<p>Epiphany, we may very well be talking about different subjects, but do you know any college that is saying:</p>
<p>“Darn, we do too good of a job. We are getting way too many applications. Time has come to rein them in. Let’s restrict the apps from … [fill the blank?]”</p>
<p>While I can only speculate about what happens, I would tend to believe that the overwhleming majority feels they ought and could do better through additional outreach programs, additional mailings, more publicity, and a bigger budget for traveling officers or more hired guns for strategic enrollment management. </p>
<p>The problem might very well be that the avalanche of glossy brochures and the success of outreach programs is also increasing the number of “frivolous” applications. Aren’t people truly impressed by the supposedly handwritten flyers from Prestigious U or the gold-sealed invitations to one of those four letters organizations’ Washington programs? No matter how many times you’ll tell someone that their name was simply culled from a giant database, they’ll keep believing they got it because the school wanted them. </p>
<p>Will it change? Not any time soon. Should it change? Probably not!</p>
<p>Have I heard this quote, or something similar, xiggi? No. However, the exhaustion & exasperation coming from certain corners of the country can be heard throughout the land. And when one looks at sizes of waitlists this yr. (self-reported by many colleges as exceeding anything in recent memory), one wonders if just perhaps they’re having second thoughts – at the very least, about their own marketing, recruitment, visitations, etc. It will be interesting to see how yield shakes out this year. </p>
<p>The traditions of this country favor freedom of choice. If more moderation & responsibility were evident from all corners (colleges, high schools, GC’s, students, parents, private counselors), I would never suggest controls. It seems that some high schools already have some controls in place – or have always had them. (i.e., limiting # of apps). </p>
<p>There is not enough proactive education occurring about the process – from the movers & shakers. Or, families are choosing to ignore such advice.</p>
<p>Epiphany, my comment was along the lines that there <em>is</em> too much misplaced focus on goal and gaming.</p>
<p>It wasn’t a comment on Indy’s suggestion though I don’t really care for it: it has all the negatives of ED, with student commitments being locked in as early as the Fall and if they get into their “first” choice at any point, the ball game is over. I don’t think this serves the overall body of students well, where changes of mind, reordering of priorities and criteria, mulling and reflecting, are all good things, imo.</p>
<p>I do suspect that the current system is creaking and groaning as it works inefficiently.</p>
<p>xiggi - I appreciate your feedback but you really need to get of CC more and pay attention to the news outside - re VP Cheney. Little story a few weeks back about how he shot a fellow hunter in the face because he thought he was a quail and didn’t think it was worth telling anyone about. </p>
<p>I totally agree that students should do what they are passionate and good at (Latin, tuba, breastroke) without regard to what college it will get them into. I am just saying when it is time to APPLY that it would be of great utility to parent, student, and college to know <em>where</em> those alleged ‘hooks’ are most valued, giving both parties a better chance of ‘hooking up’. </p>
<p>As ephipany points out, and the apps per student bears out, students are now engaged in a shotgun approach (thus the Cheney ref) instead of series of calculated rifle shots. You use a shotgun when you just want to hit something that is moving quickly or location is unsure. Aside from increasing the extremely dubious measure of a school’s worth - selectivity - there is little value to continuing the system as it stands today. </p>
<p>No, this is not sour grapes - it is felt keenly by most high school seniors and and their families, and produces all sorts of unneccessary strain on adcoms as well as they worry that yield will fall their way. Wouldn’t adcoms welcome a situtation where they only reviewed candidates that expressed a serious at worst 50/50 interest in attending if admitted? Who gets 50% yields other than the tippy top? Every comment I’ve ever read from adcom reps makes it clear that they know they are playing a game with selectivity that they feel demeans them and the students affected but they have no choice to play.</p>
<p>Indydukie, there is a danger in assuming a bit too much. </p>
<p>I would not have had to venture far from CCC (that is the Cafe aka College Communist Central" to read all the good tidbits about Cheney’s unfortunate accident. Of course, I would have to venture in the “real world” to find more wisecracking:</p>
<p>You know, I don’t think we need another system of tracking apps, though I think that overall things would be better if there was some way of screening out for multiple cross-apps at the elite schools. I think what is frustrating to some people is to see some kids with multiple Ivy admits, and others who have applied to multiple Ivies but been rejected from them all. Obviously some were rejected for good reason, but the question remains: would the oboe-playing quarterback from Arkansas have been admitted to Dartmouth, if Dartmouth had not already admitted the oboe-playing fullback from Minnesota who is going to end up going to Yale? How many students are rejected from their top choice colleges each year because of spots going to others who have never had any intention of attending? </p>
<p>But I think Xiggi is right - the colleges like getting bigger applicant pools, and they are able to fairly reliably project overall yield. And I think that efforts to limit the number or pacing of applications would just put more power in the hands of the colleges, while taking away control from the students. If anything, I think that ED should be eliminated to make the process more egalatarian, not the other way around.</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t adcoms welcome a situtation where they only reviewed candidates that expressed a serious at worst 50/50 interest in attending if admitted?”</p>
<p>Aren’t we supposed to apply to schools where we have a 100% interest in attending? Whomever applies to a school with little or no interest in attending is only fooling him- or herself -and that includes safeties. </p>
<p>“Who gets 50% yields other than the tippy top? Every comment I’ve ever read from adcom reps makes it clear that they know they are playing a game with selectivity that they feel demeans them and the students affected but they have no choice to play.”</p>
