 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 06:47 am |
|
May 9, 2008
Top Colleges Dig Deeper in Wait Lists for Students
By TAMAR LEWIN
In what may be a happy surprise for thousands of high school seniors, Harvard plans to offer admission to 150 to 175 students on its waiting list, and Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania each expect to take 90, creating ripples that will send other highly selective colleges deeper into their waiting lists as well.
“This year has been less predictable than any recent year,” said Eric J. Kaplan, interim dean of admissions at Penn, adding that when one college in the top tier goes deep into its wait list, others are affected. “We all need to fill our classes and replace students who have been taken off wait lists at other institutions. The wait-list activity could extend for a significant time.” . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/education/09admissions.html
|
limner
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 816 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 12:45 pm |
|
mac, you're either going to bed later or getting up earlier than me. You beat me to it. 
College square dancing begins; "Change partners . . . "
|
DesperateDad
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 02:07 pm |
|
| this was an obvious (and predictable) result of H & P dropping their early admissions programs.
|
Descartes
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
Not really. Harvard's yield was almost the same as last year (FA adjustments seem to have counterbalanced admissions changes). They were just conservative in defending against overenrollment and admitted fewer students than last year.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523532
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 145 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 05:39 pm |
|
This is going to be interesting. Harvard is going to offer admission to 150-175 students, and-- this is Harvard we're talking about, and those students chose to remain on the wait list-- almost all will take the offer. Penn will ADMIT 90 more students from the wait list. Princeton will ADMIT 90 more.
Already that's 300 places that open up at other top schools. And, of course, it all ripples down.
I wonder how many waitlist acceptances will result from those 350 extra acceptances, as the new Harvard, Penn and Princeton '12s open up spots at Brown, Pomona, Chicago... and those new Brown, Pomona, Chicago, etc. '12s open up spots at Bowdoin, Emory, Vanderbilt, and on down the line. Thousands of students will change places.
This is not a good system.
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3316 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 06:31 pm |
|
I think there are much broader implications to this news. I see it as an early indicator of coming changes and challenges in college admissions. The system has begun to overheat and show some cracks that are likely to worsen over the next decade as the demographics of college applicants change (not just that there will be fewer kids applying to college, but that the demographic profile of who is applying to college overall will also be changing dramatically). Lower level schools have been struggling with yield issues for some time, but now those same yield issues are starting to hit schools like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (albeit at a smaller pressure point) which never really had to worry all that much about predicting yield accurately.
My prediction:
Over the next five years or so, we may see more schools offering greater incentives to applicants in order to manage enrollment on the front side, before waitlists even occur. These may include things like encouraging students to apply ED/EA more heavily (or perhaps changing the structure of those programs in some way), changes in financial aid/merit scholarship incentives to enroll, and greater attention being paid on "demonstrated interest" when admissions decisions are made. It is also likely that as the trickle down effect happens, that some colleges may decide to worry less about capturing high end students, and more about capturing any student capable of doing the work. We're a long way from Harvard and Yale throwing open their doors to all comers, but I already see signs that some of the colleges a few rungs down are loosening things up a bit in order to keep their doors open at all.
Of course, this could just be a one-time event when it comes to the tippy-top schools. As Mack suggests, they could just have been overly cautious about enrolling students after their financial aid and admissions changes this year. But, the next few years will certainly be interesting to watch.
Last edited on Fri May 9th, 2008 06:36 pm by CarolynLawrence
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 145 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
CarolynLawrence wrote: We're a long way from Harvard and Yale throwing open their doors to all comers, but I already see signs that some of the colleges a few rungs down are loosening things up a bit in order to keep their doors open at all.
What schools seem to be loosening things up? Or, if you can't list specific names (but I wish you would) what level are those schools at? Why would schools need to loosen things up this year, when the number of total applicants is up? Or am I wrong, and the number of total applicants (not the number of applications, but the number of applicants) is not up this year?
As to Harvard, as Descartes points out, their yield was pretty much the same this year as last year. They were just more conservative this year, not knowing how to predict yield. In other words, this year they admitted fewer students by April 15th, figuring that they could go to the waitlist if necessary, as they are in fact doing.
|
DesperateDad
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 07:04 pm |
|
Descartes:
Yes, I agree that Harvard and Princeton (and Yale, not to mention the others below them on the college food chain) were wise to be conservative in sending out RD acceptance letters. But the reason that they had to be conservative was their own change in admisssions, which is why use of the WL was predictable, IMO.
