

<p>The answer could easily come back as a range. For example: "Between 1.3% with average essays and no compelling awards to 5.5% with top essays and two state/national awards of note."</p>

<p>The point would not be to simplify the admissions process so much that admissions became a pure numbers game. Rather it would be to give kids a very important first lesson in the odds of admission. This would allow them to make a targeted list (which seems to be the mantra of every CC senior member). It would also allow the applicants to work through ideas like "what if I write killer essays...how much will that help?" or "what if I could win the state competition in French Horn? How important would that be?"</p>

<p>Note that answers like I am supposing would/should be determined anonymously, and would render the "What are my chances" threads on CC mostly obsolete. Kids would have real feedback instead of guesses.</p>

<p>With 3,000 colleges in the US, we are never going to fall into the government regulated educational schemes of countries overseas. What we could use is some transparency so that 17-year-old applicants can understand the long odds of getting into HYPS, and plan accordingly.</p>

16

<p>The systems in other countries I am aware of differ from the US in several counts. First, the students apply to a particular school or faculty to study a particular area. This is less the norm in the US. Second, going in the students usually know what exam results they need for a given faculty. So, this year for example, you needed a 40+ on your IB to get Law at Sydney. Finally, and perhaps most signficantly for many, the cost differential is tremendous. </p>

<p>So here, I think anyways, are two interesting questions to ask...</p>

<p>Would we all be willing to go to a system of cut and dry criterion for admission if college costs were markedly lower (are people happy with the UC approach in other words?)....</p>

<p>What are the differences in outcomes to an individual student and to a university or college and to society as a whole of sticking with a system that is clearly flawed in many ways, but ultimately provides for the greatest level of flexibility and choice? Choice, I think, is what we are really paying for- on all levels. </p>

<p>For internship and residency you get matched by a computer based on your ranking and the ranking of the programs to which you have applied. Mostly decent outcomes-- but a lot fewer variables and no tuition bills to pay based on the outcomes...</p>

<p>My next child has 7 years to go...I can only imagine what the mania will look like then...</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
What we could use is some transparency so that 17-year-old applicants can understand the long odds of getting into HYPS, and plan accordingly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But isn't this already what is happening now? I'm not sure that a figure of 5.5%, or whatever it might be, would cause students to change what they are doing, if that is your goal. Yes, a handful might be discouraged by a 0% response, but that will barely make a dent in the applicant pool. </p>

<p>A few years ago, students and parents weren't as aware that admission to the very "top tier" schools was such an iffy thing or the credentials that were required. Today everyone is talking about it. You can easily read the figures for RD admission to the Ivies and realize that your chances are definitely less than %10. Even if you walk on water, your percentages rate is unlikely to be higher that 30-40%. However, if you are a strong student with good test scores and high gpa, you are probably still going to apply. Six percent is still better than 0%, which is what you get with no application.</p>

<p>What might help more than a range of figures is the type of system Wellesley uses: likely, probable, unlikely. But can you imagine the manpower they'd have to put into this? It's simply not practical.</p>

<p>What strikes me about the Wash U waitlist is that all the students I have seen do have credentials that are competititive in the pool. Any of these students could have been admitted. Why they were waitlisted is anyone's guess. Despite the common adage that Wash U requires a demonstration of interest, there are any number of solid waitlisted candidates who did show interest while others with the same credentials were accepted and yet never set foot on campus. </p>

<p>The plain fact is that my son applied to 11 schools and I am glad he did. This whole business is too iffy to rely on a lesser number of applications, especially when you throw the uncertainties of merit aid into the equation. We still can not figure things out. At one school son is designated as one of fifty candidates from a pool of 11,000 to receive a scholarship and interview for full tuition. At another institution comparable in rank and mission, he receives nothing, although 25% of applicants receive merit aid. Given those anomalies that probably have a lot to do with what type of student the college is attempting to attract, I am not going to expect students to cut down on their applications, if they are trying to make it into selective insititutions.</p>

18

<h1>1 applied to 8 colleges and ended up with choices - what I consider the ideal outcome (with no help from G.C., by the way, and before I discovered c.c.). Like Robyrm, we have a gap between #1 and #2 (6 years in our case) and I know that we will have to re-invent the wheel. I don't think anyone should feel confident based on what happened last year at a particular school - too many anecdotes disputing the reliability of last years' data for applicants to be confident. If acceptance were the only factor, it would still be gambling - add a need for financial aid and it becomes more unpredictable.</h1>

<p>I'm not really serious, but why not have staggered admissions? The Ivy would go first, of course, with applications due the middle of September, on through the US News rankings and calendar until the end of the US News list was reached.</p>

19

<p>One way to figure out what a college thinks is important is to read the blank evaluation/recommendation forms. If the forms ask lots of personality questions and you are the geeky type, it's probably not a good match. On the other hand, if the evaluations are more focused on academics, you'll know that's what the college emphasizes in their admissions.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
That leads to numbers like, in the case of WUSTL, 22,000 applications for 1,300 spots. I'm sure the reason so many kids are lamenting their waitlist status in the WUSTL thread is, lots of those kids who have been accepted to WUSTL actually have WUSTL only as a backup. THe WUSTL administration has some inkling of this, so, to avoid getting less yield than they need to actually fill 1300 spots, WUSTL has an inordinately large waitlist as THEIR saftey net, to counter the pool of kids who have applied to WUSTL as THEIR safety net.

[/quote]
Well, that's one way of looking at it. My take is WUSTL has 22K applicants because that's what they want. They're working as hard as they can to break into the ranks of the "top" schools, and one way of doing this is beating the bushes for applicants. Doesn't hurt the selectivity number, either.</p>

<p>as for the waitlist at WUSTL, my take is a little different than yours. One game schools play is to put huge numbers of kids on the waitlist even though they expect they will only take a small number of them. The huge waitlist isn't due to uncertainty, it's due to strategy. The thinking goes that uniformed parents and GC's will more or less equate waitlist with admit. How many times have you seen in the paper an article about admissions in which someone is described as waitlisted at some prestigious school? The intent is to convey they were pretty much in, and if a seat opens up they'll be enrolled. That may be true at some schools, but others use this perception to their advantage and put hundreds of kids on the waitlist they have NO intention of ever enrolling. By waitlisting instead of rejecting they figure they aren't discouraging future applicants; future kids will figure "Joe got in --well waitlisted -- but I'm as good as him so I'll apply". Exactly what they want.</p>