<p>Whenever an adcom gives a speech about college admissions, they always mention how sympathetic they are to the plight of prospective applicants. Without fail, they always mention how they wished the process wasn't as competitive as it is now so they could admit more qualified students who deserve spots at their college. </p>
<p>So, if that's how they really feel, then why are these colleges recruiting prospective applicants like crazy? Why do HYPS and the like feel the need to advertise as much as possible in order to get as many applicants as possible? I can understand this at lesser known schools that are trying to reach out, but honestly, who hasn't heard of Yale? </p>
<p>If adcoms really cared about getting rid of this ridiculous competition, they would stop playing these number games. </p>
<p>Now, I'm expecting some of you to say something like "they're just reaching out to disadvantaged kids who might not feel like they should apply" or something, but even the most disadvantaged kid out there can probably access a computer for free somewhere and learn about Stanford's new amazing financial aid policies, etc. </p>
<p>Their jobs are to get the most exciting group possible from all countries, schools of thought, ethnicity's and every other parameter you can think of. I do believe it is very painful for them to leave so many kids they've come to like and know could have contributed behind (as an employer I feel this way every hiring season), but at the end of the day they need to just do the job in front of them to the best of their ability. That means making sure they are choosing from the broadest base possible.</p>
<p>P.S I thought the thread was going to be about adcoms going to schools and telling kids about the holistic approach that should make them not worry about grades and scores. In my experience, that's where the hypocrisy lies.</p>
<p>I believe this topic has been thoroughly discussed many times in the past. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So, if that's how they really feel, then why are these colleges recruiting prospective applicants like crazy? Why do HYPS and the like feel the need to advertise as much as possible in order to get as many applicants as possible? I can understand this at lesser known schools that are trying to reach out, but honestly, who hasn't heard of Yale?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A response to this exact question that really resonated with me was: "What would people think if schools such as Harvard and Yale just sat on their behinds and relied on their prestige to attract students?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, I'm expecting some of you to say something like "they're just reaching out to disadvantaged kids who might not feel like they should apply" or something, but even the most disadvantaged kid out there can probably access a computer for free somewhere and learn about Stanford's new amazing financial aid policies, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The main problem facing these colleges is that they're trying to reach a crowd that has no knowledge about finaid, scholarships, etc. The students they're trying to reach don't even know what the term "financial aid" means, much less which schools offer generous help. Those students aren't exactly likely to go on a computer and google "Colleges with great financial aid". I feel it is truly important that colleges make contact with disadvantaged students who are not likely to apply mainly because of a lack of knowledge about the way college admissions and the like work.</p>
<p>The colleges aren't trying to lower their admission rates as much as they're trying to provide opportunities to people from all walks of life.</p>
<p>P.S I thought the thread was going to be about adcoms going to schools and telling kids about the holistic approach that should make them not worry about grades and scores. In my experience, that's where the hypocrisy lies.</p>
<p>Very good point. Heck, maybe this thread can become a place for people to rant about the lies told to them about adcoms?</p>
<p>In addition to HPA's post, here's my perspective as an alum of an HYP college. I interview and do college info fairs. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the ridiculous crush that applicants must endure to apply to the ultra-selective colleges. I fully recognize that it's not an easy road to travel and I commend those who choose to undergo such scrutiny.</p>
<p>I'd also say that the goal, per se, of the ultra-selective colleges isn't to reduce the competitiveness -- they've frankly all been well served by an expanding potential applicant pool. But the adcoms are there to fulfill the colleges' mission ABOVE serving the individual applicant (of which you are one, Hippo). This mission is to bring together the best classes possible (of course, those who are admitted enjoy this benefit first and foremost). When I give my talks, I don't encourage people to apply willy-nilly. I don't sugarcoat the real challenge -- but I also emphasize the benefits and if the kid sees himself/herself at the college -- then I encourage them to investigate further.</p>
<p>Sweeping FA boosts with renewed outreach to rural, inner city, internationals and other traditionally underrepresented groups has already changed the face of incoming Freshmen classes -- and I applaud this. Admittedly, the classes have finite slots. If more lower to middle-lower income kids come in, that means that more upper and middle upper kids DON'T get accepted.</p>
<p>But am I worried that these otherwise rejected kids aren't going to succeed wherever they attend? Not at all. My first and foremost loyalty is to the college -- and I trust in the process that all the kids who attend my info sessions will go to wonderful colleges -- some even to my alma mater.</p>
<p>hmom: By the way: I've accompanied adcoms to their info sessions and am up to date on the general info session: NO WHERE do they de-emphasize transcript and scores for some hazy "holistic" evaluation. EVERY TIME they (and I) say that academic performance is the prime foundation for any viable candidate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do HYPS and the like feel the need to advertise as much as possible in order to get as many applicants as possible? I can understand this at lesser known schools that are trying to reach out, but honestly, who hasn't heard of Yale?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I can tell you that, especially in the East, there are a lot of people who have never heard of Stanford, or if they have, think about it only in the context of Div-1 sports and have no idea of its academic strength. </p>
<p>You didn't mention MIT specifically, but that's another school that a surprisingly large number of regular Americans have never heard of. I know a girl who graduated from MIT and went to work at Harley-Davidson - headquartered in Milwaukee - and has run into countless people who thought that MIT stood for the "Milwaukee Institute of Technology". </p>
<p>
[quote]
Whenever an adcom gives a speech about college admissions, they always mention how sympathetic they are to the plight of prospective applicants. Without fail, they always mention how they wished the process wasn't as competitive as it is now so they could admit more qualified students who deserve spots at their college.
