Not a surprising take. But a bit misleading.

It takes more than grades and scores to get into schools like Vandy, Northwestern, Chicago and the others mentioned. Those schools also require the most rigorous courses a HS offers, perfect and moving essays, top of the line ECs (which, btw, include working a paying job), great and personalized LORs and outside of school awards and recognition.

All those added elements are not apparent from the info garnered (and sold) by the testing companies. The only info those companies have are address, HS, grades (self-reported) and the resulting score. Schools that are trying to reach heretofore unrreached populations (1st gen, rural, minority) use those preliminary numbers to market - the schools have no idea (other than scores and grades) whether a kid has the rest of the puzzle AND can craft a decent application.

A college's grade and score averages are published (think CDS) so any prospective candidate KNOWS where their score falls on the matrix. The fact that the referenced student was a valedictorian with a 4.0 represents only a few dots on the canvas. (Note there was no assertion that any or all the other required dots (referenced above) were present.) Moreover, those super select schools make no secret of the added subjective requirements. (I don't put much stock in pointing to a surge of applications being the result of a bait and switch; population growth, the advent of the Common App, and the accepted belief that a college degree is needed all contribute. Until these variables are teased out, there is a correlation/causation issue.)

Every one of those schools is looking for a 1st gen, rural student, who worked to make money for college, while making perfect grades in the most rigorous curriculum, scores in the middle of the CDS matrix, with great LORs, etc.

It's not surprising that someone rejected would feel that there was some type of bait and switch happening. 

(And, of course, none of this applies to an athletic recruit  - which has it's own standard [starting with a big bat or 90 mph].)

Goosegg posted:

Not a surprising take. But a bit misleading.

...

It's not surprising that someone rejected would feel that there was some type of bait and switch happening. 

(And, of course, none of this applies to an athletic recruit  - which has it's own standard [starting with a big bat or 90 mph].)

I'm sure you're right Goosegg. I just thought it was an interesting take, and that others might as well. I've got three kids who each had completely different college application/admissions experiences, and vastly different high school resumes for that matter. I will say that the private college that my youngest is at right now, which has a 74% acceptance rate, is quite challenging based on what he has told me, and he was a good student at an academically reputable high school in our state and had respectable test scores on the ACT, as well as eight APs. I have a hard time believing that, once through admissions, when it  boils down to the actual undergrad coursework that he'd see the challenge as a night and day sort of thing at one of the "elite" schools. That said, he never really considered applying to any of those, other than a few NESCAC schools, mainly because they were out of our price range.

I spend a lot of time each day unsubscribing from all the college emails.  I would have appreciated if when they sold it, they paid attention to the SAT scores and geographic desires of the student. Maybe I would only have to delete 50 a day vs 100!  I wonder how many kids actually click through. And why do you never get offered a free application fee from a school you want to apply to?! 

My oldest (non-baseball) son, after his strong test scores, received at least one piece of snail mail a week from Vanderbilt, as well as dozens of emails, for almost a year.  He did apply, and was deferred.  That was not surprising, but the amount of mail was ridiculous; you would think that they would have something else to do with all that paper.  

Presumably the analogy is baseball showcases and tournaments that sell contact info, so that kids can get a million camp invites and think they are being recruited. 

The moral is, as soon as you give out your email address, someone is going to try to sell you something.

Smitty28 posted:

35 years ago I started getting post cards and brochures in the mail from colleges after taking the PSAT.  I assume they had to have gotten my name and mailing info from the College Board.  Is this really anything new?

Nope but what I think the author is trying to point out that might be new is if they're using that list to entice kids to apply, that they are fairly certain won't get admitted, to up their "exclusivity" numbers.

Other factors accounting for increased applications and lower acceptance rates which oddly the WSJ didn't put in the article:

1. Since 2000 there are 33% more kids graduating HS  (3.7m vs 2.8m, there are just more kids)

2. increase in # of grads seeking college degrees (10 years ago 28% of adults had degrees, today 34%)

3. much easier to get money for college (this could be driving #2 as well)

Exclusivity / Selectivity had nowhere to go but up. You see the Vandy stat!?  20 years ago acceptance rates of 46%. 

