<p>What the heck does this phrase mean? I would so love to know. (And maybe someone could provide some examples, theoretical or actual?)</p>
<p>Tired of being in the dark. Thanks!</p>
<p>Can you provide a context for the phrase? I mean, did you see on a college web site, or perhaps in a book on college admissions?</p>
<p>im woundering as well</p>
<p>The only thing I can think of is, like, looking into hooks you can use for admission. Like playing the tuba and contacting the band leader with, " Boy, I would love to play in the Blue Band!"</p>
<p>I expect the counsellors on this site could tell you exactly what that phrase means (and give you specific examples). Also, check back into the recent thread that talked about private schools that start molding students in the 9th grade, shaping them for their “1st choice” colleges they say (as 9th graders) they want to attend.</p>
<p>It means start your college planning while child is in the womb… or earlier. First of all, arrange to have a boy because they are currently underrepresented in the college population. Apply to the right nursery school which will feed to the right private school. Line up those tutors early. Map out a well rounded regimen of activities from athletics to arts to community service that will maximize your child’s chances for elite school admission. Relocate if necessary to obtain geographic preference. Start searching early for the right coaches, and instructors, that au pair who can teach your child 3 languages before grade school. Don’t leave anything to chance.</p>
<p>actually doesn’t it refer to the adcoms, i.e. “Dartmouth practices strategic admissions.” i read in one of those admissions books that it means strategically forming a class of admittees. like they’re need blind but they still look at the applicants’ incomes to decide whether or not to take the rich URM who can pay full or the poor one who will need full aid; D still gets to claim they accepted another URM. something to that extent…</p>
<p>I’ve actually seen people discuss on c.c. moving to a less represented National Merit Scholar state just for the test! So their kid has a better shop at NMS!</p>
<p>Actually, I’ve done Strategic Planning for child 3 and 4 without knowing it was that. But I called ot 'becoming a better parent"!! lol</p>
<p>I see it referred to in some of the CC Ivy League forums, as (you’re right, Bananas) something the adcoms supposedly practice. Even though I got a kick out of NJ Res’ reply, I don’t think that’s what’s meant. ;-)</p>
<p>Strategic Admissions, not Strategic Planning. (Granted, LOL, I guess we all do somewhat, or a lot, of the latter.)</p>
<p>I’ve always thought that strategic admissions was used to refer to schools like Wash U or Tufts that admit and deny certain students in the interest of improving to yield and ranking. Like if you reject your top applicants you’re practicing strategic admissions.</p>
<p>My understanding of the phrase “strategic admissions” (based on CC threads I have read) is the same as post #10: denying high-stats applicants in the interest of maintaining yield.</p>
<p>Thanks, film & token. That’s what I kind of assumed. However, I’m not sure how “strategic” that is on the part of adm. committees nowadays. (1) Lots of students are cross-qualifiers; and (2) Plenty of students with high-stats are getting multiple wait-lists & rejections from several top-tier colleges within the same app. year. Too difficult to predict, based on stats, where a student is likely to be accepted, likely to choose, etc., unless a committee has a pretty clearly defined profile of an applicant. (such as specific interests, majors, etc. which may be stronger at one particular college)</p>
<p>It sounds as if this is a Yield strategy aimed at slightly less-high stat students (figuring this is their “best” or “highest” school of choice), but even that guess is kind of a risky guess lately.</p>
<p>Not flaming here, but just wondering, Is Swarthmore one that is believed to practice Strategic Admissions? If so or if not, are there others that are known or assumed to practice it? Or would it be esp. true of EA schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No offense but this is really sad. Why deny a child a normal childhood for a chance at a school 18 years down the road that may very easily reject him anyway?</p>
<p>I am not sure if I’d like to attend a college or university that does NOT have a strategy for admissions. Would we prefer the schools to line 3 monkeys armed with darts in front of an admission board?</p>
<p>As far as Jack’s comments about high schools “molding” the students, I wish that high schools would spend more energy in preparing the students for college, by making sure the students can read, write, and think critically. If that is pejoratively seen as molding, I’d be in favor of more molding.</p>
<p>xiggi: I certainly agree with you that high schools should spend the energy and time to ensure that their students “can read, write, and think critically.” Absolutely. Our own child was very fortunate to have spent 4 years in a truly wonderful high school, not merely in terms of its exceptional teaching and academics, but one that was outstanding in many other areas as well.</p>
<p>While I agree with you, that’s not exactly what I meant, in answer to the OP’s question. I was referring to the thread, where a poster mentioned that (some) small private high school GC’s question incoming 9th graders about their #1 choice for college. That student is then “molded” to fit what they know that particular college/university looks for in its students. I do think that sort of “strategic” planning is a bit sad. But…I gather, as a couple of posters have pointed out here, “strategic admission” is more about the university’s admission policies, not about the strategy of students and parents.</p>
<p>NJres,
I think starting college planning when the child is in the womb might be too late! It is best to start even BEFORE the child is conceived. One’s strategy should be to have a child with someone who has legacy status :-)</p>
<p>Jack, we are in agreement. </p>
<p>My version of preparing the students for college involves bringing the best out of them, help them uncover talent and qualities they may not think they possess, support their curiosity and sense of exploration, but also give them a strong basis in the form of a high curriculum. It does not include trying to develop students into something they are not. I assume that your definition of molding refers to the latter or to the forms of expert gamemanship that are practiced by a minority of parents.</p>
<p>xiggi: Yes, I agree. And your assumptions are correct, though from what I hear and read, I’m not sure about the term, “minority.”</p>
<p>OK, memory test. There was a post quite a while back that referenced a study, pretty interesting study that plotted percentage of applicants admitted against SAT scores. I believe Princeton was in the study. If the curve was smooth, ie, higher test scores meant higher % admitted, then the conclusion was that the admissions were neutral (not sure what the term was) but with some schools there was a high range of SAT scores where the % admitted actually dipped. The conclusion was that in a certain high range of scores admissions officers felt the applicant was using their school as a safety or else there was a high probability the applicant would go elsewhere.</p>
<p>So, the question is:
**Was this phenomenon called “strategic admissions” ?? I don’t remember.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember that study. Can you find it? **</p>
<p>I believe Byerly is the one who provided the link to that study, so he might know.</p>