Why do elite college recruit so much?

Parents Forum
61

<p>I don’t believe the mass mailing campaign by elites is purely for altruistic reasons. Didn’t Princeton break into Yale’s computer system to find out who had been accepted there early action? This was to be able to better predict who would accept Princeton offer and drive up yield. Sorry if I’m butchering the story, but there was a minor admissions scandal involving this. </p>

<p>At best, I think there’s a drive to get the applications up because this is part of the job of admissions. I don’t think the elites care if the top 3 trade spots every year, though.</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>Between this statement and the Princeton map that Kajon linked to, it seems to me that Harvard and Princeton are every bit as regional as the schools that JHS cites.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>LOL. And that’s provincial on their part, for sure. Believe me, I’m in the middle of it.</p>

<p>But I can point to a thread on CC in which some quite-educated, highly elite parents were blanching at the thought of sending their kids to the midwest, south or west for college (with the exception of Stanford)! I mean, you have to get on a PLANE, and you’re not within driving distance, and, OMG, how would anyone from Short Hills, NJ or Newton, MA ever make it to the midwest, might as well ask them to go to the moon.</p>

<p>So you’ll forgive me for pointing out the double-standard and hypocrisy.</p>

64

<p>Pizzagirl, I think ALL colleges, including HYPS have strong regional appeal. Many kids (and parents) are looking for colleges that are within half a day’s drive of home. Is someone trying to deny this? Is this a bad thing?</p>

65

<p>Pizzagirl said:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No offense Pizzagirl, but… Duh!</p>

<p>On CC it seems like most midwesterners are dedicated to the proposition that Big State U is every bit as good as any “Elite” college in the East. To me it is interesting to see the regional biases. I was born and raised in NJ, went to college in VA and law school in NY and I have spent the remainder of my life in CO. Here in the mountain states, most GCs and parents also believe in Big State U. My son asked his choir director for some suggestions for music schools outside of our state. He flatly refused, saying that the state schools were the equal of any in the country.</p>

<p>One of my friends who went to UVa said that he had never heard of Northwestern and why in the world would my son (who was interested in music, among other things) want to go to Northwestern instead of UVa. (You would know why.) At my son’s HS, most of the kids who aspire to T20 schools look to Stanford. I suspect that there are more Stanford alums in this area than Harvard ones. In the Upper South, they look at UVa, UNC and Duke, while in the Deep South it is more likely Vanderbilt or GT or Rice. California has it own set of biases in favor of the UC schools.</p>

<p>So I don’t think it is surprising that the “Elites” draw proportionately more from the NE, plus NY, NJ and PA. That’s were most of their alums are and where virtually everyone has heard of them (especially the small NE LACs). Plus, the top private schools in the country are mostly in the NE and have for centuries been feeder schools to the Elites.</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>Interesting… prove it? At least not where I come from. There seems to be a lot of stereotypes about regions on this thread that may be overly general or completely inaccurate.</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>In reality the map shows the distribution of students who matriculated from Montana to Princeton. In all probability they did offer a few acceptances but (gasp!) those students might have decided to attend some other school. Do you realize how much time and money it takes to travel from Montana to Princeton? There are no direct flights and lots of potential travel disruptions when a student comes home for the holidays. Much easier to travel to Stanford or UChicago or Carleton. It is not easy for a school like Princeton to attract strong applicants from places like Montana. Doesn’t mean there aren’t strong students- just means they don’t necessarily want to attend Princeton.</p>

68

<p>Instead of asking why, you could probably ask yourself, why not? Colleges aren’t committing a crime by asking you to consider them - heck 75% of people in the US still don’t hold a college degree…</p>

69

<p>

</p>

<p>I was responding to JHS’s points in #40/41 about regionality.</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>Funny story. I was at grad school recruitment weekend at Berkeley, and one kid says that he goes to Northwestern. A girl from Columbia U. asks him, “So, do you like the Northwest?”</p>

<p>Maybe your UVa friend thinks you would be sending your son to Oregon or thereabouts.</p>

71

<p>

</p>

<p>They do not say it out loud but they care VERY VERY much. I was a faculty at such a school…worse at the very top. Administration obsessed over the rankings, and if anything was changing for the worse, they were all over it, and all over us to do something about it. Not anything substantial- its hard to get faculty to do anything that isn’t in their self-interest; but we did tons of surface nonsense that wasted everyone’s time. Obsessed. I’m sooo glad I am out of that circus.</p>

72

<p>

</p>

<p>Come, come JHS, do you really think that is just the perception of high schoolers?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh that’s the answer… they still think that way in college. But at least they grow out of it…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oops. I guess not always.</p>

