"Less-than-stellar need not apply"

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Provocative admissions frenzy article in the Sun-Sentinel on the fall-out of current holistic admissions practices - all I can say is long-live the BWRK. I am glad I found CC...</p>

<p>
[quote]
It was a big day Thursday for the young overachievers in our communities. The day some of the country's top colleges let applicants know if they were in. Or not... </p>

<p>Carmen's oldest son, Andres, was anxiously waiting to hear from Princeton, Yale and Harvard. That's right: Princeton, Yale and Harvard. Andres is the brilliant overachiever of our clan's junior generation. The standard by which all others will be measured. Poor kids...</p>

<p>"The No. 5 kid in his class wasn't able to get into Duke," my sister said nervously. "And another of Andres' friends who's just out of the top 10 percent, he's certainly in the top quarter, wasn't even able to get into UT."</p>

<p>That would be the University of Texas. Just 30 years ago, they took just about anybody and everybody -- including me. Back then UT was almost an afterthought. If you were a state resident, getting in was practically a given.</p>

<p>These days only kids in the top 10 percent of their class are guaranteed a spot.</p>

<p>I called Carmen later in the day. Her apprehension had been justified. Andres was shut out Thursday.</p>

<p>Ultimately, it's those schools' loss. I've met a lot of people in my time, and I'm telling you: This kid's going to change the world. Wherever he goes. And he has plenty of suitors. The same day I spoke with my sister, Harvard announced that this year it had to reject 91 percent of applicants, the highest rate in school history.</p>

<p>Yep. Things have changed.</p>

<p>Part of it has to do with the surge in rankings and ratings, such as U.S. News and World Report's annual listing of the top schools. It puts the focus on fewer schools.</p>

<p>Part of it has to do with a society where the gap between haves and have-nots has grown to Grand Canyon proportions. The days of people with simply a high school diploma being able to make a decent living in, say, a unionized auto factory job are quickly drawing to an end. And kids -- not to speak of parents -- know it.</p>

<p>And part of it has to do with the rising cost of a college education. Many schools are simply unaffordable except to the ultra rich. So the schools offering a quality education at a reasonable cost -- think state schools such as UT and the University of Florida -- are going to get overwhelmed with applicants.</p>

<p>Last year, UF received 21,710 applications and took about half, 10,474. But that doesn't paint an accurate picture of how difficult it is to get into the state college. Because, of those admitted, almost 64 percent had an A-or-higher grade point average. Only 27 percent had a high-B average. Less than 12 percent had a mid-B average.</p>

<p>And this is a school that proudly states in its admissions information that "few students are admitted purely on academic merit. While the potential for academic success is a primary consideration, UF's comprehensive holistic application review also considers personal essays, academic awards, extracurricular activities, family background and home community."</p>

<p>I didn't have bad grades in high school, back in the day. But if I were graduating this year, today's standards might have reduced me to asking that age-old question:</p>

<p>Want ketchup with those fries?

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/columnists/sfl-ralphapr01,0,4638501.column%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/columnists/sfl-ralphapr01,0,4638501.column&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Now that the admission post-mortem is going great guns, with NY Times titles like this one: "Rejected by Harvard? Your Valedictorian Probably Was, Too", I suppose it is fair enough to bounce off this article to pose the question: "Less than stellar need not apply" : True or False?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/education/30brfs-harvard.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fH%2fHarvard%20University%20&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/education/30brfs-harvard.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fH%2fHarvard%20University%20&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

3

<p>and so it goes - the WSJ chimes in: "Top Colleges Reject Record Numbers"</p>

<p>
[quote]
...Several factors have shifted the admissions math in recent years. Students are sending out more applications to better their chances of landing somewhere...</p>

<p>In turn, colleges are becoming stingier with their admissions, with some leaning more on "wait lists" of students neither accepted nor rejected, as it becomes harder to know who will accept an offer of admission. Mr. Stetson at Penn, for one, says he expects about 800 students to end up on such a list, compared with 500 last year, to better able "control the class size."</p>

