<p>Byerly, thankyou so much for sharing that piece with us. How interesting to get an inside view on the admissions process. Confirms a number of suspiciouns, including the problems with male enrollement at schools. That 40% threshhold is being threatened at a number of colleges. Another interesting item was the importance of athletics in making the college choice. You can see now how these issues figure in many college's decision. The timing of the acceptances are also an issue. I have noticed that colleges are getting earlier and earlier in sending out the accept letters. All that brougha about the likely letters come into perspective when you see that late notification can redusce yield. I am keeping a copy of that article for my records.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Over the past six years (page 2 of handout), the SAT average for the students weve admitted, has grown by 68 points which is a significant and tangible change. The average SAT for those that we have enrolled has gone up 36 points. The gap between the SAT average of those that we admit and those we enroll, is growing. Were still improving although it has become relatively flat in the last couple of years but there is an increasing gap and that speaks to the fact that the caliber of schools that these students are admitted to is a different group than it was four or five years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As Interesteddad said:
[quote]
How can Providence complain about reduced yield at the same time they are crowing about higher SATs? If they want to increase yield, all they have to do is go back to accepting kids for whom PC is a "reach" not a safety. The quality of the applicant pool hasn't changed; the colleges have been lulled by the increase in applications to safety schools. Of course, if students are afraid of getting into their "match" schools, they will apply to more safeties. If a college, like PC, then accepts only the higher SAT scores from their applicant pool, their yield will decline because these higher SAT kids had no desire to attend PC in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your (Byerly's) economic argument doesn't really address his (Interesteddad's) issue, which is that, for the most part, most colleges are on a linear track, with the usual yearly flucuations. If you try to move statistically to a better place, you suffer the risk PC did -- namely, looking to the waitlist to fill a very large percentage of the class.</p>
<p>Save the vitriol for the Williams/alcohol threads. Or the "Why I should have gone to Swarthmore" threads. On most other matters, his clearer thinking prevails.</p>
<p>I think that a great number of schools are spending enormous resources to
address the increasingly difficult projection and management of admissionss and yield. </p>
<p>A little glimpse at a school such as Mt Holyoke indicates the importance of marketing and positioning. One could learn a lot by reading Joanne V. Creighton's Plan for 2010. It is available at: <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/cic/about/...an_for_2010.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.mtholyoke.edu/cic/about/...an_for_2010.pdf</a> </p>
<p>Here's something that is worth noting: </p>
<ul>
<li>Mount Holyoke College Recruitment Marketing Study: Recommendations for
Marketing Strategies and Tactics [Art & Science Group, January 1999].</li>
<li>Mount Holyoke College Enrollment Plan 1999-2003 [J. Brown, April 1999].</li>
<li>Mount Holyoke College Marketing Situation Assessment [P. VandenBerg,
April 2000].</li>
<li>Report of the Task Force on International Initiatives [April 2001].</li>
<li>Mount Holyoke College: A Marketing Opportunity and Image Analysis [Maguire Associates Inc., July 2002].</li>
</ul>
<p>Can you give a better link?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you try to move statistically to a better place, you suffer the risk PC did -- namely, looking to the waitlist to fill a very large percentage of the class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The real problem is one that Morty Schapiro outlined in one of his college admissions economics papers a few years ago.</p>
<p>Colleges seek to increase the SATs of their student bodies in order to move up the "rankings" and become more "prestigious" and attract more customer interest. The tool colleges have used in this effort is merit-aid discounting. They got better SATs the old-fashioned way...they bought them.</p>
<p>This worked incredibly well for the early-adapters of the strategy. Without naming names, it's easy to point to some very presitigious top-25 schools who used merit-aid discounting to build strong academic reputations. Soon, the approach trickled down to lower rungs on the ladder as seen by Providence's assertion that they buy the top 20% of their class. But, as Schapiro predicted: once everybody is offering the same discounts to high SAT applicants, the discounts no longer have any inducement value. In effect, colleges have just succeeded in lowering their price in the same way that automaker rebates stop working as soon as there is a rebate on every car on every lot across town.</p>
