"Admissions Revolution"

Parents Forum
101

<p>Cynical? It is better than being an abject hypocrite. I think Thacker is a fraud and an arriviste … and I say so! He is in the same league as the people at FairTest and at the Princeton Review Foundation. They do not have any resources for research, so they take simple shorcuts to find culprits. At least, Fairtest shows some consistency. </p>

<p>Actually I have changed my mind about something: I do hope he gets plenty of funding to allow people like me to READ his deliverables, and count the orginal thoughts and constructive ideas. If his first book is any indication, that won’t take much time. Oh well, why do I even bother discussing this guy! </p>

<p>Now that is being cynical!</p>

102

<p>Xiggi, somewhere, buried in all that stinging invective aimed against Thacker you do bring up a good point - what does it take to make someone an expert in a field? Education and years of experience among other factors. After The Education Conservancy gets all those grant funds and does whatever it is going to do we will have to revisit all this and reassess what goods are brought to the table and rightly so. That is also why it is impossible to say at this point whether this is an admissions revolution, a watershed, a fork, or just a bump in the road. Good research, and good results are what we all want and Thacker will have a golden opportunity to prove if the Spencer and Mellon Foundations have made a good bet on his human capital. Btw, I haven’t read anything about Thacker being a philanthropist - only a consumer advocate. I think part of our fascination with him is his drive and conviction (no matter how much some might people think it is misplaced); after all it is not all that usual for someone at his age to quit their job and follow their passion. Nothing hypocritical about that - no more so than so many other things going on in our society these days. In a society where the medium is the message has become mainstream we suffer through a constant barrage of commercial hype and pc yet most of us still manage to see through all the hype and enjoy the spirit of things. So it will be with college admissions. The basic message is to break the viscious cycle that just about everyone agrees exists and for students to be themselves but given all the contradictions inherent in the process that message seems to be too hard for a lot of students and parents to hear and to heed. I suppose that is why people who are in a position to grant funds for research on this subject feel the imperative need to do so.</p>

<p>On a related note, during world cup finals week, I can’t help but thinking of an awkward young man who showed enormous promise as a star soccer player back in the early 60s. A serious injury ended his soccer playing days and so he decided to follow his passion and sing. Well, he was hooted at, called naive and an arrivist buffoon and laughed off the stage many times. Finally sick of the criticisms he left his native country and didn’t return until he was begged to - as a star. I don’t know how many people will actually read this or know who I am referring to - but let’s just say nobody is laughing at him now nor at his son. People can change careers and some people might even be said to be destined to do so. That is just life - to think otherwise is cynical, pure and simple.</p>

<p>Even if all that the many voices out there do is to make us more aware of how to see through the commercialism and hype that is not such a bad thing right there. Especially now as all those glossy, flirtatious post-SAT e-mails hit your S’s and D’s inbox.</p>

103

<p>Asterisk, I will answer the part of your post about Thacker later. It’s a bit too early for me on a hot July day! </p>

<p>However, since you like anecdotes, allow me to add one describing the soccer player turned singer. A few years agom he decided to record duets with many well known stars, and for that purpose, traveled deep into redneck territory to meet Willie Nelson. Willie was told that a Mr. XXX was met at the door step by an assistant of Willie and said wanted to discuss a job. When told the name of the appplicant, the good hearted Willie told his assistant to please escort Mr. XXX to the … kitchen, and ask the chef if anything was available. Only then did the protesting Mr. XXX share that he was one of the highest record selling artists of all times. </p>

<p>PS This story was told on national TV by both artists.</p>

104

<p>Thanks for the anecdote Xiggi. Nothing better on a hot July day. Now, if you excuse me, it is siesta time and as you said La Vida Sigue Igual.</p>

105

<p>asterisk:</p>

<p>“marketing, branding, enrollment management…” Isn’t this commercialization, and not in the public’s interest…an anethema to Thacker’s way of thinking?</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2656491#post2656491[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2656491#post2656491&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