In prior years, Harvard & Princeton would each accept ~500-600 kids in the early round. Those kids were essentially one-and-done. But, with both colleges moving to RD, those 1,000 kids would now submit, (on average?) 8 applications each to a multitude of schools, including both H&P, and others lower down. Thus, 8,000 more applications resulted in many top students with multiple Ivy acceptances, whereas in prior years, ~1,000 would have had just one (Ivy) acceptance. (Yes, of course, under Harvard's SCEA, a student could apply elsewhere, but with an 80% yieid, that was rather rare, except for the Trophy Hunters.)
And wrt Carolyn's comment...I would submit that the pressure will only increase for those "tippy top" schools which offer need-based aid to upper income families. For example, Harvard can be less expensive out of pocket than many in-state Uni's, even for families earning $150k; it is certainly cheaper than instate UC for most families.
|
HijinksAndSue
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 01:37 am |
|
A few other possibilities perhaps ... obviously I don't know enough about the intricacies and details so feel free to cyberslap me ...
More schools dropping the common app (not sure if the Ivies are CA to start with) so that students have to work a little harder before they apply to 10 or 15 schools and actually individualize each application, thus showing at least a tad more demonstrated interest.
Is it possible that the common app could actually limit the number of schools a student can apply to?
More schools that don't already have it start ADDING ED ...
A second "tier" if you will of applications between ED (that I guess is generally mid-December) and RD (April 1?) ... maybe a Feb. 15 wave of acceptances with a March 1 commit date?
|
jocelynDAD
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 01:47 am |
|
"Melt" this is the term that many colleges have used and will use over the next 3 months.
'Melt' is the term for the drop in accepted enrollments from May 1 until August.
'Melt' represents the students who either fo Gap year: drop out entirely; or most likely were on another school's Waitlist and are going to the waitlist school.
'Melt' has always been a factor in admissions - this year being first for Princeton and Harvard without ED acceptances caused (as mentioned above) a cautious approach to the anticipated yield. As Carolyn suggests there very well might be some dramatic changes coming, but this year will be very much like most years for the private schools with 'Melt' actions.
The LAC's who have entering classes from 300 to 800 students will have the greatest impacts on their entering class numbers because a drop or 'Melt' of 10 to 30 students is anticipated by these LAC's, if the impact is double, then off to the waitlist for them, however it is usually later in the summer before the get the full impact of their 'melt' and it is harder to add students from a waitlist status so late.
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3316 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 05:35 am |
|
I agree JD, this year will be pretty much business as usual. But, changes are already occurring. More and more of the "lower tier" schools are having trouble competing for students, and are leveraging merit scholarships and financial aid to insure they get a decent enough yield to be financially solvent. While overall applications to SOME schools are up, the majority of colleges are still accepting more students than they reject (average national acceptance rate is still 70% for colleges), and that is at least partially due to not being able to control/predict yield.
There is no shortage of seats in the higher ed system overall, just shortages at some schools. The rest are still fighting to make sure their freshman class is filled and that their price point works to get a decent yield and keep them afloat financially.
For instance, I was just was reading an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education last week talking about how Heidleberg College has boosted their merit scholarships to keep their yield up -- but as a result have had to make cut-backs in OTHER areas, areas that directly affect student educational quality. That should give anyone shopping for merit for their kids some pause. My advice would be that if a college is giving out merit to a significant portion of its students, that you very carefully check the bottomline of the school -- how many adjuncts are they using? Have their been cutbacks in instructional areas? Is campus maintenance being delayed? There is a tipping point where the amount of merit money and financial aid being doled out may be changing the value of the education being offered, and it's important to look beyond the money and see what you are really being offered so the school can keep its yield up.
Over the next few years, however, is when the real changes will start to be felt. While the total number of students who might apply to college will begin to stabilize and perhaps even decline as the baby boomering bubble bursts, the make-up of students applying to college is already changing with more minorities, more first generation, more lower income kids. It is definitely going to change to landscape and the way colleges operate their enrollment management plans. It may become more of a buyer's market --- it may also become a smaller market as some colleges may not be able to compete.Last edited on Sat May 10th, 2008 05:38 am by CarolynLawrence
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3316 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 05:48 am |
|
HijinksAndSue wrote: More schools dropping the common app (not sure if the Ivies are CA to start with) so that students have to work a little harder before they apply to 10 or 15 schools and actually individualize each application, thus showing at least a tad more demonstrated interest.
Is it possible that the common app could actually limit the number of schools a student can apply to?
More schools that don't already have it start ADDING ED ...
