<p>The hucksterism of schools makes it harder for students to navigate the admissions process with any sanity and real success.</p>
<p>USNWR should toss out admit rate as a ranking criterion and replace it w YIELD rate. That’ll solve the sluttiness. </p>
<p>“Cuz if you liked it then u should have put a ring on it…”</p>
<p>US News should toss out both. Neither is a meaningful measure of educational quality, and both encourage game theory behavior by admissions offices that wastes resources and puts institutional interests ahead of applicants. </p>
<p>What I would really like to see is universities doing a better job of matching their programs to the individual goals of students. D2 spent 1/2 hr filling out the questionnaire for her ACT and SAT tests. She has an interest in biology and anatomy with the idea she may want to go into Physical Therapy, Genetic Counseling or even Forensics. She also wants to minor in dance. It seems if that information can be made available along with current grades and test scores schools that have programs that would strongly match her wants should be sending her information, and giving her the resources necessary to reach the people at their universities to help to differentiate their programs. Currently they seem to know she wants to study some type of science beyond that most of the information is very generic. She wants to stay within about a 6 hour drive from where we live yet we’re getting a huge amount of mail from schools a day or two away. Harvard and Stanford are not matches for her regardless of their selectivity and they should save themselves and the recycling facilities the money and waste.</p>
<p>"Harvard and Stanford are not matches for her regardless of their selectivity and they should save themselves and the recycling facilities the money and waste. "</p>
<p>They probably more than make the money back on the no-hopers who apply. Not to mention boosting their selectivity.</p>
<p>I apologise. My phrasing there was unintentionally harsh! Didn’t mean to suggest anythign about your children in particular. But there will no doubt be lots of kids who are a bit naive about top college advertising campaigns, and I wouldn’t be surprised if those kids pay for a big chunk of those campaigns, by applying when they never otherwise would have, even though they are in no danger of being admitted. That, together with the boost to rankings from higher selectivity, might make it worth it for them.</p>
<p>And given that these schools are given enormous privileges by society (mostly in the form of not-for-profit status and its associated tax benefits), one would hope that they could behave in a better way.</p>
<p>But you may have liked it, but when it came right down to it, you couldn’t afford it. Or mom didn’t want you to go that far from home. Or you traded your dreams for being close enough to come home twice a year. Or your parents said that if you went to your state flagship, they’d give you the money for a downpayment for a house, or pay for a year abroad (or all the other enticements I’ve seen on CC over the years).</p>
<p>In observing my D go through the process this fall, I think there should be a balance somewhere between apps that don’t ask for anything but scores/grades and apps that have 5 supp essays, some of which are not “Why ___” or “tell us about yourself” essays. </p>
<p>I think the “Why ____” essays offer a great opportunity for the student to research the school AND research themselves and see where the two might meet. It’s a good exercise. I think all schools (that have the time/ability to review beyond stats) should have one of those.</p>
<p>Not so sure about the need for the more esoteric essay subjects though. </p>
<p>“And given that these schools are given enormous privileges by society (mostly in the form of not-for-profit status and its associated tax benefits), one would hope that they could behave in a better way.”</p>
<p>The problem is, every decision maker at a nonprofit is hired to promote the organization’s mission, not the interests of society as a whole. Those two things usually have some overlap, but they aren’t the same thing. Competition among non-profits has both good and bad effects. Some arms races, like competing for applicants in order to drive down admit rates, have no social utility that I can see. Other arms races, like competing to attract top first-generation scholars with more generous financial aid, do add value.</p>
<p>I agree with Bruni that some marketing approaches are more ethical than others. In a marketplace where schools have the power, it’s not right to take advantage of students’ naiveté.</p>
<p>" The problem is, every decision maker at a nonprofit is hired to promote the organization’s mission, not the interests of society as a whole. Those two things usually have some overlap, but they aren’t the same thing. Competition among non-profits has both good and bad effects. Some arms races, like competing for applicants in order to drive down admit rates, have no social utility that I can see. Other arms races, like competing to attract top first-generation scholars with more generous financial aid, do add value."</p>
<p>Sure, I agree with that. But I think as a society, we shouldn’t be so afraid to force the nonprofits into line if they really seem to be exploiting people.</p>
<p>This practice is exploitation. Pure and simple. U of Chicago is the worst offender. Non stop solicitations of kids with ACTs in the mid 20s. </p>
<p>My big problem with the ridiculous amount of solicitations is all the waste. And the irony of reading how green a campus is on page 43 of their admissions mailer seems to escape them. If higher education really cared about the environment the mailings would be much better targeted. </p>
<p>On a side note, I often wonder how much worse things would be for the post office if the colleges were better stewards of the earth’s resources. </p>
<p>Exploitation in the sense that any marketing or advertising is exploitation.</p>
<p>As for USN rankings and whether they should take out admit rate and yield, why not just ignore USN? I’m more of a fan of outcome-based rankings myself. The sad thing is that certain people (especially the Ivy-obsessed, I have noticed) seem to rank how prestigious a college is mostly off of admit rate. There are few more pathetic scenes in the world than someone at Ivy A trying to justify why Ivy A is better/more prestigious than Ivy B almost solely off of their respective acceptance rates.</p>
<p>Oh, and the post office survives almost solely because of junk mail. In fact, the postal service is having such big fiscal issues because the volume of junk mail has fallen as companies have found other ways to advertise with the advent of the internet.</p>
<p>I look at the college mailings at the post office when I pick up our mail. Much of it goes straight in the recycling bin they have there. I do keep ones that my daughter may not have had on her radar in case she wants to check them out further. </p>
<p>Yes Jomama, and that’s exactly the point. Colleges get criticized for accepting students from the same group of 80 high schools in Scarsdale, Atherton, Lexington, and Highland Park (et al) and then get criticized for targeting kids who live outside their traditional applicant areas. A kid in rural Missouri is going to know the difference between Wesleyan and Wellesley and Wittenburg and Whitman and Williams how exactly? Some of these schools might be a terrific fit, an excellent financial value (depending on the family’s finances), and a superb way for the kid to maximize an educational opportunity that perhaps the family knows nothing about.</p>
<p>
GMTson erroneously ticked on some registration form that he is interested in women’s colleges. He has since corrected that mistake in his profile. But the stream of snail mail solicitations from women’s colleges continues unabated. </p>
<p>True, blossom! D has added a few schools to her list from the mailings I’ve kept.</p>
<p>“Colleges get criticized for accepting students from the same group of 80 high schools in Scarsdale, Atherton, Lexington, and Highland Park (et al) and then get criticized for targeting kids who live outside their traditional applicant areas. A kid in rural Missouri is going to know the difference between Wesleyan and Wellesley and Wittenburg and Whitman and Williams how exactly?”</p>
<p>EXACTLY! Never underestimate the ability on CC, though, of people who have a dozen elite colleges within 50 miles to figure that everyone across the country knows the schools that are in their backyard! (“Doesn’t everybody?”)</p>