^I find that unnecessarily cruel. Where we are the universities send representatives to the schools to answer questions such as grades required, pre-requisites needed etc. They tell you what students getting into the program of your choice in the previous year had, so you can gauge your chances accordingly.
I knew my first kid was applying to a program with three thousand applicants for two hundred spots. I also knew the average admit has grades in the low 90s (Canadian grading where A=80). Out of curiosity I checked last year’s requirements and learned that my second child would now be an automatic reject. She only managed a B+ in senior calculus…now all pre-requisites must be As.
WUSTL is my son’s primary stalker. He receives at least 4 pieces of mail a week, plus email. They are unrelenting. This has been going on for months now. His ACT composite is slightly lower than their middle 50%. He did have a high writing score, but let’s face it, they will most certainly reject him. They’ve killed a small forest to recruit a kid they have no intention of admitting. Most annoying!
I am guessing that you can request a college to remove your child from a mailing list/college admissions database if you are really not interested in receiving the emails and mailings from that college. Basically call the Admissions Office to request that they “Unsubscribe” your child/delete him/her from their databases. I have not done this myself, but I’m sure it’s possible.
Also, if you want less college mail, have the student update/change his/her College Board Profile to Unsubscribe from the option that allows colleges receive info about the student. This could take a phone call to the College Board, as I was unable to help my son figure out how to do it online.
But, if your child is actually interested in a college, then just live with it and stop complaining/bragging that colleges are stalking your kids. They do it to everyone. Your child is not alone. It might be more productive and helpful to colleges if we gave feedback to them about how or if families use the mailings. I definitely took note of all mailings, especially the ones offering a free application. But, for the most part, my son barely glanced at the advertising mail and emails that he received. (Except MIT, just because he thought their stuff was cool and not too frequent. He applied and was rejected.)
In the interest of moving this thread back to its original topic since there’s already a lively thread on stalker schools (and really, some ARE stalkier than others), any other things people can identify that are significantly different from 15 years ago? Mostly, I feel the book still rings true and is an excellent read. (And @Lindagaf I have not forgotten your request. Just kinda swamped and not sure where I put my copy!)
The question was posed about WUSTL and I answered. It’s hardly bragging. And I’ll complain as much as I damn well please. The amount of mail they sent is ridiculous. I can only conclude that either their administration office is terribly unorganized or that they believe this sort of blitz advertising will ultimately result in additional applications and rankings.
I agree. It’s no bragging at all, just reporting about institutional behavior. There was no correlation between the schools that did or did not stalk and my kid’s qualifications. They ran the gamut.
D14 is a junior at WUSTL. S16 just started his freshman year at one of the most selective college in the San Francisco Bar Area. He only applied to 6 schools, one lottery, one reach, one match, one safety and two local community colleges. Unlike his sister, he only received a few brochures and none from WUSTL :-* !
To bring it back around to the original topic, I asked one of my close friends, who is a graduate of Wesleyan, if things were different when she graduated (early 90’s) and if she thought it would be different there today. Her opinion was that the school has such a strong and distinct culture that technology would not affect the makeup of the student body much.
@Postmodern , I was wondering if the author notes anything of significance in the afterword that was added in the ten year edition. My kindle download, purchased a few days ago, had no afterword.
*This thread is supposed to be about how things have changed since the publication of the book, so let’s not overly focus on certain schools. It is fine to use one as an example, but please try not to let it then run amok arguing over that one thing.
As far as using one’s kids as examples, certainly I can claim some expertise there. However, I think I can also honestly say that I only bring up examples with them involved when it is directly on point to the topic/question asked, even if it is anecdotal. Please be sure to make it very clear in any post how the anecdote relates to the topic, and isn’t simply a bragfest. The bragging should be just a nice side benefit.*
Also, we have had two reports asking about the post that used the word “damn”. The general rule is A) If it isn’t starred out and it isn’t some form of the word that is trying to work around our filters, it is OK to use. B) If the word can be used on an 8 PM family show on ABC, NBC, etc. then we are likely to accept it here as well. Damn and hell would be the two most obvious examples.
I read it around 2010-11 when my older child was doing the college thing. It was useful, as were most but not all of the other books I read in that time period…the Hernandez (A is for Admission), Admission Matters, the novel that was recently made into a movie - Admission, The Neurotic Parent’s Guide to Admissions which made me literally laugh out loud as I read it, Admissions Confidential, Crazy U, Acceptance, and the extremely useful Paying for College Without Going Broke which i picked up in a college bookstore after a tour for $1 - a previous year’s edition. I liked that one about the California guidance counselor that tracks 3 or so specific kids through their admissions process.
With my first kid I swear I read more than 10 books on admission. With the second, really none.
@lindagaf, (and others), My relatively recently purchased trade paperback has an Epilogue and “A New Afterword”. My summary of the latter:
First two pages talk about Jordan Goldman's success with "You Knee Go" dot com.
Followed by the author's reflection on how holistic admissions "continues to be the template there as well as it is at dozens of other highly selective institutions".
Next few paragraphs reflect on the dramatic increase of available information, with a shout-out to the good folks at College Confidential, although he calls it "a hive of advice and gossip, some of it reliable, and delivered in real time". (He is speaking of present company there, of course) ;-)
Mentions the explosion in private admissions consulting
A whole page about the Common App and the resulting increase in apps per student
International students
Cost and debt
Update on Ralph Figueroa, now a GC at a private school in ABQ. Ralphs still hates USNWR! Other issues...
Update on some other minor characters
Here is on section relevant to the OP: (trying to avoid copyright issue)
“When I asked Nancy (Meislahn, Wes Dean of Adm.) what a reader of The Gatekeepers might find different in the office in 2012, she said 'Applicant’s expectations have changed dramatically, and we have stepped up to meet them”
Updates on the students profiled. Most doing better than well.
Ends with quotes from student who was rejected and attended Muhelnberg. No laments. "I got into a school that completely fulfilled my needs"
Let me know if you want any more detail. Sorry if I am typing like I am paid by the word.