^^Why else would a school want more applicants except to be more popular? I’m scratching my head.
@circuitrider - small schools may have less room for error, but universities have closed, or merged with larger-better Us, in the past few decades.
https://cihe.neasc.org/information-public/merged-closed-or-previously-accredited-institutions
http://collegehistorygarden.blogspot.com/2014/11/index-of-colleges-and-universities-that.html
I personally can’t remember the last time a “major” LAC went out of business. “Major” anythings tend to do well, it’s the minor players that do not, and it seems LACs, tech institutes, junior colleges and even universities can fail to be popular enough to survive.
I think most research universities redirect resources, close departments and specific schools, rather than close altogether.
@fallenchemist - there is a significant difference between “might not” and “do not”
@OHMomof2 - Drexel almost went under
@circuitrider, I don’t buy that every LAC wants more applications. Schools like Pomona, Williams, Amherst, Harvey Mudd – they are turning down 8 or 9 students for every one they accept. More apps would mean a bigger admissions staff – I don’t think they really want that.
I personally consider Sweet Briar to be a major LAC. It had a certain cachet back in the day and its demise raised quite a stink, right here on CC… I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that once you get away from the Amhersts and Wesleyans of the country, the bulk of American LACs are at risk of not attracting enough students to keep their doors open
It didn’t close.
You’re making a pretty catastrophic assumption: that the supply of eighteen year-olds that 1) have the desired skill sets each college is seeking and, 2) can afford to pay full freight for a private.college education, will remain constant forever. History suggests it will not. That’s why LACs send the Ed Figueroas of this country on the road six months out of the year to places few of us have ever been or would desire to go. Not because they necessarily need more bodies to fill seats (or, sometimes that), but because they want to create markets where none have existed before.
I am sorry, but that is ludicrous in context. I might not like red wine either, but we never discussed that. Why bring up what I might or might not like about anything in that sense? Your meaning was abundantly clear. When one says to an employee “You might not like that we gave you no raise this year…” they clearly mean “I know you do not like this”.
Well, at least 3 reasons I can think of right off hand, but even without these you clearly are not understanding my contention that applications are not a definition of popularity. If you think they are one and the same, then we are not at all talking about the same thing, and again I would repeat this thread has zero purpose. Under that premise, the question was answered once that definition is accepted. I would call what you are describing as “awareness”, not popularity. But to answer your last question so you can stop scratching:
-
To make sure they are reaching as many students as possible that they hope will create the highest quality student body possible. The more choices they have to sift through, the higher the odds unless all the additional applications are coming from unqualified students. In many ways, it is like an employer placing a job opening to attract as many qualified applicants as possible. I wouldn’t say getting more applications made the company more “popular”, it simply created greater awareness. Besides, given that students apply to safeties they often hope NOT to attend, how can an application be an indication of popularity?
-
To improve rankings. Small as the effect is, USNWR does still use acceptance rate as a factor in their formula. Even with rankings aside, schools like to look more selective. That is not the same as popularity, except for the individual student that has that school as their high choice because it is so selective. But clearly that is not nearly all students.
-
For an Admissions Director or a VP of Enrollment Management to look good to their boss. Happens all the time. Here, look how well I am spending our money and doing my job. Applications are up 15%. And btw, the average stats are higher than last year’s class (#1 above) and our acceptance rate is lower (#2 above). Some bosses are smart enough to focus on the first two only, which are tangible results to a large degree, but some are impressed by the third alone. I know a purchasing agent that got big bonuses for getting large discounts from a supplier. The boss never thought to check that the supplier was simply raising prices at a pace that offset the larger discount. That’s the reality of workplaces sometimes, even at universities. Just depends on what goals you were given to meet in the first place.
So again, I ask that you not attribute something to me I never said. You inferred it, and you inferred incorrectly in this case.
Attractive features for us:
me (dad): - low EFC; - quality of students, programs, and EC resources; - fit; - prestige or name recognition; - reasonable distance from home
d: - fit (based on what she liked during college visits); - fit; - fit
Oh, for goodness sake. Please give eighteen year-olds some credit for common sense. They do NOT apply to a college simply because they are “aware” that it exists.
There is nothing about the term “popular” that precludes any of the meanings different people are ascribing to it.