<p>"This year it's become really clear" how competitive the process is, says Bob Turba, chair of guidance services at Stanton College Preparatory School, a public magnet school in Jacksonville, Fla. He points to one student who was wait-listed at non-Ivies Johns Hopkins and Washington University in St. Louis -- but was admitted to the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell.</p>

<p>"I am beginning to believe that it is important for students to add a college or two" in their applications roster, says Mr. Turba, "because there is no way to know -- counselor or student -- from where the acceptances will come." Mr. Turba reports a few students this year who applied to almost 20 schools...</p>

<p>It's not just the sheer number of applicants that makes schools competitive. The colleges indicate that they are also seeing large numbers of highly qualified students. The University of Pennsylvania turned away 641 of the 1,035 valedictorians that applied. Also, about 70% of applicants who got near-perfect scores in the math and critical-reading sections of the SAT were turned away, says Mr. Stetson. At Brown, 94% of admitted students this year were in the top 10% of their class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegejournal.com/aidadmissions/newstrends/20060410-chaker.html?mod=RSS_College_Journal&coljrss=frontpage%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegejournal.com/aidadmissions/newstrends/20060410-chaker.html?mod=RSS_College_Journal&coljrss=frontpage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

4

<p>One other factor increasing competition at the hyper-selective colleges is that the middle class kids from public schools now apply to these colleges. Back in my day, the Ivys were seen as the bastion of (male) rich, prep school kids or kids who were at the genius level. No one from my high school class even applied. Now, I'll bet that there are usually a couple who apply to Harvard from most urban and suburban high schools.</p>

5

<p>I agree but I do think the important point to remember is that "the ferocious competition at the most selective schools has not affected the overall acceptance rate at the rest of the nation's 2,500 four-year colleges and universities, which accept an average of 70 percent of applicants." Another factor driving up the numbers must be attributed to the mixed signals sent out by many of the elites because aggressive recruiting campaigns , such as at Stanford, invite ever larger numbers of students to apply. Students these days have a hard enough time trying to figure out who they are much less if they have a better chance for admission if they project themselves as BWRKs or "angular" with a passion and a hook. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Harvard turned down 1,100 student applicants with perfect 800 scores on the SAT math exam. Yale rejected several applicants with perfect 2400 scores on the three-part SAT, and Princeton turned away thousands of high school applicants with 4.0 grade point averages. Needless to say, high school valedictorians were a dime a dozen.</p>

<p>It was the most selective spring in modern memory at America's elite schools, according to college admissions officers. More applications poured into top schools this admissions cycle than in any previous year on record. Schools have been sending decision letters to student applicants in recent days, and rejection letters have overwhelmingly outnumbered the acceptances...</p>

<p>"There's a sense of collective shock among parents at seeing extraordinarily talented kids getting rejected," said Susan Gzesh, whose son Max Rothstein is a senior with an exemplary record at the Laboratory School, a private school associated with the University of Chicago. Max applied to 12 top schools and was accepted outright only by Wesleyan, New York University and the University of Michigan.</p>

<p>"Some of his classmates, with better test scores than his, were rejected at every Ivy League school," Ms. Gzesh said.</p>

<p>The brutally low acceptance rates this year were a result of an avalanche of applications to top schools, which college admissions officials attributed to three factors. First, a demographic bulge is working through the nation's population ? the children of the baby boomers are graduating from high school in record numbers. The federal Department of Education projects that 3.2 million students will graduate from high school this spring, compared with 3.1 million last year and 2.4 million in 1993. (The statistics project that the number of high school graduates will peak in 2008.) Another factor is that more high school students are enrolling in college immediately after high school. In the 1970s, less than half of all high school graduates went directly to college, compared with more than 60 percent today, said David Hawkins, a director at the National Association of College Admission Counseling...</p>

<p>"Multiple applications per student," Mr. Hawkins said, "is a factor that exponentially crowds the college admissions environment."...

