<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070301037.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070301037.html</a></p>
<p>Interesting. I agree with a few of these, others I’m somewhat iffy about. Thoughts?</p>
<p>A lot of these are good ideas. Especially the one that says " Have selective colleges post profiles of students who were slam-dunk admits, average admits and borderline admits". That is a great idea that makes a lot of sense. However, I am sure it will never happen bc schools would not want to put off potential candidates and lose those important numbers such as number of applicants and income made on application fees. </p>
<p>Does anyone else wonder how much money some colleges must make off app fees each year?</p>
<p>overall I thought the list was terrible ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have selective colleges post profiles of students who were slam-dunk admits, average admits and borderline admits". That is a great idea that makes a lot of sense.
[/quote]
and so a small LAC gets 25 kids with essentially the same exact slam dunk profile ... now are they supposed to admit all 25. This sounds good but a school is trying to build a class ... all applicants are viewed in context of all the other applicants. From the viewpoint of a school trying to define a "slam-dunk" applicant has no upside ... they would get crushed if they rejected anyone who fit this profile ... so they would need to define it so harsh that it appears applicants need to be perfect to be accepted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does anyone else wonder how much money some colleges must make off app fees each year?
[/quote]
They are not makinb bucks on applications ... consider the process of handling an application ... it is handled by the cmapus mail system ... an admin person opens the mail, files the paperwork, and enters the data in a database ... an adcom person reads the file for 20-30 minutes ... the file is reviewed by a second person for 20-30 minutes ... and possibly the applicant is reviewed by the whole committe for 5-10 minutes ... and then there is admin costs like materials (including the marketing stuff that went out looking for applicants), software, professional conferences, etc. How much "profit" can there be in the $100 fee?</p>
<p>I thought the list funny. Was it intended to be serious? All 10 ideas? It would be like saying to make me a pro basketball player, make me 10 inches taller and 30 yrs younger- not gonna happen!</p>
<p>I have often wondered about applications fees as well. I know where to find numbers for my daughter's college, so let's do some calculations:</p>
<p>For 2006, there were 6684 applications and the application fee was $35. That represents a potential $233,940. It is probably slightly less than that because they waive the application fee for a small number of students. That cannot even cover the salaries of the admissions department, let alone benefits, operating costs, travel expenses, printed matter and so forth. I could not find a line item in their budget for the cost of running the admissions department, but it sure appears to me that it is not a profit center at this particular LAC.</p>
<p>Considered another way, $35 does not go very far when you consider that the applications have to be sorted and filed, tracked as various supporting documents arrive, read by one or more people, discussed by a committee and responded to in email and on paper. That does not even consider the expense of holding auditions for music majors (in 15 locations throughout the US and six Asian countries.)</p>
<p>With the exception of not requiring standardized tests (and of paying for the reports), and of posting what would be awfully misleading profiles, this is pretty much the way the world is right now if you choose to make it that way. HYPS does effectively tell students that there is a lottery aspect to their admissions, and that as much as 80% of their applicant pool is fully qualified (whatever that means). I think the number and percentage of legacy applications/admissions is available for at least some of them. They don't reveal recruited athletes, but it's not hard to come up with a reasonable estimate. And for schools outside the top 10 private universities and their equivalent LACs, none of those numbers are going to be especially interesting. Ohio State may recruit a boatload of athletes, but 300-400 recruited athletes per year would represent a proverbial drop in the Columbus bucket.</p>
<p>Everything else is self-help. Well, I guess there are still those rejection letters. But, short of turning them into acceptances, fine-tuning the language and format is not going to make any real difference to the kids who get them. Only a few that my kids got were clunky at all; many were very nice (if you read them through, which the kids most certainly did not).</p>
<p>THe list above reeks of the sense of entitelement and hurt feelings that underlies so much of the CC threads. I've grown weary of it, and at the risk of being provocative I've compiled my own list for any recipients of rejection letters who have locked themselves in their rooms for the last couple of months:</p>
<p>a. Yes, of course there is a lottery element to the process. That's a continuation of your entire life - who your parents were, the genes you received, your gender, your academic ability and your skills and weaknesses. Much of who you are is the result of lottery selection. </p>
<p>b. You are smart and able. There are tens of thousands as good, or better than you. Some of them took your spots at your elite university. (And some took your spot because daddy has been writing checks to the endowment for many years.) Sorry.</p>
<p>c. As for legacies and athletes? See A above.</p>
<p>d. Your $50 admissions fee entitles you to nothing in the way of detailed statistics and other proprietary information from the admit folks. WHen you're rejected in your first job interview they probably won;t give you any details either. </p>
<p>e. Don't like the SAT/ACT? The Japanese process of testing for admission to high school and university makes our process look like kindergarten. I'm sorry that colleges like to have some objective criteria on how kids perform relative to one another. In sports it's called a "score" and they don;t adjust the final score because one team doesn't "test well". Also, when so many high school graduates write so poorly, and grade inflation has become so persistent, the SAT seems more, not less necessary, than every before. If you were running an elite college, would YOU abandon objective testing completely ? </p>
<p>Kids, you've crossed from childhood to adulthood. Most of your lives you've been told how special you are and how important your self-image and esteem are. Well, most of what you've done to date is now reset to zero, and it's time to build a whole new resume and track record in an entirely new arena. </p>
<p>Treat it as a challenge and opportunity, and stop whining.</p>
<p>H-Golf, These kids/parents are not necessarily whining. It is a stressful and bewildering process. Perhaps this happens more frequently with kids who apply to the most selective colleges. I don't necessarily agree with the list; nontheless, the stress is real, and efforts to deal with it should be viewed postiviely.</p>
<p>padad - I'm highly empathetic to the stress as I just went through it for the first time.</p>
<p>I do, however, believe there is alot of whining given the highly complex and subjective nature of the college admission process at the elite level. Nobody who reads these threads could come away with any notion other than that there IS a high lottery component to the affair. No mystery there. </p>
<p>It strikes me as odd that people want the college selection process to proceed, and behave, in ways that are found almost nowhere else in our society. It also strikes me as a bit sad that a kid headed to Colby instead of Harvard, or Bucknell instead of Dartmouth, feels they have somehow failed and settled for second best. WHile I appreciate the competitiveness that it shows, I would also like to see the maturity that comes with stepping up and embracing an (otherwise excellent) outcome that might be a bit different than the ideal.</p>
<p>After all, that is what success in life demands.</p>