106

<p>I don’t see the Tufts experiment as being revolutionary. Tufts is not proposing to ditch standard criteria for admissions, just to de-emphazize them a bit. And Sternberg seems to focus mostly on devising writing prompts that will elicit different kinds of essyas–much like Chicago’s writing prompts (I’m with Newmassdad on this). This will not do away with the issue of esseays the have been worked over by editors. In fact, it may worsen the problem. What this amounts to is change at the margin, not a bold new direction.</p>

107

<p>BlueBayou, You win the prize. I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that. Of course, there is absolutely no connection between Thacker, the Education Conservancy and Tufts. The Tufts experiment was “all the buzz” at the Harvard June conference which I did make mention of just to point out that Thacker is not the only one working on all of this. There are many voices and many approaches to what I like to call the admissions imbroglio - and just as obviously we are dealing with spin and media hype in the name of management enrollment. At the same time one can argue that Sternberg’s bold direction is to launch his project not as part of the SAT but as part of the application process. Now, we can also see re the other thread that most everyone’s comfort zone is now being challenged and there are clear sings of angsting over the optional changes. Marite is probably right on target thinking what many people want to figure out is how to game this one. I think Steinberg’s approach is different precisely because it attempts to introduce an element of whimsy and fun into the process, especially for those kids who are divergent thinkers and whose gpa’s and SAT scores are not brilliant but unfortunately I don’t think many people are going to see it that way.</p>

108

<p>It seems to me that to be an empowered parent it is important to know as much as possible about the role of advertising and marketing in the admissions game but not to bash the concept either. Advertising and pr is a booming business but a job well done can work for everyone involved - the colleges, students and parents - not just in promoting brand name recognition but in creating brand names to be recognized. Tufts is not only quite open about its PR revamp but is proud of its campaign to update its image and brand recognition. The academic and administrative changes made by Sternberg at Tufts are significant enough to warrant a make-over which, hopefully, will be just as much substance as cosmetic. This openness promotes transparency and as such, this type of brand revamp does not necessary seem to me to fall into the catetegoy of “hype”. Of course, this holds only If there is a strong and clear connect between the college’s academic mission and the campaign.</p>

<p>Brand name recognition is a fact of life these days and not just the purview of elite, prestige colleges. As enrollment numbers fall off at many institutions and the costs of providing quality education increase, colleges (including community colleges, public colleges, as well as small private colleges etc. need to up the numbers and attract students.</p>

<p>On the lighter side, take a look at this NYT op ed piece. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/opinion/26Budiansky.html?ex=1303704000&en=cab15905ef64a705&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/opinion/26Budiansky.html?ex=1303704000&en=cab15905ef64a705&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

109

<p>The signs are quite clear, already. By 2009, we can expect the demographic downturn to kick in when the last of the “baby boomletters” graduate college. After 2009, the number of high school graduates will decline for the first time in two decades - this decline will be felt more sharply in the Northeast than in other parts of the country. In light of the “admissions frenzy” currently fueling the “admissions revolution” this does seem like good news doesn’t it? Like everything else, the answer to that one is “yes” and “no” because the expected demographic downturn is an integral part of the on-going frenzy. Faced with the certainty that there will be more empty seats to fill, many colleges -especially those off the beaten track realize that they have to try harder to become better known in order to attract larger and stronger applicant pools. It shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone following the admissions revolution story, that at many private and public colleges, enrollment managers are already “preparing for the coming shortage. In an effort to maintain the dramatic enrollment gains they’ve made, many are extending their recruiting efforts to faster-growing states, as well as adopting new academic programs to appeal to a wider pool of students.” This means the strong emphasis on aggressive recruiting, brand imaging, and marketing strategies that is the hallmark of the current admissions frenzy will continue to be significant factors shaping the college admissions game.</p>

<p>Case in point - in Florida, Drexel University "aggressively reinvented itself as a university with national reach, creating such a large pool of applicants that its leaders are confident they will hardly feel the pop when the enrollment bubble bursts.</p>

<p>"‘We knew there would be a bubble, so the strategy was to increase our applications so much that even if we have a drop there will still be many students for us to choose from,’ Drexel president Constantine Papadakis said. He said Drexel got about 18,500 applications this year for 2,300 spots.</p>