<p>What's even more problematic for the Providences of the world is that the big endowment boys have much more ammunition to play the game. Does anybody want to try to out-discount schools with multi-billion dollar endowments like Duke, Emory, and U Wash-Stl?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, colleges have started to lose their traditional base of support. Colleges like Providence traditionally had a steady supply of customers based on strong regional, church-affiliation, and even ethnic pull. But, as the game becomes more national and more driven by rankings and SATs, the natural customer base starts to erode. In a nutshell, the entire college admissions game has suffered from a decline in self-selection. Schools that were once solid mid-tier choices now appear to be more selective than they really are, an illusion created by merit-aid discounting and the explosion in the number of schools kids apply to. At the same time, kids see their re-centered SAT scores and have a false sense of where they can get accepted. Both the kids and the schools overlook the fact that the high school class rank determining the kids schools can get and the schools kids can get into hasn't really changed. Providence fools itself into thinking it is competing against better schools because their SATs have gone up. But, the yield problems indicate the reality that the relative position of the school hasn't changed at all, despite a increase in their SAT scores on paper. Makes sense. Short of investing huge endowment dollars, it is very difficult to change the character of a school. Colleges are like the proverbial oil-tankers. Very slow to change course.</p>
<p>IMO, the short-term bulge in applications from the echo-boom generation is covering up some serious problems for many colleges. I suspect that once the current bulge has passed through the system, we will see a signficant number of schools encounter financial problems, with some probably going out of business.</p>
<p>That's more or less what I said earlier (in fewer words).</p>
<p>This the correct link. I should have checked it when copying my post. Sorry. </p>
<p>The problem is the adcom's nightmare. More apps than ever, and empty seat because they did not do a good enough job picking.</p>
<p>But the problem that interesteddad points out is that the adcoms are starstruck, so they are picking badly. If they aimed for kids who fit within their historic mid-50 percent enrollment stats, they'd end up making less mistakes. Rather than trying to entice high end applicants with offers of merit money, they should be scrutinizing those files with extra care, looking for at least some evidence that the student is seriously interested in attending. And maybe they should use some of the merit money to try to entice students who fit a different niche than top-of-the-charts academics. For example, a religious college like Providence might use merit money to attract students with a demonstrated record and committment to community service.</p>
<p>The problem with demonstrated need is that a lot of the more astute students and families are well aware of its importance. Any GC worth his salt will tell a kid applying to these schools that they had better visit and court the school a bit. And Providence does seem to good merit aid. It is a college that often appears on the lists of many kids I know, but as the report indicates, it is being put on the back burner for Villanova, Fairfield, Loyola, their direct competition. And there is only so much merit money you can give out. Providence, though a Catholic school, is not so religious, and I believe they have been trying to diversify.</p>
<p>Well, what you're talking about is pure "Tufts Syndrome" - ie, picking the people most likely to accept, and turning down those who are "overqualified."</p>
<p>The trouble with this, carried to extremes, is that it can set you on a downward spiral - most kids would prefer going to a school where there are a lot of smart kids to set the tone, rather than to a "downmarket" school where most kids are noticibly dumber.</p>
<p>The problem that Providence is facing is one that a lot of colleges have. I would be interested in some suggestions on what the school can do to maximize cost effective admissions. "Buying" a class is not going to do that beyond a set point. Turning down kids that don't seem likely to attend because they appear overqualified will hurt in the long run for a school like Providence. By not courting their strongest market, the Catholic highschools and parishes, they risk losing their surest bets, but then they will be getting more of the same student. I do believe that their EA policy attract a deceptively large number of apps as many are using the the early answer as a litmus test and not necessarily serious about attending the school. I don't think the school is strong enough to drop EA and go to ED, but perhaps having a dual EA/ED program may help with financial aid and generous merit aid for early candidates. Also accepting the kids earlier sounds like a good idea. Kids sometimes do get set about a school and then do not want to change their minds and if they have already arranged weekends at an equivalent school by the time they get Providence's acceptance, it does reduce the chances that they will seriously reconsider their choices. There does come a point where people just don't want to keep the process going unless there is a huge benefit to doing so, such as a much more selective school or more money. Though I hate to become an advocate of more athletic scholarships, that may be a route to consider. In my opinion, there are many young men out there who would go on to play a college sport if they had a scholarship incentive. And they are short on men. It would mean doing the same for the women too, but I think it would pay off.</p>
<p>Colleges are short on men because of the increasing feminization of the highschools and the hs faculties but that is a separate issue.</p>
<p>How can PC and schools like it fix its enrollment problem? First they need to drop the multi-tier pricing. This would be an innovation. Stop trying to make some families pay for other families kids to go to college. Leave that mission to Brown University and the government. Cut tuition across the board to slightly more than the average you are actually "collecting" now and make that the new sticker price and stick to it. This will bring the sticker price down a good 25%. It will also necessitate eliminating need based aid apart from third party loans. At the same time eliminate merit aid. You will loose some off the top of the pyramid but you will suddenly become much more competitive with the state schools and find a whole new market of kids and families who will not now even consider a private college.</p>