<p>Really, I know you were being facetious with that last one, but the idea that Harvard could never slip, or that its students, alumni and employees don’t care about its status, whether measured by selectivity, magazine rankings or simply its name recognition in Africa, is ridiculous. Those connected with the university rightly take pride in its reputation and as all humans do, feel competitive and possessive about its place in the world.</p>

<p>Harvard administrators know its important to maximize and maintain key metrics and while the Admissions office is not responsible for figuring out how to stay on top, and has other more lofty goals, you can bet there is someone in the administration in charge of public relations and strategy and coordinating policies among departments to keep it on top.</p>

<p>For example, USNWR, had an apparently new ranking come out this last year on Best Undergraduate Teaching: [Best</a> Colleges - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-ut-rank]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-ut-rank)</p>

<p>As of little importance as this list may be, don’t you think that the fact that Harvard didn’t make it into the top 20, as judged by faculty peers, has been discussed and fretted over, just a little bit?</p>

<p>starbright:

</p>

<p>This strikes me as very plausible at any of the top schools, including HYP.</p>

<p>But back to the main point…if one accepts this strategizing to be true, (which I’m sure some never will) then one can admit that certain admissions policies may have more than one objective and not always be in the best interest of high school students.</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>Wildwood11, I agree with that completely, as applied to Harvard and to anyplace else. The issue we’ve been discussing here is whether that feeling has anything to do with (a) acceptance rate in particular, and (b) USNWR rankings in general. My assertion, which I’ll stand by for the moment, is that at least as applied to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT (and perhaps a few others), they don’t care about those two things, their behavior isn’t directed towards those things, and it would be seen as illegitimate and undignified to pay overt attention to those things.</p>

<p>I’m willing to be schooled otherwise by starbright, but I suspect that he/she is referring to experience at a slightly different level of “elite”, where I have acknowledged that they probably DO care about both.</p>

<p>One legitimate question is whether it matters at all. I have argued that the behavior that results in lower and lower acceptance rates is determined by other factors, but so what? The effect is pretty much the same. There are subtle differences, but not really.</p>

<p>I have a very ambivalent attitude towards the USNWR rankings, and I am happy to admit that I project it onto the admissions staff at the colleges I think I understand. On the one hand, it’s a silly project, creating an illusion of significant differences where none exist, and sometimes masking significant differences where rating factors cut different ways. On the other hand, I think that there’s real value – especially for the vast population others here accuse me of ignoring – in attempting some systematic, good-faith rating project, and I think USNWR goes about it in good faith with reasonably transparent methodology. I understand that USNWR’s methodology and weightings represent a substantive argument about what is valuable and important in college education. I disagree with some of it – everyone probably disagrees with some of it, including individual USNWR editors – but it’s obviously undertaken in good faith and deserves respect. I expect college administrators everywhere – including Harvard – to look at what USNWR is ranking, and how that is being weighted, and to ask themselves, “Is that really important? Why? Are we doing a good enough job there? What else do we think is important? What is our weighting, and is it more justified?” </p>

<p>To that extent, I think the rankings are important and positive in the world. But it galls me no end that high school kids and their parents, sometimes, treat the USNWR rankings as gospel, not simply one informed view in a debate.</p>

<p>(I have had that problem with close friends. A few years ago, some of our best friends were going nuts trying to persuade their daughter to apply ED to College X rather than College Y, and about 90% of the reason for that was that College X ranked three spots higher on that year’s USNWR rankings. College X and College Y, traditional rivals that attract the same students, are practically indistinguishable to the naked eye.)</p>

<p>With respect to the new USNWR “Undergraduate Teaching” rankings, my current attitude is “Bull****”. I mean, it’s nice that they asked the question on their survey, but does anyone really think that there’s a meaningful equivalence between Stanford and UMBC? Or among the nine colleges tied for 11th place, including such utterly different places as Bowling Green, Howard, Berkeley, Chicago, and . . . the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota? (And they still don’t have a way to do the comparison that would be really meaningful, i.e., Swarthmore or Williams vs. Brown or Duke.) Still, I’m happy that they are calling attention to something good happening at UMBC (where one of my son’s high school friends is very happy) or U. St. Thomas (about which I know absolutely nothing except that it’s on this list).</p>