<p>What is the game that is played with selectivity? Is this supposed to relate to the often misunderstood selectivity item in the US News rankings? The same one that corrupts the entire ranking with its huge weight of 1.5% of the total? Don’t you think that schools are keenly aware that they get a LOT more bang for the buck by finding ways -or inventing- ways to boost the alumni giving rates? Or even, better making sure the buddy system does not fail to deliver the beautifully manipulated peer assessment! </p>
<p>Students DO have the choice NOT to play, and most are just doing that. What is the percentage of students who are attending their first choice? 25% or 50%? More than 50%? Could it be close to 70%? Of course it is. </p>
<p>Although more than 90 percent of students are attending their first or second choice institution, most of the ink is spent addressing students who are attending a school that was less than their second choice. Is the fact that todays percentage (9.4%) has doubled since 1974 (4.7%) really THAT alarming?</p>
The reality is that most students really don’t want the safety - but they are necessary when admission or affordability at more favored colleges is not guaranteed. I can assure you that my daughter did not ever want to go to UC Santa Barbara – and that is exactly where she would probably be going next fall but for the double fortune of getting admitted to Barnard with decent financial aid. Even if we could predict changes of admission to a more desired school with certainly, the uncertainty of financial aid would have remained. </p>
<p>So while I don’t think a student should list a safety that they wouldn’t attend in any circumstances, but asise from that – there is a reason that we call the school a “safety”. </p>
<p>However, this admissions madness really doesn’t affect the schools that are safeties for most students – those are already low-yield schools where chances of admission can easily be predicted. (I don’t think anyone at UC Santa Barbara gives a hoot whether my daughter enrolls or not – they know they are going to be full up in September, wherever the kids come from).</p>
<p>Oh Calmom, I just happen to suscribe to the “Love thy safety” motto. I also like to call this type of schools as highly likely. Students who only arm themselves with a top-heavy list of reaches and high matches and only add a couple of safeties they would hate to attend are facing a potential nightmare. On the other hand, it does not help much to add five or six safeties if none offer better choices. </p>
<p>My preference goes to identify a “highly likely” school that one could still love to attend and then develop a realistic list of match schools within a good range as the early add-on. After that the reaches are easy to pick. :)</p>
<p>Well, sometimes the criteria that the student is looking for pretty much makes it hard to find a safety that works. For my son it was easy - he was a high stat kid who wanted a small LAC, content with a suburban or small-city locale- plenty to choose from, including some that offered good merit money.</p>
<p>My daughter started her search with visits to match/safety type schools but was not at all comfortable with what she found. She also very much wanted to get out of state. She ended up realizing that she wanted a mid-size to large college in a big, major city – and she also wanted one with a strong slavic languages department. The safeties tended not to have the course offerings she wanted. </p>
<p>She would have adjusted to wherever she ended up - but my point is that the process of college selection just isn’t that easy. There was no college on her list that she would have refused to attend if that had ended up being the only choice available- but some would have entailed compromising a lot on the sort of education she wanted. I’m not talking about prestige or rankings – I’m just talking about overall college environment and whether the college offers the sort of program the student is looking for.</p>
<p>Just curious – what was your safety when you applied?</p>
<p>Finding a true safety was difficult for my D’s criteria as well, a combination of academics, ballet, size, and location > 200 miles from home. When she got a “likely” letter from Wellesley, the second phrase out of her mouth was, “Oh good, I don’t have to go to Skidmore.” Which in turn illustrates the conundrum that somebody’s sullen safety is someone else’s desired reach.</p>
<p>We didn’t have a safety. But my d. had already spent a year at Evergreen, and would have been quite happy spending another (though music resources were scarce.) We assumed (correctly) that in her case it was a seller’s market. Frankly, for many if not most kids, if they choose right, it SHOULD be a seller’s market. </p>
<p>Instead of saying “safety”, we should say, "good college that will want me! (and, hopefully, purchase my services.)</p>
<p>I agree with that. If the college list is properly targetted, the “safeties” should never come into play. Not saying that everyone shouldn’t have one, but if the matches all say “no thanks”, then they obviously weren’t matches to begin with.</p>
<p>“Just curious – what was your safety when you applied?”</p>
<p>If that was directed at me, the answer is simple. University of Texas and ASU through rolling admissions. I would have gladly attended both of them. My application process was very, very simple and did not have ED nor EA.</p>
<p>Not to bash Evergreen, Mini, but when my son recently applied and was admitted as a transfer, I did note that they had a 95% admit rate. That, coupled with the fact that they have rolling admissions, would definitely make it a “safety” – and a financial safety as well for Washington residents.</p>
<p>xiggi - “Students DO have the choice NOT to play, and most are just doing that. What is the percentage of students who are attending their first choice? 25% or 50%? More than 50%? Could it be close to 70%? Of course it is.”</p>
<p>I don’t know where you get these numbers you cite, but anecdotally I suggest it is far lower like 50% at best. And that’s a system that doesn’t work. </p>
<p>don’t get me started on Cheney he is the biggest traitor this country has ever seen.</p>
<p>Well, you can keep relying on your anecdotal evidence. </p>
<p>I prefer to cull my numbers from freshman norms that are based on the responses of 282,549 students at 437 of the nations baccalaureate colleges and universities. The data has been statistically adjusted to reflect the responses of the 1.2 million first-time, full-time students entering four-year colleges and universities as freshmen. The numbers I quoted were from the 2003 Annual Report. </p>
<p>That report happened to be the 37th year of the UCLA Survey, the nations longest-standing and most comprehensive assessment of student attitudes and plans. Conducted in association with the American Council on Education, the survey serves as a resource for higher education researchers throughout the world.</p>
<p>Accordingly, please forgive me for having to reject your suggestion.</p>