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/education/04colleges.html?_r=1&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/education/04colleges.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

6

<p>ellemenope raises a good point. This is not only true of Harvard, but perhaps more true for many other schools, especially smaller well regarded LAC's, that before the Internet, rankings, etc. were not on many folks radar screen at all outside of the east coast elite.</p>

7

<p>Yes, and but isn't the tone of the NY Times article interesting because, as far as elite admissions go, it seems that many were disappointed to gain admission to some of the fine schools dubbed "the new Ivies". The above articles do emphasize the astounding number of brilliant, top students who were stunned to receive unexpected rejections from the elites (happened at our high school as well) but no where is there any mention of the range of students that were granted admission - given the SAT ranges (high and low) and search for diversity it seems more than evident that most schools do not want to fill their slots with all vals and sals - so less than stellar -and after thinking a great deal about the "good enough" I am not sure I even know what "stellar" is supposed to mean these days - do have a chance. But is just that - a chance and these days no one can come away with a feeling of entitlement when dealing with elite holistic admissions. I can't help chuckle at some of the images that the admissions process conjures - such as adcoms' quest for all those kids with a deep passion and "spark" - it's a wonder that some of the buildings on elite campus don't erupt in spontaneous combustion.</p>

8

<p>ellemenope may be right -- but unfortunately only partly. I attended a prep school in the NE my last two years of high school. "In my day" about 6 went to Brown -- out of an estimated 10 applicants. This year 48 applied! And, the senior class is 25% smaller!</p>

<p>Let us ask our college counselors -- at my alma mater or any other high school (including the high end boarding schools) -- do you really have 48 "qualified candidates" for Brown? And, if the repsonse is anything but the negative, I would ask that the high school hire new counselors.</p>

<p>Counselors should curtail such abusive application habits and deliver a trimmed down perspective of their school's student body so that college admissions personnel encounter the following results: (a) less grotesquely obscene numbers of rejections which is nothing more than a figure created by inflationary applicant institutions like my dear alma mater; and (b) time to more thoroughly reflect upon and review the applications which are more demonstrative of the caliber student which these schools seek to obtain.</p>

<p>One parent posed a question which I cannot answer, but must surmise is relevant and may be true: Is admissions a profit-making enterprise? Think about the revenue from the application money from all of these people, and add some lost deposits for people who hold onto spots and vacate the same when that "other" school lets them in. And, your staff tends to be comprised of young alumni (i.e. cheap for salary purposes) which encounter expenses with mailing, travel and computer generated spam.</p>

<p>Some rough numbers: U Penn had 20,479 applicants @ $70 = $1,433,530.00 for 21 employees showing on their web page (I am sure there is support staff not shown)..</p>

9

<p>But the issue is not the unqualified, in terms of HS performance, but the really large number of potentially qualified that are not getting in. I believe I agree that the real concern for colleges, as mini has pointed out many times, is that it is increasingly difficult for schools to confidently match applicants to the school as the number of applications per individual increases.</p>

10

<br>


<br>

<p>Now this make me burst out laughing!</p>

<p>Father of the Boarder, there are schools that limit applications as a matter of policy. I don't know if I would feel comfortable with that. I would rather the college admissions do all the filtering rather than let the GCs be the first filter. GCs can and should let the applicants know how their application stacks up to historical results ("We haven't had anyone with such GPA/test scores get in ever!") and should advise, but not have the power to curtail.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
Is admissions a profit-making enterprise? Think about the revenue from the application money from all of these people, and add some lost deposits for people who hold onto spots and vacate the same when that "other" school lets them in. And, your staff tends to be comprised of young alumni (i.e. cheap for salary purposes) which encounter expenses with mailing, travel and computer generated spam.</p>

<p>Some rough numbers: U Penn had 20,479 applicants @ $70 = $1,433,530.00 for 21 employees showing on their web page (I am sure there is support staff not shown)..