<p>Do I think that people at Harvard fret over its undergraduate teaching? Yes, I do, and I think they should. Do I think that people at Harvard fret over its failure to outplace Bowling Green or U. St. Thomas in the USNWR rankings? Far from it. If anything, the existence of such a patently silly list gives them an excuse to say “Fine! If that’s what they mean by quality teaching, it doesn’t have anything to do with our mission as a university.” And, guess what? If that’s what they mean by quality teaching, it doesn’t have anything to do with Harvard’s mission as a university, and Harvard should ignore it.</p>

74

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, JHS. Let’s see you send your kids outside the top #20 on either the uni or LAC list. Even some of those top 20’s are probably a little suspect – the “if you MUST, I suppose it’s good enough.” I’ll hold my breath! I say this with affection, you should know. I have a soft spot for elitists.</p>

75

<p>“The long and short of it is, there has been a remarkable democratization of higher education in the past 50 years in the United States,” said William Fitzsimmons, admissions dean at Harvard. He said his department’s goal is to get a Harvard application “on the kitchen table of every student in America who has a chance of getting in.”</p>

<p>I’ve just skimmed this thread - thought those of you in the hot debate might enjoy this quote.</p>

76

<p>Completely unjustified attack, Pizzagirl. When my older child was choosing where to go, only one of her choices was ranked in the top 20 on either list (mid-teens if I recall correctly). I had a definite opinion – because on MY list that college was ranked much higher. But if she had decided to take her LAC option, I would have been fine with it, because that college also ranked much higher on my personal list, and I had a lot of respect for one of her lower-ranked uni options as well. When my second child was deciding where to go, the final choice was top 10 vs. somewhere at least 20 places down. (I don’t remember exactly, because I didn’t care.) I saw them as pretty close educational equivalents, and was actively rooting for the lower ranked one which would have cost me a lot less.</p>

<p>(Hint: Perhaps the most serious flaw of the USNWR list is that is systematically underranks great public universities. I am still a horrible snob, but I would be more than proud for my kids to attend one of the world’s great universities in preference to many of the privates ranked higher by USNWR. You are right that some of those top-20s are suspect!)</p>

77

<p>Oh dear – I really didn’t mean to attack or offend you at all, JHS. I was completely saying it with affection. Please accept my apology.</p>

<p>Somehow this discussion is reminding me of my favorite freshman seminar, taught by Joseph Epstein, who wrote extensively on snobbery and had that wonderful combination of elitism and self-deprecation and was a character – in the positive sense of the word. I’ll leave you with this …</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.epstein.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.epstein.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

78

<p>No, let me apologize. “Attack” was the wrong word to use. I didn’t think you were being hostile. I just felt huffy at being so thoroughly misunderstood.</p>

<p>Not that I didn’t want my kids to attend a “top 20” institution if possible. But MY top 20, not USNWR’s! Also, that “if possible” was important, because maybe it wouldn’t have been possible, and I was fully aware that it’s possible to get a great education and to have a great experience even at colleges that are outside the top 20 or 30 on God’s list (assuming that it may differ in some respects from mine).</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>At the risk of being annoying for continuing this thread, I think this quote is very telling. The part about “a chance of getting in” is hugely controversial, because what kind of chance are we talking about? 20%? 7%? 1% or .01%?. Because even though an individual is not a bunch of statistics. There are clearly measured differing probabilities in varying categories of students. Some schools publish on certain general statistics on probabilities relating to scores and gpas etc.:</p>

<p>[Princeton</a> University | Admission Statistics](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Princeton”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/)
[MIT</a> Admissions: Admissions Statistics](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml)
[Brown</a> Admission: Facts & Figures](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University)</p>

<p>So for example at Brown, you have a 26% chance of admission if you are valedictorian but only a 2% chance if you are in the second decile of your class. I think this is very helpful information for kids wanting to gauge their chances and whether it’s worth the effort and money to apply. Those in the second decile who really want to take a shot at it can, but at least they are better prepared for any outcome.</p>

<p>I would suggest that this kind of information could and should be included in any promotional material that colleges send out if they are serious about not wanting to encourage unrealistic applications. It would be nice if they included even more specific data on other aspects of acceptance, such as the percentages of musicians, athletes, foreigners and yes, URMs that are admitted. That would be the honest, helpful thing to do. They could always emphasize the caveat that what stands out in an application can never be known and all the holistic blah, blah, blah, but it would be much fairer to give kids and parents the benefit of this information.</p>

<p>So why won’t they do that?</p>

80

<p>^Wow. That was really sloppily written. Sorry.</p>

<p>And JHS, I respect your take on the USNWR rankings and agree with you. But the fact remains that a lot of people are guided by them and therefore no college, no matter how confident in its own quality, can ignore them.</p>