Swat apps drop

[coase]

<p>@EyeVeee: We probably agree more than we disagree. I think we would both applaud a reduction in the amount of time students spend applying to college. But if fewer applicants spend more time on their Swarthmore applications, the aggregate time spent could go up or down. For sake of argument, suppose that the average Swarthmore applicant would spend twice as much time when there are two 500-word supplemental essays than when there is just one 250-word essay. If 10% fewer students apply, then much more time is being spent on Swarthmore applications. As long as the percentage increase in the average time spent on the application exceeds the percentage drop in the number of applications, the aggregate time spent will rise. Of course, this example is only looking at time spent on Swarthmore applications. </p>

<p>I agree that requiring 10 essays would cause Ivy applicants to pick and choose. But that might reduce students’ choice without saving much time. If it took as long to apply to each Ivy in 2015 as it did to apply to all eight Ivys in 2014, there would be a loss of choice with no time savings. Or to take a less extreme example, we gain little if students now apply to five schools rather than ten, but each application now takes twice as long to complete on average. </p>

<p>A more general question is whether colleges should control the number of applications through high application fees (with fee waivers available) or time-intensive applications. The latter provide information about applicants but they certainly soak up a lot of time on both ends. </p>

[lacgrad]

<p>Just a note, the 2012 Swarthmore application only had one supplemental essay, the “Why Swarthmore?” essay. So, the 2014 application actually added a second supplemental essay. I’m not sure what the requirement was in 2013. Anyway, it’s not like the 2 supplemental essays have been a long tradition.</p>

<p>Here was the 2014 second essay question:
Swarthmore’s residential liberal arts community is shaped by its intellectually and culturally vibrant members, who come together to learn and grow through their shared and unique experiences. Briefly discuss how your academic and life experiences would inform, affect, and strengthen our community of thinkers. (500 word limit)</p>

<p>Personally, I think the “Why Swarthmore?” prompt is a much better prompt and the second essay is almost redundant. So, I support Swarthmore’s decision to eliminate the second essay. However, it’s extremely difficult to write a Why Swarthmore? essay in 250 words. It’s no longer an essay, it’s simply a short answer and lacks the depth I think of with Swarthmore.</p>

[intparent]

<p>I just went back and checked. The only requirement for the class entering in 2013 was one prompt: </p>

<p>

"Why Swarthmore? Please write a brief statement telling us why you have decided to apply to Swarthmore in particular. (2000 char)

</p>

[EyeVeee]

<p>Hmmmm…so check my math.</p>

<p>2012 - 1 essay
2013 - 1 essay
2014 - 2 essays…and a drop of 1,000 applications.
2015 - 1 essay</p>

<p>In re-reading the article:</p>

<p>"Bock, dean of admissions, says he believes the writing requirement on the school’s application may have been responsible for the drop.</p>

<p>Swarthmore required two 500-word essays in the writing supplement to its application, in addition to a standard 650-word essay."</p>

<p>May have been responsible? Everything said is true, but lacking is the admission of guilt. Why not say…“this year we added an additional writing requirement…and it’s our opinion in hind-sight that might not have worked out so well”?</p>

[Englishman]

<p>the essay took my DS about 20 minutes, it is NOT the reason applications dropped by over 1000 applicants, that is just nonsense, to suggest it is, is just wrong headed, an 18 year old who wanted to apply to selective LAC’s was not put off by an additional essay, my DS applied to 12 colleges including Swarthmore, no issue, others reasons are at play here, not the essay requirements.</p>

[donnaleighg]

<p>I have no idea whether the additional essay is the reason for the drop in apps, but I know my son (Swarthmore class of 2018) struggled with the new essay (admittedly it was in the last couple of days in December when the dear procrastinator was doing a lot of supplements). It did seem redundant with the one that’s always been there. (Also, we are unlikely to hear on this thread from anyone who didn’t apply because of the essay, since frankly, the vast majority of people interested in a thread about Swarthmore have some vested interest in it. Those who did not apply have surely moved on).</p>

