this article nails the problem IMHO; colleges hide the number of unhooked admissions slots and the application numbers for those slots. Transparency is the only fix, but per the article the colleges don’t want to publicly defend their policies.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Admissions-Policies-Lack/245951?cid=wcontentlist_hp_5
Nah Article uses 2005 data. Poorly researched and lacking nuance or balance. Threads here on cc have better insight
it’s a recent article (march 2019) but the larger point is outside of college confidential 99% of the public does not know this information. Yeah CC people may know some of it, but 99% of the public has no idea. Also , the point is the colleges hide the data so no one has access to current info, which is the larger point of the article. So it’s kind of ironic to slam estimates of hooked slots, for being out of date, when the colleges refuse to release them. Even on CC folks are guestimating numbers since none is disclosed. Data like how many applicants with a 36ACT and 4.0 UW that were rejected for each acceptance would be much more useful than 25/75%tile scores yet those are hidden.
Then they should start their own college.
The majority of people likely believe that whatever their kids have should be the main consideration.
@Eeyore123 the majority of the public thinks being a URM is a bigger advantage than being an athlete. The general public thinks if you have straight As, some ECs, and 99%tile scores you will get into a T20. People on CC miss the larger point of the article, which is the data that would help kids apply more wisely is hidden. The minor point, is the colleges don’t want to defend their admissions policies in the light of day, which personally I don’t care about (however the admissions policy is linked to acceptance policy); but I do think the insanity of the current application process in which kids do not understand the selection process should be improved.
The other extreme in college admissions would be McGill University in Montreal where admission is based solely on stats. For American applicants it is UW GPA and SAT/ACT scores. There are a handful of exceptions for specialized programs e.g. music, architecture. They publish the minimum stats accepted for the previous admissions cycle. There are no hooks, no essays, no consideration of EC’s. The only vagaries are if you are at or slightly above the published minima. This results in an acceptance rate of about 45% which some Americans interpret to be not very selective.
It seems to have worked out well for them: 145 Rhodes Scholars, 10 Nobel prizes for alumni etc.
Nothing really new here, elite colleges give preferences to athletes, legacy and URM students. They also give “preference” to really smart kids with excellent grades, test scores, ECs, pointy areas of focus, and compelling essays. I think most applicants understand this. It’s what really makes the student body of these colleges as a whole “special”.
While it would be nice to have more transparency, I’m not sure full disclosure of the process would deter that many applicants as the individual student will always think they have a shot, even if it’s below a 1% chance of admission.
@anon145 Thanks for posting the article, it is spot on.
@privatebanker Of course the data in the article is scanty and old, that is the point of the article!
@Eeyore123 Why such jaded skepticism? Do you really think all parents/kids these days are so myopic and self-absorbed? I sure hope you are wrong.
I took my DS19 (one of those “average excellent” students) to visit a few of the Ivies last year. We figured his stats were way above average for even those schools, so if the admit rate was 8%, maybe he’d have a 20% chance of getting in. He ended up not applying to any of them (fit reasons), although he did like the one where he is a double legacy. If we’d known that the real acceptance rate for kids like him is 2 or 3%, we never would have bothered to take the time and $ to visit those schools in the first place. And maybe he would have taken a second look at the Legacy school, where he had a much better chance of getting in (I’m glad he didn’t, but he should at least know how much it would have helped him). Without getting into the debate about whether these preferences are good or bad (ok I’ll take one shot - Legacy should go away), having a simple chart with Legacy, athlete, URM, development down one axis and ED, EDII, RD on the other axis, then each boxed filled with admit rate would be really helpful. I have three more in the pipeline, and I am struggling to figure out where to have them apply. And a according to a friend who works at a prestigious private high school nearby, even the long time guidance counselors there are struggling to advise kids these last few years.
The message of that article is plain as the nose on my face: Step 1, radical transparency. Step 2, eliminate any preferences that the authors do not like. Step 3, add preferences that the authors support. Step 4, homogenize the university experience; Harvard and UC Santa Cruz and Baylor are all essentially the same, there is no “elite” or “religious” or “family” schools and the federal government Big Brother is the arbiter of it all.
I’ll give the authors of that article credit for putting their personal agenda on the table for all to see.
What is wrong with demanding transparency? Colleges should be able to defend their decisions, or if not, make different decisions.
Some high schools already do this for their graduating students, dividing their college admission statistics by school into hooked vs unhooked. The differences are extraordinary, but quite helpful to parents.
what is wrong with “radical transparency”. they can keep doing what they do, but parents won’t waste time on trips to schools with a 1% chance of “real” admission, kids can enjoy life a bit more and not waste time on essay questions to schools they otherwise wouldn’t apply to…
@roycroftmom it’ s a bit sad but the kids at high pressure schools seem to be learning the hooked acceptances vs regular by word of mouth
Human psychology would tell you that a 1% admission rate makes it even more desirable. We all want what we can’t have.
post #7 above is one that said if they knew they wouldn’t have wasted time and $ even making the visits
And 99% of the public does not care!
Since the authors infer public policy, why not start with public Unis? Ask Michigan and Virigina and North Carolina to start publishing how many legacies that they hook/tip?
Why should ‘public policy’ care about a few hundred at Harvard College?
Again, 99% of the public does not care; they just want to send their kid to the instate public college, including community college.
I agree that public colleges should have to defend their decisions. But as a point of public policy, I have no claim to decide what a private college should do.
‘So you’re telling me there’s a chance.’ :lol:
Absolutely, go for it! 
Public policy should care about the overall systems at colleges that receive federal funding and taxpayer subsidy, which is the vast majority of colleges. Although most people are vaguely aware that federal funds are used to support tuition and living costs for low income students, how many people think about the huge tax subsidies these institutions receive as nonprofit entities? From the ability to receive tax free donations to their foundations to the property tax exemptions, taxpayers give millions of dollars to many colleges each year, most of which is invisible.
If taxpayers give a college multiple millions of dollars a year in tax exemptions and other benefits, wouldn’t it be in their interest to understand if the college admits students in a manner more like a country club or yacht club than a public school?
I believe in the next few years if any more scandals are discovered, the government will (and should) examine if some of the more popular tax benefits are appropriate.
For all the info top colleges DO produce, what’s the reason most kids apply without scouring that? Is it too hard? Now you want more info thrown out there? Lol.
Too many kids “dream,” don’t truly follow through, and expect their own hs standing to sweep them in. And those colleges aren’t looking for dreamers.
If you want a tippy top, don’t pretend they have to hold your hand. It’s not high school.
“If we’d known that the real acceptance rate for kids like him is 2 or 3%, we never would have bothered to take the time and $ to visit those schools in the first place.” Not picking on you, but knowing an Ivy admits 5-10% including athletes and others wasn’t the writing on the wall? That his best shot was 1 in 20? That info is available everywhere.