<p>For schools whose very existence had once been threatened by low enrollments, the bubble has provided a grace period during which to retool their academic offerings."</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15160639.htm[/url]”>http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15160639.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Seems only logical then, that Alfred University in New York reinstituted its marketing major in 1994 after it had been eliminated in 1987 because “Marketing has always been a popular major. It uniquely includes so many interesting areas of study — psychology, anthropology, statistics, sociology, mathematics, economics, etc. — that there is something in it for everyone,” said Dr. Howard. “There are many job opportunities in the field. If you include the distribution field in marketing, more people in the United States work in marketing than in any other field.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.alfred.edu/pressreleases/viewrelease.cfm?ID=2460[/url]”>http://www.alfred.edu/pressreleases/viewrelease.cfm?ID=2460&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

110

<p>correction to above post: sorry, I typed “1994” instead of “2004” - I don’t think the folks at Alfred U. were that ahead of the game - the marketing major was brought back in 2004.</p>

111

<p>Now that the money has come in, we are going to hear more from Lloyd Thacker and the Education Conservancy. Thacker is just one of several guidance counselors quoted in the Inside Higher Education article “The Earliest Early Admission”. </p>

<p>In terms of a total picture of the admissions game, a turn toward the use of super early decision most likely does have a great deal to do both with the baby boomlet that exists now and the expected demographic downturn after 2009. Even though baby boomlet numbers are expected to drop and demand for college entrance level off, the downturn does not necessarily signify that colleges will stop aggressive marketing or recruiting practices to compete for students in order to build their classes. </p>

<p>In fact, there are signs that the projected downturn heralds an intensification of certain practices that would allow colleges not only to attract strong applicant pools but to lock in a certain number of students early, as a means to ensure enrollment. According to this Inside Higher ed. article, many educators do see this as a disturbing trend and deem it to be “unfair” to students and parents. This practice appears to be a growing, trend among smaller colleges to compete for students. Admissions folks at some of the colleges involved do not view this practice as a “strategy” but they do admit that it gives them a “leg up”. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/08/admissions[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/08/admissions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

112

<p>“Now that the money has come in, we are going to hear more from Lloyd Thacker and the Education Conservancy.”</p>

<p>Great, he’ll be able to afford buying a clue! I am again impressed by another amazingly novel thought from the EC genius. Thanks, Thacker, we REALLY did not know that! </p>

<p>When will the village reclaim his resident idiot?</p>

113

<p>Xiggi, I am sure with all that grant money Thacker can certainly afford a deluxe edition of Clue as well as Boggle, Chutes and Ladders, Connect Four, and even electronic Battleship, although I am quite sure that we both agree that Monopoly would not be a wise investment at this time and would be a Sorry squandering of funds. It really is a no-brainer that since he stands on the side that views early decision as a strategy that can be all too easily manipulated to promote college’s interests to boost admission yields, that he would reel back in horror at another twist on it that would push back early decision even earlier. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see what role Thacker and the Education Conservancy will play in the admissions world as it becomes a “brand name” of sorts in its own right. Btw, many college admission websites now do address these same issues - I recently came across an article on early decision, written from the Education Conservancy side of the issue on the Kenyon College website called “Decisions Decisions”. </p>

<p>FWIW, iteration in this case is one device that keeps the debate open and makes us more aware of the issues; and even invites us to take a closer look at the dynamics involved in admissions - such as enrollment management techniques and national and local demographic factors. These days, many colleges are projecting and planning up to 2015 already.</p>

<p>CCer’s might want to take another look-see at the above linked article - there is a comment well worth reading posted by Carolyn!</p>

114

<p>Talk about clueless, Xiggi’s arrogance and venom say more about him than Thacker.</p>

115

<p>dear revolted – play nice; aster’s response used humor to say the same thing</p>

116

<p>Lloyd should recieve kudos for his passion and ability to confuse separate issues, as does the author of the Higher Ed articles. Obviously, non-binding EA is a whole lot different than binding ED. Moreover, does Lloyd have any data points (or just more anecdotes) of kids who are accepted ED/SCEA that just sleep thru their senior year? (The anecdotes at our HS are nope, nada, zip. All ED/SCEA acceptees remained in the top 10 thru graduation.)</p>