<blockquote>
<p>So, if that's how they really feel, then why are these colleges recruiting prospective applicants like crazy?<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Because they are in fierce competition with their peer schools. They are worried that if they don't recruit, their peer schools will land all the best applicants available and they'll be stuck with the leftovers. Even a topdog school like Harvard has to worry about this. They may appear to sitting serenely on the top of Mt. Olympus, but all the while they are fretting that YPSM will sew up all the top kids in the high-end league.</p>
<p>T2, you clearly went to an unusually straightforward school. I sat through a dozen or more presentations this past year by top colleges and really left with the thought that kids who didn't have high stats in every category could beat the odds with this well thought out holistic admissions thing. In the end not one of my son's classmates got into a single school their stats didn't suggest they'd get into. No sour grapes, son got into his ED choice but I truly was shocked how strongly the case was made that a bad stat didn't mean death in the admissions game when in fact by all objective measures it seems to.</p>
<p>I haven't heard of yale, stanford, princeton..... until gr.10 so yeah.</p>
<p>anyway, they want the best people possible.</p>
<p>I don't think they say the wish it wasn't as competitive. they say they wish they could accept more people. Ofcourse they want it to be competitive so they can get the best people, but they can still wish to be able to accept more.</p>
<p>hmom5: congrats on your son's admit. Knowing what I do about the crushing odds for the top schools, I am straightforward in my presentations. While I wouldn't tell anyone NOT to apply because they don't have 98th percentile stats and I know that they will be holistically evaluated, I'm also a realist in that there will be applicants who have the >98th percentile metrics AND the other holistic factors.</p>
<p>Like I said, I do encourage people but not over the top -- and certainly along with the mention of the overall competitive environment. I know that maybe some of my volunteer peers or the adcom reps do more "marketing" than I do. Maybe it's in this realm that the hints of "hypocrisy" can come in. I'm having to reevaluate my original thoughts.</p>
<p>Their job is not to make individual applicants happy. Their job is to get the best class that they can for their school, for whatever their school's philosophy of "best" is. That includes marketing toward people who would not ordinarily apply, because if even a small number of those people turn out to be gems, that's good for the school. They can do this and still feel bad for the individual applicants over the current crush, part of which is caused by demographics that are totally beyond adcom control.</p>
<p>I'll be at a Harvard information session in my town within a week (as much as a schedule conflict permits) and I'll note what is said there. In past college information sessions </p>
<p>that I have attended, which have been numerous, and as recent as last night, I've seen a reasonable degree of honesty about the process. An admission officer on the road to promote a college can't promise to any applicant that the applicant will surely get in, and can't promise that any particular grade average or class rank or whatever will be too low. All the admission officers from the highly selective colleges are very frank about the base admission rates at their colleges, and you can do the math yourself to see that simply submitting an application is far from a guarantee that you will be admitted. </p>
<p>What I hear most admission officers emphasizing, more than grades, more than class rank, more than test scores, more than any one numerical factor in particular, is "How have you challenged yourself?" My conclusion is that high school students who are bold risk-takers and challenge themselves with tough courses and demanding activities will have good things happen to them when they apply to college. They may or may not get into every college they apply to, but they will get into a college where the challenges won't stop, and where their peers will set high standards inside and outside of class.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...but I truly was shocked how strongly the case was made that a bad stat didn't mean death in the admissions game when in fact by all objective measures it seems to.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't think the adcoms are lying when they say that one bad stat won't automatically keep you out. I'm sure they can each rattle off a dozen recent examples of kids who, thanks to holistic admissions, got accepted at their school despite some smudges on their academic record. But what they are doing is speaking to the exceptions rather than the rule.</p>