[desie1]

<p>Swarthmore 's yield increased this year so it looks like the students who took the time to write the additional essay were the ones who really wanted to attend. In my opinion that’s a “win” for Swarthmore.</p>

[intparent]

<p>It certainly could be that more than one factor played into the drop in apps. My kid is one who decided not to attend the year before after being accepted, partly due to some of the other issues (besides the essay) that have been discussed on this thread. Hard to tease them apart… but I will say after having spent a long time on this board, it is stunning how little information many students collect about a school before they decide to apply and eventually attend. Although the sexual assault issues and student protests loom large for those currently at Swat or have a strong interest in the school, I bet if you polled those who were accepted this year, probably 20% of them have heard about either of those issues. Many, many students and parents just accept what is on the school website, what is said on the tour, and the USNWR ranking as what they need to know about the school before deciding. So my guess is that admissions is right about some of the reason for the drop (extra essay), but not all of it.</p>

[coase]

<p>@desie1: I would be interested to hear what the yield was this year. It has been rising the last couple of years and was around 41% last year. This year Swarthmore accepted 930 applicants, with a goal of enrolling 405. If they accomplished that goal without going to the waitlist, the yield would be 43.5%, but it appears that they have gone to the waitlist. </p>

<p>It is not clear why yield should matter, though. Consider two scenarios. In scenario A, there are 6,000 applicants, 1,000 acceptances, and 400 matriculants. In scenario B, there are 5,000 applicants, 900 acceptances, and 400 matriculants. Scenario A has the lower acceptance rate (16.7% vs. 18%) and lower yield (40% vs. 44.4%). If the same 400 students matriculate in the two cases, it is unclear why one cares about the yield (or acceptance rate). In deciding which of the two scenarios is preferable, I keep coming back to the question of how much time is being spent on applications in aggregate and how much is being learned from the applications. </p>

<p>There are good reasons to reduce the number of applications. BC decided that it was getting an unmanageable number so it made the application more onerous. The number of applications dropped by 26%.<br>

Although some enrollment officials have nightmares about big one-year declines, John L. Mahoney, director of undergraduate admissions at Boston College, described the numbers as good news. After all, he said, the quality of this year’s applicants—as measured by their ACT and SAT scores—did not go down, compared with last year. “Probably what we’ve done is right-size our applicant pool,” he said.

<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Boston-College-Sees-a-Sharp/136683/”>http://chronicle.com/article/Boston-College-Sees-a-Sharp/136683/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[intparent]

<p>

It is not clear why yield should matter, though.

</p>

<p>It matters partly because it affects USNWR rankings. Swat enjoys a very high ranking and elite reputation, and would like to maintain that.</p>

[coase]

<p>

It matters partly because it affects USNWR rankings. Swat enjoys a very high ranking and elite reputation, and would like to maintain that.

</p>

<p>US News stopped including yield 10 years ago. (See <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/national/10ADMI.html”>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/national/10ADMI.html&lt;/a&gt; and <a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/best-colleges-ranking-criteria-and-weights”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/best-colleges-ranking-criteria-and-weights&lt;/a&gt;) Of course, yield could still matter in a roundabout way as a college can lower its acceptance rate and enroll the same size class if it can raise its yield somehow, but yield does not factor directly into the rankings. </p>

[EyeVeee]

<p>The Philly Inquirer seems very interested in Swarthmore’s past all of a sudden (or maybe it’s just their Penn grad reporter).</p>

<p><a href=“College backlash and a difficult balancing act on sex assault”>College backlash and a difficult balancing act on sex assault;

[coase]

<p>The campus newspapers have reported on this case. Here is an article from The Phoenix:
<a href=“http://www.swarthmorephoenix.com/2014/02/20/lawsuit-details-colleges-sudden-push-to-expel/”>http://www.swarthmorephoenix.com/2014/02/20/lawsuit-details-colleges-sudden-push-to-expel/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The Swarthmore Independent criticized the complaint for painting the plaintiff as a scapegoat:

[W]e fault John [Doe] for making gender politics an unnecessary issue in his case. His lawyers should have focused on his hearing’s procedural problems—of which there are several—rather than introducing the somewhat conspiratorial theory that John was made “the whipping boy that Swarthmore needed” to prove the administration was serious about sexual assault.