<p>More to the point: Lloyd has yet to ‘prove’ his (and others’) assumption that ED benefits only the colleges. I would suggest that ED can and does benefit many kids.</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Mini has posted previously that ~40-50% of matriculants at the hyper-compeitive colleges are full pay. If scion Johnny or Sallie has his/her heart set on attending mom’s alma mater or Coach K’s tentville, why should they not be allowed to apply early to a binding program. Rememeber, they are full pay, and do not need to compare finaid packages, and thus, have no reason to wait until May 1.</p></li>
<li><p>Recruited athletes can and do want the calls and letters to stop! Heck, they even sign LOI’s way before May 1. [As an aside, why doesn’t Lloyd condemn that practice?] But, more practically, why shouldn’t recruits to non-D1 (and non-scholarship Ivies) schools be able to commit early?</p></li>
<li><p>Even need-based kids may benefit from ED, but to a lesser extent. If a family runs a college estimator and views a standard aid package, why shouldn’t they be able to decide that they are ok with the standard self-help component, i.e., will take the risk of not comparing aid packages, to obtain the tip that ED provides?</p></li>
<li><p>The only ‘definitive’ study on ED was The Early Admissions Game. (The data looked credible to me, but it may not have been.) But, assuming it is close, the data showed that ED provided a boost of 100 SAT points, on average, in admissions to the hyper schools. 100 points is quite a bit, and, it seems to me that those kids were helped by ED, no? Why does the Ed Conservancy think that is a bad thing?</p></li>
</ul>

<p>I’m sure we collectively could identify more kids that benefit from ED, which, essentially refutes Thacker’s main thesis: that ED helps only colleges. I would submit that kids ARE helped. as well.</p>

<p>btw: Wake Forest has had rolling ED for several years; one can apply as soon as the Junior grades are posted. Never heard one peep about their program from Lloyd.</p>

117

<p>Re:
Sleeping ED/EA through last semester of high school: S had an enormously challenging last semester. The 2 AP tests, the 2 college class finals, the senior class finals and the junior-year AP-USH final project came pretty much in the same 2 weeks span. More like a sleep-deprived semester than a sleeping-through one.</p>

118

<p>bluebayou makes a good argument for early decision for some kids; I think Thacker’s argument (and that of many of us promoting reform) is that colleges are setting aside more and more of their slots to early admits, leaving far few slots for RD kids – thus forcing the issue on applicants who need more time or better financial guarantees.</p>

119

<p>I noticed that both Tufts and Wake Forest opt for binding single-first choice types of early decision plan and that Tufts has been scaling back on the number of students admitted under ED, getting closer to 30% of the class. Since there is no blueprint for reform, I suppose it is worth asking if this is the “magic number” that many colleges that advocate reform want to strive toward? </p>

<p>While the authors of “The Admisisons Game”, Fairbanks and Zeckhauser, do indeed point out that ED/EA give an edge to certain applicants, and even allay a degree of stress for some students, they also point out that precisely because of this:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>They also go on to say:</p>

<p>

.</p>

<p>See: “What Worms for the Early Bird? Early Admissions at Selective Colleges’”</p>

<p><a href=“http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NUd49-Wjo4gJ:www.econ.yale.edu/”>http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NUd49-Wjo4gJ:www.econ.yale.edu/&lt;/a&gt;
seminars/strategy/t01/avery-011107.pdf+early+decision+beneficial+or+detrimental&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a</p>

<p>Now that we are awash in all the new 2007 rankings and the mixed messages that colleges and the media are sending us, it is not surprising that ED and EA are still under fire because these admission options can be gamed in order to make a college or university appear to be more selective and thereby influence rankings. (btw, James Fallows’ article “The Early-Decision Racket” in the Atlantic Monthly is still worth a read in this regard.) The Education Conservancy’s position on rankings and the concept of “college selectivity” as a proxy for academic quality is quite clear, or at least it should be by now:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“404”>404;

<p>Case in point, the new controversy surrounding the University of Chicago and the new USNWR rankings:</p>

<p>

</p>

120

<p>Well, I still think Chicago’s rank is too low.</p>