<p>Do colleges actually hand pick the people that they send their brochures and applications to or do they just send it to every high school student?</p>
<p>No, they usually don't hand pick people. They buy lists of age-level students where they can--testing, schools, etc. If what you're receiving is generic, you were on a list somewhere. </p>
<p>Now, if you get personalized contact, that might be different, but you need to examine things closely. Some schools are good at personalizing things mechanically (ie. mail merges).</p>
<p>@ philaeagles</p>
<p>When you take standardized tests like the ACT/SAT, your scores are sent out to various colleges and universities. They use your score to send out promotional or advertisement materials about their institution to sway your mind to apply.</p>
<p>There is definitely no hand picking going on, but as others have point out, the "mass mailing" may not be to EVERY high school student. It could easily be all students scoring above 1800 on the SAT or all students who self-identified as a prospective engineering major when they registered for the test, etc.</p>
<p>Some colleges go to great lengths to give the impression that they've already had a discussion about you among the adcoms. You'll get letters that say "We are impressed with your accomplishments so far", "You'd be among our best applicants", etc.</p>
<p>Ignore all of it (the implied promises, etc). If a brochure brings a college you otherwise wouldn't have thought about to your attention, fine. But I can guarantee you that nobody on campus has ever heard or discussed you; all the mail you get is based on lists the colleges buy. So that letter from Harvard means <em>nothing</em> about your chances suddenly having risen for getting in.</p>
<p>Of course they're interested. They're very interested in you applying. </p>
<p>Not so much with if you'll get in or not.</p>
<p>It probably means you exceed the bare minimum requirements that they would consider admitting.</p>
<p>As Bourne said, they're interested in you applying. Big universities may receive upwards of 20,000 applications at 40 or 50 bucks a pop...you do the math.</p>
<p>And they get applicants to apply and then get rejected, improving their "selectivity"</p>
<p>Which brings up the point, why does anyone care about a college's selectivity, other than for snobbish reasons? It's not as though selectivity, in and of itself, has any effect on the quality of the education provided. It does not even guarantee a higher quality student body. It seems to me like this is a completely irrelevant criteria to use when determining the quality of a college.</p>
<p>^ Selectivity of college attended can have a big effect on many careers, i.e. Investment Banking [top companies like Goldman-Sachs recruit at some of the Ivys]</p>
<p>Some colleges market hard to increase the numbers of applications they receive to increase their rank and 'selectivity' ratings. From tokenadult in another thread
[quote]
Originally Posted by Business Week
The first phase begins in the spring, when Harvard mails letters to a staggering 70,000-or-so high school juniors
[/quote]
70,000 flattering recruiting letters; if 1 in 3 respond, thats 23,000 applications. With such marketing, more students are motivated to apply, thinking they are somehow being recruited. While flattering at first glance, the letters are part of a marketing plan to increase H's application numbers. More applications means more rejections, which increases the 'selectivity' percentage, increases the ranking, and makes people think H is the 'most' selective college. A tricky business . . .</p>
<p>Online</a> Extra: How Harvard Gets its Best and Brightest</p>
<p>"Selectivity of college attended can have a big effect on many careers, i.e. Investment Banking [top companies like Goldman-Sachs recruit at some of the Ivys."</p>
<p>Yes, but why? Selectivity in and of itself seems...meaningless.</p>
<p>The traditional thinking is, "Harvard accepted him. He must be something special." Either way, the discussion of what makes a college good should be in its own thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which brings up the point, why does anyone care about a college's selectivity, other than for snobbish reasons? It's not as though selectivity, in and of itself, has any effect on the quality of the education provided.
[/quote]
You ought to consider econ as a major, or at least take some classes in it. You have a knack for seeing things the way economists do, I'm guessing.</p>
<p>Economists would argue that people & firms respond to incentives. That's why, from an economist's viewpoint, so many well-intentioned measures fail. The naive policy-maker assumed the world wouldn't change in response to what she/he did.</p>
<p>In this case, once upon a time selectivity probably had some value as a marker. You have all these families off doing independent research to find out the best colleges for little Susie or Johnny to attend. If you could find a few schools people were clamoring so much to get into tthey were turning lots of kids away, hat would be evidence there is something going on there worth looking into. In other words, its research on the cheap. Let everyone else do the hard work of evaluating colleges, you just see what their decisions were and that tells you something. It's just like the movies; you probably want to see the one with the line around the block, not the one with no line playing in the small theaters.</p>
<p>As your question points out, though, what does selectivity mean today? Probably not too much. As soon as colleges figured out selectivity was important, especially in widely read reports like that sold by US News, they realized they could easily manipulate it and had incentive to do so. Just flood the countryside with brochures encouraging kids to apply. With no more beds and more apps, selectivity is mathmatically bound to rise!</p>
<p>^ Very thoughtful post, mikemac. I agree completely.</p>
<p>Also consider that selectivity becomes self-fulfilling: a virtuous cycle for those schools that have maneuvered themselves into it, a vicious cycle for those that haven't. US News and the most selective colleges tell us that the most selective colleges are the best, and armed with this "insight" prospective students rush to apply to the most selective colleges, making them even more selective. They win. Other schools---which may by every other measure be just as good but are less selective---are seen by the "consumers" in this system as inferior because less selective; therefore they don't draw as many applicants. They also lose a lot of the recruiting battles for highly qualified applicants, lowering their yield and forcing them to become even less selective. They lose. IMO it is a gross distortion of the college selection process.</p>
<p>And even for the many students who KNOW they'll get a fine education at a place without ivied walls also know that other people will be more impressed at getting into a place with higher selectivity. Bragging rights. Plus, future employers might also be impressed.</p>
<p>"The traditional thinking is, "Harvard accepted him. He must be something special." Either way, the discussion of what makes a college good should be in its own thread."</p>
<p>Yes, exactly, but Harvard really is the key word here. People respond to the name regardless of any other facts about the school and most probably have no idea how selective the school really is.</p>
<p>Seriously, do you think if Podunk University had a 20% acceptance rate that it's selectivity would be a benefit to you? For some reason, I find this whole concept of judging a school based on its selectivity to be really, really annoying.</p>
<p>Mikemac and bclintonk, thanks for your responses...I was beginning to think that I was really missing something. US News has done us no favors with their ridiculous rankings, I think.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find this whole concept of judging a school based on its selectivity to be really, really annoying.
[/quote]
[quote]
US News has done us no favors with their ridiculous rankings.
[/quote]
Thanks for the great points jaf1991, bclintonk, and mikemac.</p>
<p>It is frustrating. US News uses their rankings to sell their magazines. I think what’s important is that the public begin to understand that US News is about ‘selling’ colleges and selling their magazine, and not about valid and reliable rankings that reflect the true undergraduate educational quality and experience.</p>
<p>For those worried about Goldman Sachs-type recruiting, yes, some firms do recruit at the ivys, but a majority of career and job opportunities are not in this area and the undergraduate college is less important (I’m not saying it’s not important) than students tend to think.</p>
<p>Those involved in professional and other career hiring, and those on graduate school admissions committees, look at the whole person, skills, experience, personality, academic performance, etc. A job applicant’s undergraduate institution is only one factor. In fact, students who have attended colleges (often LACS) who have great mentoring, advising, and opportunities to work with professors closely on projects are often hired first because of their experience and the recommendations of those professors (not TAs) who know well the student and the quality of the student’s work. Just some food for thought.</p>
<p>it annoys me though. I got this booklet and the app from Harvard yesterday even though I know i'm not their kind of applicant..It seems a little cold to raise hopes and then crush them..i know they do it b/c they've got to, but still seems a little unethical to me.</p>