 

 

anotherparent posted:

 

The moral is, as soon as you give out your email address, someone is going to try to sell you something.

True, but email addresses can be changed and you can opt out of spam.  More and more places ask for cell phone numbers which the kid will have for the rest of his life.  I tell my kids do not give out your cell phone except to friends and family.

Smitty28 posted:
anotherparent posted:

 

The moral is, as soon as you give out your email address, someone is going to try to sell you something.

True, but email addresses can be changed and you can opt out of spam.  More and more places ask for cell phone numbers which the kid will have for the rest of his life.  I tell my kids do not give out your cell phone except to friends and family.

Marketers now use mobile phone numbers as a sort of shadow social security number and a de facto "national ID".  Sure, it can be changed, but most people don't.  I advise my son to protect his phone number as if it were his social.

https://www.axios.com/phone-nu...34-871871f92402.html

I also believe the common app to a small degree and the Internet to a large degree made the application process on the whole easier and more available to people not geographically close to the schools. I never understood why schools (read highly selective schools) didn’t start to grow their student body more as the number of applicants rose. I understand some impact on infrastructure limitations, but still. You ever been to Stanford? Tons of open space to build.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

I also believe the common app to a small degree and the Internet to a large degree made the application process on the whole easier and more available to people not geographically close to the schools. I never understood why schools (read highly selective schools) didn’t start to grow their student body more as the number of applicants rose. I understand some impact on infrastructure limitations, but still. You ever been to Stanford? Tons of open space to build.

They can raise prices at twice the rate of inflation while increasing the demand for their product.  They got the government to provide unlimited funding (loans) for their customers.  They get to keep their endowment intact and avoid increasing their cost structure.  Things are perfect the way they are.

IMO, the factors driving this are:

1) US News rankings are all-important, and the percentage of applicants accepted is a major factor in how they rate schools.  The more kids a school can get to apply, the lower their overall acceptance rate.  This is one reason some schools have eliminated application fees and essays--kids can just send their Common App and they are part of the pool of applicants that becomes the denominator of the acceptance rate calculation. I think this is why schools like Vanderbilt, the Ivys, etc. send many of their mailings--they certainly don't need to raise their profiles to attract enough good students to fill their classes.

2)  The Common App makes it easier to apply to multiple schools, so more kids do so.  The fact that acceptance rates have fallen so much also makes it necessary to cast a wider net, which creates a feedback loop:  more kids applying to more schools lowers acceptance rates and makes it necessary to apply to more schools which further lowers acceptance rates.

3)  A factor I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet (?):  Birth rates declined sharply during the Great Recession and kids born during those years will be applying to college starting around 2026.  Colleges know this and are planning for the number of applicants to decline significantly.  Many schools outside the top tier will have to market themselves to survive.  And with costs rising at 2X or more the rate of inflation for many years, more and more kids will decide to attend community college or take some other path, which will further shrink the applicant pool.  Google "college enrollment crash."

Chico Escuela posted:

IMO, the factors driving this are:

…………………………………….

3)  A factor I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet (?):  Birth rates declined sharply during the Great Recession and kids born during those years will be applying to college starting around 2026.  Colleges know this and are planning for the number of applicants to decline significantly.  Many schools outside the top tier will have to market themselves to survive.  And with costs rising at 2X or more the rate of inflation for many years, more and more kids will decide to attend community college or take some other path, which will further shrink the applicant pool.  Google "college enrollment crash."

Bingo.   Give that man a cigar.   Not just during the recent recession but also in general.  

 Image result for box of cigars

Just saw an article stating that the lower the acceptance rate, the more the college can increase the tuition/fees price.  Supply and demand argument.  So, colleges have an incentive to get as many applications as they can, so that their acceptance rate goes down and they can raise their prices.

Can't we say the same for baseball recruiting...?

Fenway is correct.. The US birth rate fell in 2009 but, believe it or not, is lower now than even then.  I think its currently the lowest rate since ww2.    The other factor is the rise in online or distance learning.  College education is going to be much different in 10 years. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×