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Interesting math. Perhaps it is profitable at Penn, but I suspect that admissions is a significant cost center at smaller LACs. They still have big fixed costs for developing a website and designing their viewbooks and other marketing materials. Pretty much all schools (including Penn) waive application fees for low income applicants, but many other schools also waive fees for students who apply on-line, students who make campus visits, students who receive "VIP" marketing mailings, students who sign up to be on their email marketing lists, etc.</p>

<p>Somewhere I remember reading that the cost of enrolling a student (marketing, admissions, etc.) averages $2,000 per enrolled student. (Presumably this figure includes a lot of schools with low yield rates that need to admit a number of students in order to enroll each one.) That's a lot of money that goes into the process!</p>

<p>And that doesn't even count all the costs incurred by the student (test fees, CSS Profile fees, travel to college visits, etc.)</p>

<p>A LOT of money is going into this process! </p>

<p>As far as boarding schools limiting the number of applications: I think that's a sensible idea. With all the on-line information available (much more than existed in my day), it seems to me that students ought to be able to make an informed choice and narrow down their applications ahead of time, and write more thoughtfully targetted applications. </p>

<p>Also, if admissions readers know that XYZ Boarding School only allows their students to apply to, say, six schools, that's going to encourage them to take those applications more seriously than if they think that possibly the application is coming from a kid who sent 20 out.</p>

12

<p>considering many colleges and universities have operating budgets over $150,000,000, it is pretty safe to say that application fees don't constitute a "money making operation" for schools. and remember, a $45,000 price tag still doesn't come close to the actual cost of operating an institution/student enrolled. and, just to really make you all feel bad (just kidding, of course ;)), if you knew how much admissions professionals made, you'd really feel sorry for us!</p>

<p>FYI - Penn's budget in 2006 was over $4.0 billion...it's a big university, but still, the $1.4 million the Undergrad Admissions Office brought in does very little...
<a href="http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/volumes/v52/n28/budget.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/volumes/v52/n28/budget.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

13

<p>I am not at all sure just how the cost (and the doubtful profit making aspect of the application process for colleges) found its way into this thread. But since it did pop up, some colleges such as Brandeis use Descriptor Plus from the CB to manage recruitment strategy and keep a lid on costs - this type of targeted advertisement means that expensive brochures, view books, and intensive mailings etc. are sent only to those candidates deemed to be most likely to enroll. Increasingly, colleges are turning to web-based advertising as well as fee waived e-based apps . Makes me think that most colleges try to be cost effective in this regard as they set out to woo prospies. </p>

<p>Cost effective or not, many colleges do send out what might be construed as mixed messages because they openly invite and even encourage students to apply - whether they are "stellar" in their parent's eyes, their GC's eyes, or their own. Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder and so is the concept of "stellar" and "spark". What is stellar or extraordinary at one high school may be considered mediocre or "one of the pack", "a dime a dozen" at another. So no wonder some counselors advocate increasing the number of apps:
[quote]
"I am beginning to believe that it is important for students to add a college or two" in their applications roster, says Mr. Turba, "because there is no way to know -- counselor or student -- from where the acceptances will come." Mr. Turba reports a few students this year who applied to almost 20 schools...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It seems ridiculous to state the obvious, but it does seem to be a given that most students - with or without GC approval - apply to a HEI with the great hope of getting in. What bothers so many people these days, is the brutal fact that even if a student has a ballpark range GPA, SAT or ACT scores, the requisite laundry list of APs and other competitive tip factors or that special "hook" no one can predict admission with any degree of certainty or comfort. The OP article elicited no comment at all but really it is the most interesting of all precisely because it is such an over the top "panicked parent" message - that it is impossible to consider any college - not just the Ivies or non-Ivy elites - as a sure bet or "safety" any more - including good old State U. In a way this is a good message to get these days because no one can afford to pin their hopes on the elusive concept of a reach, "dream school" college admit these days. The shock waves that ripple after the admissions cycle is over (reminds me of 2009) is testimony to this trend and it does hit hard for vals and sals as well as the "less-than-stellar". For those of us jumping into the fray, the message may be that at this point in the baby boom admissions cycle being an overachiever is over-rated. So, as I have read many, many times on CC on so many threads - if you do your homework and come up with a well-researched, thoughtful list of colleges (in terms of reach, target, and match) that fit in terms of program and interest then even the less-than-stellar do need apply.</p>

14

<p>^^^^^
very good point...i always tell students i meet that if they do their homework well, are honest with themselves, and listen closely to what admissions officers and guidance counselors are telling them, they shouldn't be surprised by the decisions they receive.</p>