Provide an operational definition of the term! Once you do that, you know the posters are all describing the same thing. Then you can identify which schools meet that operational definition. Until you agree on the definition, listing schools is pretty meaningless. An argument could be made for using any of the following operational definitions (or another) for the construct “popular”:
a. most applications
b. highest yield
c. lowest % accepted
d. highest number of out of state applicants
e. highest number of out of state applicants choosing the school once accepted (yield for out of state)
f. highest number of international applications
g. highest number of qualified applicants
etc.
@lostaccount it’s A or B, and since B needs A to be computed…
A wins
Again, not what I said. The school created awareness, which creates some level of interest in a few cases. Enough to apply and see what happens, especially if the cost of applying is low or zero. But in any case, that is far from popularity. Sorry, I should have spelled that out. But Tulane does that (zero application fee) and many students have said they applied because it was free and easy. But if it remains 10th on their list of schools, should they get into all of them and can afford all of them, does that make Tulane more “popular”? How far down does it go? Now this strategy does make Tulane more popular by my definition of it becoming a school some highly consider, whereas they might not have even heard of Tulane before. That happens a lot too, or Tulane wouldn’t waste the money. But more popular is not the same as 100% popular with every student that sent in the application.
Perhaps if you provided your definition of what makes a school “popular” in any individual student’s mind. Then perhaps we would get somewhere instead of talking past each other. Again, unless your definition is just “enough interest to apply”. If so, there is little to talk about, little reason for this thread, and of course the definition of safeties and why most people apply to them is out the window. And if that is the case, I would like to know what you call a student’s favorite school, their “dream school” that they never apply to because they cannot afford it.
There’s one thing people haven’t considered here, and I’m not noting this for either side of the argument:
There is an underlying assumption that if you want to go to the school, you apply. And that if you don’t apply, you don’t like the school. That directly contradicts the college process.
Most people here discourage a student, especially of less than perfect caliber, not to apply to all the ivies. It’s practical. But the student could believe fully that those schools are the best, but simply is realistic. Instead, they apply for the tier below, as well as safety schools.
This has many effects:
- The top schools don’t get as many applicants
- Schools at the tier of the student will be disproportionally applied to. (matches make up most students list except for ivy hopefuls, disproportionally represented on CC)
- Common safeties (such as in-state flagships) will get a boost in applications, but may not be seen at all as desirable.
Additionally, schools want more applicants: they don’t care what the reason is and if it makes them more popular - they want them for yield and the publicity that follows.
I don’t buy into the idea than an application equals a vote = CC literally teaches against that through the entire process. There is certainly some relation to the number of applications, but it is not direct by any means. To me it seems like the entire premise is flawed.
I did note that point essentially. See the third paragraph of post #33. I used affordability, but certainly not applying because you know you don’t have the stats even though Stanford is your most “popular” school, the school you would attend if you had a free pass in life, is of the same mode.
You are right that it is a flawed premise, but again the lack of a definition of “popular” hampers this whole discussion. I am using the one that would be the result of the survey question I proposed, i.e. What school would you attend if admission was guaranteed and finances were of no concern?
Works for me (even with the slight touch of condescension.) It’s not up to me to make an editorial judgment about why someone chooses to apply to one college and not another. There are other CC threads for that and for the most part, it has been my experience that the more qualified the candidate, the more rational their decisions tend to be, not the other way around.
That’s a very big confounding factor and I’m glad you brought it up.
@PengsPhils - and the inverse is very true as well.
Many apply to Ivies and are not qualified but throw their app in because who knows it is an Ivy (or 8)
Popular schools get more interest and with more interest they raise more alumni funds, recruit better students, become more selective, see their ranking improve, etc…
Being popular can be cyclical, it can be regional and can be very important to a college brand.
If it gets measured it gets managed.
Even if 50% of the school’s apps are not qualified, it still doesn’t even come close to the measure of people who would go if they could.
Additionally, the number of apps inherently is more for larger schools as a trend. Boston University gets nearly 10,000 more applications than Harvard: I don’t think that says its more popular.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with that or really what was said after either. But applications are an absolutely tiny part of the equation of “popular” as the schools would view it in terms of relevancy. So no, the number of applications does not make a school more popular.
If I had to offer up a better option, I would go with acceptance rate - it scales itself back because when people see a low acceptance rate, they are less likely to apply. So, the lower it is pushed, the more students are applying despite the acceptance rate. This would also have a better correlation with public opinion, as the number of applications clearly does not.
@fallenchemist Oops, my bad! I skimmed the thread after reading some posts in depth and missed that.