We have changed the way we log in on College Confidential. Read more here.
Stanford will no longer announce undergraduate application numbers
This discussion has been closed.
Recent Activity
-
16 0
-
426 19
-
41 4
-
14 0
-
141.1K 1.1K
-
32 0
-
100 2
-
1 0
-
195 9
-
116 2
Replies to: Stanford will no longer announce undergraduate application numbers
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us/led-by-stanfords-5-top-colleges-acceptance-rates-hit-new-lows.html
I really wonder the amount of kids that apply for the "what if" factor? My son last year pulled his MIT and Stanford apps at the last minute. He reviewed his school's acceptance rates over the years and think he just looked in the mirror and said why me? I actually was the one encouraging him to still apply. I also handed him a frame. He goes what's this for. I said to frame the rejection letter from MIT. Might look cool in your office one day. B-)
"We need more transparency not less."
At these high application levels, there in no such thing as "transparency." You have to read a few thousands applications to get the picture! SATs, ACTs, GPAs, a list of ECs and a socio/economic grouping are elements of a painting, but not THE painting. Decisions turn in a subjective direction, by necessity. Think of the best novels you have read and then tell me why you rated one higher than another. Can anyone else hold a different opinion?
These schools have very intense propaganda machines that go out of their way to sell surface level prestige almost as much or more than things that will affect or enhance the student experience if they are admitted and decide to matriculate. Sadly, it is and has been an effective feed-forward system and it seems that some view the admissions statistics as basically the only thing that signals the health of an institution despite the fact that effective marketing and communications can yield far bigger returns in this arena than actual increases in academic/institutional quality/character. Just sell something that glitters to prospective students, but ain't actually gold via your communications team and Voila! Watch the apps pour in.
"One of the rules of marketing is "first have a great product". So, by that rule, Stanford is in good shape........"
That's not exactly one of the essential rules of marketing, it's a nice to have of course. And what proof do you have that any of these universities have a better product than the other?
I am not making any claim, I am asking for supporting evidence for the claim that top 30-40 schools are only marketing good vibes.
You can go on many university/CAS websites as well as admissions websites and look at the imagery and nature of the blogs to get an idea of what many schools are trying to play up. The expenditures of many elite schools, including most elites have suggested the increased value placed on "quality of life" and "fun". You can see how many construction projects are geared towards undergraduate dorms (especially freshmen at many places) and other shiny new amenities. Much of marketing will focus on how nice the campus looks, how shiny the current amenities are and the fact they are building even more to appease students. Academically focused structures and construction are often played down relative to that sort of stuff (think student unions, gyms, etc). I don't need to list examples. I attended one of these places. They are great relative to other places, but I will not pretend that they are perfect and don't go out of their way to sell students feel good stuff. Let us not pretend that lots of places don't do this and also recognize that some schools have seen stark increases in admissions success (on paper) versus super elite schools academically not because they improved undergraduate academic opportunities such that they truly rivaled such schools, but because they were very "nice" and "not so stressful". I have done comparisons of the academics between some of these newer schools with HYPM level stats versus HYPM...they don't compare particularly well (even at the undergrad level in the areas I am interested in.
I would name names including my own alma mater, but I really do not feel like lighting flames right now. They are not alone, many of the very top ranked schools pre-dominantly known for raw strength of academic programs seem to have followed suit and joined the construction arms race after many of the "new Ivies" as well as many public schools who did the same thing to compete. There is nothing wrong with selling the "feel good" aspects, but I feel as if it should not be overdone. My point is that it has become easy to sell prestige and grandeur using superficial "improvements".
You can look up literature and articles that point out these issues if you do not wanna believe me. I'm not going to do this today though I normally wood write you a nice little thesis including examples, studies, compelling anecdotal articles, etc. Some people just hate hearing that elite schools can do no wrong or hate them being critiqued in any way. They are not beyond reproach and are certainly not above continuing the games that significantly less well-off schools employ even post-prestige. They tend to follow whatever trends.
@SCMHAALUM : Eh...the opposite happens more than you think. Among the talented and high caliber applicants they get, there will be lots of seemingly randomness and surprises when looking at those who are actually admitted. Really hard to tell and then the evaluates are human. Was it Amherst or Haverford who had a little blip of an evaluation session recorded? A lot of weirdness and human element can go into evaluating qualified candidates.
I do feel that the majority of students, parents, and advisers place more emphasis on academics as do the majority of schools. Rightly, so.
@SCMHAALUM , IMO it is exactly those types of variances that give the student bodies at different colleges a unique flavor. Most people can pick up on the character of different schools and that's a good thing.
One thing I think it's unfair to include 4 year graduation rate when it comes to ranking (by USNWR for example) Stanford because Stanford students tend to take off time to do other stuff before graduating. When it comes to top colleges, I don't know why this factor should be important.
Graduation rates mostly proxy admission selectivity, with a dash of other factors (e.g. may be lower if the school enrolls more low SES or nontraditional students who take lighter course loads due to work obligations, or if coop or other semesters off school are common).
But many people believe that they reflect how likely a given student is to graduate on time, even though it should be obvious that a student who can get into Stanford is very likely to graduate in four years even if s/he attends SFSU (18% graduation rate).
Perhaps more relevant are graduation rates relative to those expected based on admission selectivity, though one must still be careful to determine whether the difference is due to school treatment effects or student factors that may or may not apply to an individual student.
The second area they mislead is the type of environment, we know from students at these campuses, that some of the selective ones are competitive, maybe cutthroat and are stressful. Does that show up on the website? Anyway I think we're getting off topic.
Perhaps this may have more to do with major or pre-professional path. Some paths, such as pre-med, require very high college GPAs to stay in, so they may be more cutthroat or stressful for all but the very top students at the college.