15

<p>Unfortunately, if S had listened to his counselors he would not been admitted to his "reach" schools, because he would not have applied, which, was a good thing because none of his "match" schools took him outright.</p>

16

<p>AdOfficer: I think most of the students who contributed to this thread would beg to differ:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=318953%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=318953&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

17

<p>Yeah, I've also been rejected from most of my matches and accepted at most of my reaches. That's after a lot of research that I decided what was a match and what was a reach. So does seem to be largely a crapshoot.</p>

18

<p>twinmom...</p>

<p>Perhaps they would disagree, but I cannot tell you the number of students I know who think they are a "fit" at an institution, only to be rejected, go to a school they did not think was a "fit," and realize that their perceptions of what an accurate and appropriate fit for them really is/was. At my institution, I interview plenty of students who, in our discussions, advise me what they are looking for in a school...many times, they believe my institution can offer them what they are looking for and are surprised when I reply "actually, you won't find that here at (enter name of my school)". It is jarring for some of them, but many students believe that just because they have worked their tails off, have high grades and testing, and are active in their communities they are a "fit" for every highly selective, prestigious school in the country...and that just isn't true. </p>

<p>This is why I stress the importance of DOING ONE's HOMEWORK <em>WELL</em>. What does this mean? It means asking yourself what kind of environment do you want to be in? At large school? A small one? One with large classes taught by ta's? One with small, seminar classes taught by profs? A school with a competitive atmosphere? A school with a more collaborative atmosphere? A school with a self-contained campus? One with a campus integrated into a city? A place where one can engage in research at the undergraduate level? etc..., etc..., etc..., These are questions that students should ask themselves and answer BEFORE going on visits to schools. Before reading Fiske's. Knowing what you are looking for in a school makes finding the right fit for oneself easier...all too often, however, students figure it out as they go along and convince themselves - because of their peers, parents, and others - that their fit is school X when, really, it is school Y. </p>

<p>I will be blunt...students and parents come into admissions offices all around the country thinking they are a fit - or rather that the school fits them - solely because of WHAT THEY THINK THE SCHOOL IS LIKE rather than actually getting to know WHAT THE SCHOOL IS REALLY LIKE, usually because they are intoxicated by prestige. I start my information sessions telling students that if they are looking for this, that, and this, they should leave now and not waste their time because they aren't going to find it at my school. Why? Because I would rather a student apply to my school knowing what the school can truly offer them rather than apply, only to be shocked by their rejection because they clearly were not a fit for us. </p>

<p>The search takes time - a lot of it. Not all students have the luxury to visit campuses, meet current students, sit in on classes, etc...,. This is why I repeatedly mention in my posts that students should NOT BE AFRAID TO CALL ADMISSIONS OFFICES AND ASK THE QUESTIONS YOU <em>NEED</em> THE ANSWERS TO. Doing so will give one a clearer picture of what the school can offer and whether or not it is a place where one can thrive which, ultimately, is what we in admissions are trying to discern.</p>

19

<p>AdOfficer - I wholeheartedly agree with you. One of my kids found a "fit" at a LAC and the other at a university. Homework definitely needs to be done - and done well. We visited almost twenty-five schools ... then again, I did have two applying at one time! </p>

<p>My point was only that it's impossible to predict which reaches a student will get into, which is what the thread I posted above substantiates.</p>

<p>I will say that there are a lot of things that influence kids on their tours ... a lousy tour guide can turn off a kid to a terrific fit school. Conversely, a fabulous tour may not show the real picture. </p>

<p>And what seems like a good fit junior year in high school may not seem quite right a year later ... even with an admission in hand.</p>

20

<p>25 visits! wow...you did how your hands full this year!</p>

<p>What is particularly interesting to me about many of the threads on CC is that so many of the same posters seem to thing that very different institutions are a match for them. I noticed one student who thought that being at a small, LAC was the best place for them, yet saw them pining away about their waitlist at Penn...such different places...</p>

<p>Perhaps the problem is there are too many options...?</p>