<p>Universities are educational businesses not social welfare agencies. They need to get out of the business of redistributing wealth and concentrate on providing a quality product at an equitable price.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Colleges are short on men because of the increasing feminization of the highschools and the hs faculties but that is a separate issue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I think an hypothesis we should consider is that men may be innately incapable of performing at a level three standard deviations above the norm! [sorry, couldn't resist a little Summersism]</p>
<p>As for Prov. College, I think the more interesting topic is the implication for college applicants. In my opinion, virtually every college and university faces the same issues Providence faces, albeit to different degrees. The exceptions may be HYPSM and, perhaps, the UCs -- although even these schools face their own versions.</p>
<p>To me, the overwhelming message is that students and colleges are both desperately seeking the ability to identify ideal matches and consumate a deal. The current system, with its over-reliance on rankings and massive number of scattershot apps, is making it much for difficult for students and colleges alike to find these ideal matches. There are kids who would kill to go to Providence College instead of, for example, UMASS-Lowell. But, they are not being matched up, academically or financially.</p>
<p>I think this reinforces my suspicion that the best college list is one that is NOT filled with reaches, but one that is very precisely, and realistically targeted. Show me a kid with median SATs for Providence College who demonstrates a desire to attend, and I'll show you a win/win for the student and Providence College. At the end of the day, the number of apps or their accepted student stats don't mean bupkis. It's the students they can actually get that count.</p>
<p><glyphy of="" long="" low="" whistle=""> Pautuxent, you won't like it, by while colleges and universities may <em>be</em> educational businesses, it's not what they <em>are</em>. (How Clintonian of me...is there a semiotician in the house?) Read their mission statements. A vast preponderance accept and define themselves with a function of, for lack of a better word at this groggy moment, social engineering.</glyphy></p>
<p>Don't like it? Deal with colleges that don't do so. I myself wouldn't send my son or daughter to one but, hey, that's what makes for free choice.</p>
<p>TheDad - you can adopt any high minded mission you want but at the end of the day you can only do the mission somebody is willing to pay for. I am not opposed to PC or any other school taking a wack at social engineering if that is what floats their boat but then don't come crying at the end of the day if you cannot fill your freshman class, pay your staff, or meet the mortgage.</p>
<p>yuck yuck interesteddad - but it is a sad but true fact that our middle and high schools are loosing boys in droves and Black and minority boys in even bigger droves. There is a curriculum component to the problem but there is also a social/cultural problem. Boys need role models and boys raised in female headed households need them even more. Our schools are dominated by women and by and large promote feminine values. </p>
<p>Anyway the problem for Providence and many other schools below the very top tier is that they are squandering their scarce resources trying to buy both top students and needy students and trying to get the a handful of match students to foot the bill. Simple put they have priced themselves out of the market. They are not loosing their erstwhile customers to BC or Holy Cross or even Villanova. They are loosing them to state universities. The real matches are NOT applying AND cannot afford to apply. </p>
<p>Schools like Providence must either rethink their "mission" or their bankers will rethink it for them.</p>
<p>My daughter was waitlisted at Providence College and Villanova this year. Villanova was a reach. Providence was a good match and she was shocked to see that she was waitlisted. Both schools accepted a female and a male classmate with higher scores than hers, ED. Her male classmate will attend Villanova, and I believe her female classmate will attend Holy Cross, but I am not positive. Had Providence accepted my daughter, I believe that she would have chosen to attend, but she would have remained on Villanova's waitlist. Instead, she chose Northeastern and had a wonderful accepted students session. When Providence called on May 2, to tell her that she had been accepted off the waitlist, she declined. She is still on the Villanova waitlist and hopes that she will be accepted, but if not, Northeastern is fine with her. </p>
<p>Another student in her class had a similar experience with Fairfield University. She attended the information session last year and went away convinced that they were looking for better students. She applied to another college and was accepted EA (The binding one sometimes I get confused with EA and ED). She also applied to Fairfield and was accepted! Unfortunately, even though she would have preferred Fairfield, she had a binding acceptance somewhere else.</p>
<p>Sometimes these schools would be better off accepting their match students!</p>
<br>
<p>by and large promote feminine values. </p>
<br>
<p>Wow, I'd love to hear what those are, and how they encourage boys to drop out of school.</p>
<p>I'll let you in on a big secret Hanna - women and men behave differently in groups and hierarchies and have different expectations. You can argue whether gebder is a social construct or biologically determined but the scientific literature on behavioral is overwhelming and if you don;t think there are values differences between men and women then explain the gender gap in politics and voting.</p>