<p>I am not against Washington and Lee, but I am in favor of colleges representing themselves honestly. Given the work they do truthfulness should matter. </p>
<p>Harvard included about 3% incomplete applications in its total shown in the article. That is about the level mentioned in the original Washington Post article at the schools the reporter surveyed. AND, Harvard actually reported the incompletes. </p>
<p>Washington and Lee has never mentioned its incompletes. It simply reported unfinished applications in its total reported, an extra 20%!!! That is misrepresentation. The number these days is 10%. That is still misrepresenting.</p>
<p>By the way, I would bet that this is the first time Harvard has reported applications this way. The Washington Post article has had real impact on higher education admissions offices. Now college and high school counseling organizations need to have rules in place for reporting that can’t be manipulated by admissions offices.</p>
<p>I just love bayermunich31’s reasoning: Harvard cheats; so “why shouldn’t W&L?”</p>
<p>The other trick W&L, Claremont and a few others pull is to discard the lower test scores of enrolled students when they submit BOTH the SATI and the ACT results. The percentage of students who submit SAT’s plus that of ACT’s will add up to exactly 100% on the Common Data Set and USNWR main survey submissions. What if this isn’t being done correctly and the SAT and ACT scores being used belong to the same student? </p>
<p>Its perfect reasoning… simple collective action problem.
Nobody has incentive to stop cheating because if one school stops, they look worse comparatively. Therefore they will continue too “cheat” and face minor consequences.</p>
<p>There are no measures in place to significantly hurt the school if caught, so the reward is worth the risk. I could be wrong, but when Emory was caught, the quality of student applying had already reached the fudged numbers. They got removed from rankings but their reputation was already solidified.</p>
<p>This IS the first time Harvard has provided information on how its reported application total was developed. The Washington Post article has had an impact. Maybe their transparency will have an effect on others in the pecking order. I hope so.</p>
<p>Bayerinmuncih31 makes a point that everyone cheats so there is no gain from being honest. Being part of a movement in the higher education area which might lead to more honesty in how it presents itself and less gaming would benefit leaders in that discussion and the education business consumer.</p>
<p>Here is a link to a student publication at Washington and Lee which discusses the admissions practices and several other topics of interest to the campus. Their opinion is self-explanatory. It is in the first article on the link called “The Most Dangerous Game: W&L Admissions Policy.”</p>
<p>It looks like students at Washington and Lee understand what is wrong with Admissions application counting even if the school’s leadership does not want to. They deserve credit for speaking up.</p>
My screen name changed slightly but I started this thread and still get updates in my email on Washington and Lee (II have to turn that off). The one posted today by UniPro on how an alleged sexual misconduct case was handled seems to parallel the earlier issue with questionable application counting. The people running it don’t pay enough attention to its foundation values. Those are what attracted me to it as an applicant but they seem to have changed a lot.
I am posting here because this is where most of my Washington and Lee comments have been made and this is about applications. Several people in different W&L threads comment on its application numbers like the school does not get many. It has plenty. Last year they had almost 5400 applications for 475 spots. They accepted 1280. They enrolled 455 but took 193 off the Wait List. I don’t know why they used the Wait List so much but for those who have the school as first choice and are Wait listed there is hope. Good luck with acceptances for those in the thick of that.