Small colleges raise the bar on admissions

Parents Forum
1

<p>From SF Chronicle, <a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/07/ADMISSIONS.TMP&feed=rss.news[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/07/ADMISSIONS.TMP&feed=rss.news&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Excerpts:

</p>

2

<p>thanks for the link
I will forward it to my D
We are restricting our search to schools in the West- which limits of course the choices
I noticed that in the west college guide I bought her- she has sticky notes on Pomona- Claremont McKenna & Occidental.
If * I * say anything to her, about broadening her search, she has the overreaction of " I don’t think she should go to college", it is more helpful to be able to have something else give her the warning.</p>

3

<p>Hmmmm. I thought Pitzer was supposed to be SAT-optional.</p>

4

<p>And the colleges don’t get one bit better as a result of the year-over-year changes. Graduation rates are the same. Faculty is the same. Endowment rises and falls with the stock market. Courses don’t change. Grading systems don’t change.</p>

5

<p>Pitzer isn’t purely test-optional – it allows submission of alternative forms of testing or will waive the tests when GPA or class rank is high enough:

6

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re right but the information that the colleges have become more selective is still of value to applicants.</p>

<p>Several of my daughter’s friends who have excellent stats and ECs have found themselves with no alternative to the state university because they underestimated the selectivity of the other colleges that they applied to and were rejected by all of them. An accurate understanding of the selectivity of various colleges can help students to make better choices.</p>

7

<p>good catch epihany
I just printed the Fairtest list for my D- and Pitzer is on it- I wonder how many students submit their scores- </p>

<p>I have a comment though mini-
my impression is that the overall pool of students is both getting larger and more competitive, as more students are preparing for college, with advanced courses in high school , students that 20 years ago, or even 10, might have prepared just by taking " prep" classes, not AP.</p>

<p>One of the arguments that in the district re “gifted” education, is that it is important for the cohort to remain together.
If a school has students with 3.8 GPA, with a few AP classes and higher SAT scores, it seems that it may be a different school, than it was 10 years ago, with students that had C averages, and no AP scores.
While not all students like the seminar approach, as at Reed, the rigor of a seminar may have a lot to do with the students participating.</p>

<p>While I think some community college classes can be very good, for example the biochem class my D tookfrom Tracy Furitani at NSCC who has a undergrad degree from Caltech and a Ph.d from Stanford,( and is also a great instructor) I also had, had, seminar style classes at NSCC, where the discussions were limited by the interest of the students, despite the instructors depth of knowledge of the subject.</p>

<p>I was taking CC classes, not just because they were cheap, but because I didn’t want to take the SAT & because I didn’t have the pre-reqs for the UW.
I imagine many of my classmates, had similar background. But if we had been more prepared, and had, had a more academic background, I think it would have been a better class. Not changing the instructor- just the students.</p>

8

<p>“You’re right but the information that the colleges have become more selective is still of value to applicants.”</p>

<p>True. The headline is misleading. Small colleges did NOT raise the bar on admissions. The high number of multiple applicants did.</p>

9

<p>Hasn’t Bowdoin been on the USN&WR list of top ten LACs for the last 10 years at least?</p>

10

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>One relevant thing does change in this process for any given school: the other students are getting smarter. I’ve always viewed who one studies with as an important element of the educational process. In this sense the whole demographic shift may have moved students to different institutions than they would have attended 20 years ago, but they have the same classmates that they would have had 20 years ago in terms of talent.</p>

11

<p>Marite,</p>

<p>They were 9th in 2000.</p>

12

<p>Yes, I know. That’s the year my S matriculated, though not at Bowdoin.
That’s top ten, isn’t it? Maybe they were in the top 10 before. And I believe they’ve been in the top 10 ever since.</p>

13

<p>“One relevant thing does change in this process for any given school: the other students are getting smarter. I’ve always viewed who one studies with as an important element of the educational process. In this sense the whole demographic shift may have moved students to different institutions than they would have attended 20 years ago, but they have the same classmates that they would have had 20 years ago in terms of talent.”</p>

<p>No evidence. They ARE getting wealthier.</p>

14

<p>Marite,</p>

<p>That wasn’t meant to rebut. It’s just data from the the only old copy I have. You’re too used to me disagreeing with you.</p>

15

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Could you elaborate?</p>

16

<p>Curious:</p>

<p>Oh, okay, thanks. I,too recall the information from 1999, the first time I ever looked at USN&WR. I’m just surprised that the article would use Bowdoin as an index of colleges getting more selective. Any college that’s been in the top ten list for several years in a row will attract more applicants as its reputation solidifies.</p>

17

<p>I was more interested in the focus on Pitzer. Pitzer was in the US News “2nd tier” of LAC’s when my son was applying to colleges in the year 2000 – and was a clear safety for him. In the 2002 rankings, Pitzer was at #55 among LACs, and ranked 110th in student selectivity, with a 54% acceptance rate in 2000 used to compute that score. (Source: <a href=“http://www.pitzer.edu/offices/public_relations/publications/participant/pdf/fall2001.pdf[/url]”>http://www.pitzer.edu/offices/public_relations/publications/participant/pdf/fall2001.pdf&lt;/a&gt; @ page 7-8 – note: the linked article provides an excellent overview of the efforts taken by a school to increase ranking).</p>

<p>I personally do not think that the increased selectivity is necessarily a good thing for any college. For one thing, it can change the character of a college in unforeseen ways. The same 2001 issue of the Pitzer publication I cited above, has an article reporting that the school was ranked #2 for student activism by Mother Jones magazine. Is it the same today? As Pitzer focuses on boosting rankings and test scores in its quest to break the top-50 mark, is it turning away some of the students who are outwardly focused in favor of more studious and academically-focused students. </p>

<p>I don’t know the answer to that question – but I do wonder if the end result is that Pitzer will find itself serving a very different student population in terms of attitudes and approach to learning, with the doors being shut to the types of students who might have lent vitality to the campus or differentiated it from the other Claremont campuses in years past.</p>

18

<p>CMC took 16% of applicants this year?!</p>

<p>Good God!</p>

19

<p>Mini - I agree (students wealthier) and find if facinating by the number of kids who describe their families as upper-middle class and having significant “assets” (student posters’ word) - - and then go on to complain about not getting finaid at top schools.</p>

20

<p>Not to worry…things are going to get better. We are at the peak of the late 80’s baby boom. We are already seeing some public school restructioring in our area because of decreasing enrolments. The future will be brighter for those who’s kids will be going to college 5 years from now. Who knows…the price of college may even stabilize (if the government got out of the education financing business).</p>