<p>Two questions:</p>
<p>1 - “Likelihood of enrolling” is as important a variable as is “Recruited athlete status,” each being weighted 7% among the Most Important Variables in Determining Institutional Fit for Those Who Start With Focus on Fit [21% of the 63 responding schools]. </p>
<p>Question: What is “likelihood of enrolling?” Is it code for one thing or is it a catch-all? Factors that come to my mind that might be included are legacy, anti-Tufts syndrome, demonstrated interest, ???</p>
<p>2 - Transparency - The researcher was conflicted about applicants knowing the details of a school’s holistic review process. "I always think more information is better and transparency is better, but I worry applicants might tailor their applications too much if they knew more, she said."</p>
<p>Question: I don’t see how tailoring comes into play with too many of these categories–you either are or aren’t a URM, athlete, talented person, development case or an applicant for FA. The only thing I can come up with relates to the tip given to full pays after FA runs out (which some schools already publicize, more often in the waiting list process, I believe). I guess if I’m applying to a <em>need blind</em> reach or high match and I need FA, it’s to my advantage to “tailor” my app to include indicators of my socioeconomic status with the hope a reader who likes my otherwise borderline app will “improperly” use my “improper” tailoring to push my app while there’s still money. ??? Is that even close? Can someone enlighten me?!</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>