<a href=“externalStyle.html”>externalStyle.html;

[zobroward]

<p>here is another reason apps are dropping. if you are a male student you really need think hard. you may be the victim of a 21st century witch hunt
<a href=“Swarthmore College | sets low bar | deeming students rapist”>http://collegeinsurrection.com/2014/07/swarthmore-sets-low-bar-to-deem-students-a-rapist/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[coase]

<p>

here is another reason apps are dropping.

All schools received the same “Dear Colleague” letter mandating use of a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Whatever one thinks of that standard, Swarthmore is hardly alone in employing it.<br>
<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/25/federal-campus-safety-rules-reignite-debate-over-standard-evidence#sthash.UmQqnJ8w.dpbs”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/25/federal-campus-safety-rules-reignite-debate-over-standard-evidence#sthash.UmQqnJ8w.dpbs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[zobroward]

<p>" Whatever one thinks of that standard" as if setting up a system rigged to fit an agenda and hurt innocent students in the process is just like whatever you think of…
it is much more serious and scary!</p>

[coase]

<p>You are completely missing the point (and misinterpreting that phrase). Your assertion was that Swarthmore was losing applicants because of its use of the “preponderance of evidence” standard. There is no basis for that (post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc) conclusion because all of its peers face the same mandate. Many thoughtful people have argued for moving to a “clear and convincing” standard, but that is irrelevant to a discussion of why applications fell this year. </p>

[EyeVeee]

<p>I’m obviously missing a lot, but why do colleges create a shadow judicial and reporting system that potentially encourages the wrong behaviors by he administration through published metrics? Sexual assault is a crime, and the punishments for perpetrators, those falsely accusing perpetrators, and institutions that allow or cover up allegations / activities should be settled in the courts.</p>

<p>Schools should be agnostic toward students. They should support them, teach them and when necessary comfort them, but they shouldn’t determine guilt or innocence. Even college students are generally innocent until proven guilty in the US, and they should be afforded those rights.</p>

<p>As a side note, a school that so visibly addresses these issues has to be at least as safe as one who doesn’t. </p>

[coase]

<p>

I’m obviously missing a lot, but why do colleges create a shadow judicial and reporting system that potentially encourages the wrong behaviors by he administration through published metrics? Sexual assault is a crime, and the punishments for perpetrators, those falsely accusing perpetrators, and institutions that allow or cover up allegations / activities should be settled in the courts.

The answer is that the schools are required to do it. Here are some snippets from a 2014 Education Department document:

You have the right to choose to report an incident of sexual violence to campus or local law
enforcement. But a criminal investigation does not relieve your school of its duty under Title IX to
respond promptly and effectively.

</p>

<p>

If an investigation reveals that sexual violence created a hostile environment, your school must take
prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the sexual violence, eliminate the hostile
environment, prevent its recurrence, and, as appropriate, remedy its effects.</p>

<p>Appropriate remedies will generally include disciplinary action against the perpetrator, but may also
include remedies to help you get your education back on track (like academic support, retaking a class
without penalty, and counseling). These remedies are in addition to any interim measures you received.

<a href=“http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/know-rights-201404-title-ix.pdf”>http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/know-rights-201404-title-ix.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A college must investigate even if a parallel criminal investigation is underway. And if it finds that a hostile environment has been created, it must take steps to remedy the situation. </p>

<p>The poster above claimed that the use of a particular standard explained the drop in applications. My response remains that the same standard is used by all of its peers, so the standard itself cannot be the explanation. The 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter says that:

in order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred).

<a href=“Dear Colleague Letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali.-- Pg 11”>http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104_pg11.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;