A second "tier" if you will of applications between ED (that I guess is generally mid-December) and RD (April 1?) ... maybe a Feb. 15 wave of acceptances with a March 1 commit date?
Interesting suggestions, Hijinks. Actually some of what you are suggesting regarding the Common Application has already been discussed in admissions circles. It's unlikely, however, that there will be a limit placed on the number of applications because even though the Common App is increasing the number of stealth applicants (kids who don't have contact with the school before applying), it is still giving colleges a growing pool of potential students. As you suggest, however, the question enrollment managers are struggling with is how do you lock in those potential students before another college gets them?
Waitlists are one tactic. I've also noticed a growing number of schools offering merit scholarships that appear to have an early deadline of some kind attached to them i.e., you can only get this scholarship if you send in your application by October, you can only get this scholarship if you let us know you're coming by March 15 (colleges by the way have to give students who ask an extension to May 1 on these offers - but most kids don't know that they can ask). I am also seeing more housing deposits being tied in with enrollment deposits -- send in your housing deposit now because you'll have first dibs on a good dorm room. Once a kid sends in a housing deposit, the chances of enrollment go up. And then, of course, there are the marketing techniques to try to lock in those applicants and make them feel they are already part of the family before they are even accepted in some cases - personalized letters and invitations, phone calls to the student at home from current students and alumni, etc.
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 145 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 05:57 am |
|
For the top students, it doesn't seem fair to limit the number of colleges a student can apply to. If a student is competitive for the top Ivies, but is not a recruited athlete, they have a small but not non-existent chance of admission. Students should be allowed to play those lotteries if they want.
When Harvard is accepting only 7% of applicants, people who apply to Harvard should be able to apply to fifteen other schools if they want to.
|
jocelynDAD
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 01:44 pm |
|
Why should 'top students' have greater rights to apply than any other students?
I have nothing against any student applying to as many colleges as they desire.
But I do object to isolating out "top students' (whatever interpretation might be given to that term) as being any more special than any other high school senior.
Frankly, being able to financially afford college is a consideration that is more universal than the squeeze to get into an 'Ivy'.
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 145 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 02:29 pm |
|
I'd say that any student should have a chance to apply to a lot of schools, but the point is that it doesn't make sense for a middling student to apply to a lot of schools.
The top student has a chance at the top schools-- but those schools only accept a tiny percentage of their applicants, so in order to assure an acceptance, the student has to apply to a lot of them, even if the schools are selected carefully with a view to appropriateness.
The middling student is applying to schools with a more generous acceptance rate, so he doesn't have to apply to as many schools to insure that he's accepted at a school he likes.
I'd prefer to see a system like the intern matching process, where every applicant ranks her schools, and every school ranks their applicants, and then a computer system makes the match. But there are two problems with that. First, how can a student rank all the schools she's applying to, when she probably hasn't even visited them all? Second, a student's ranking might depend on the financial aid the school offered.
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 04:48 pm |
|
For a long time it has appeared that getting into the most selective schools has the flavor of a lottery, in the sense that among the seemingly "very highly qualified" students when the admission rate is on the order of 10%, chance or random factors may appear to be the largest determinant of who wins admission.
The discussion often seems to involve a kind of graded lottery. Your "reach" applications would go to colleges that have a less than a 10 or 15% admission rate, your "match" to colleges that have a 50% payoff, and your "safety schools" to those with upwards of a 90% payoff. Of course these odds are all relative to your qualifications, so it's not like a simple lottery in which who wins doesn't depend on who is purchasing the ticket. You can add in other conditions, such as the chances for merit or need-based aid to the odds calculations.
It seems to me that even with the kind of transition that we're seeing, as well as those that Carolyn is forecasting as a consequence of the peaking of the number of applicants as the baby-boomerang generation lump passes through the admissions python, the logic from the applicant's standpoint remains the same. Admissions is a graded or graduated lottery. Play the game according to your qualifications, your willingness to take risk (or tolerate uncertainty), and your need for financial aid.
When all is said and done, you have to diversify your risk and make sure you have a couple of "true safeties" in the application mix. Above all you should try to assure that the schools you've applied to are ones that are suited to your tastes. If you find your dream school while you're compiling your list, go ahead and apply ED (especially if you can afford it), but you still need to diversify your risk and find good match and safety schools that you find attractive. But don't forget to play the lottery carefully.
Last edited on Sat May 10th, 2008 04:50 pm by mackinaw
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3316 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 04:54 pm |
|
CardinalFang wrote: The top student has a chance at the top schools-- but those schools only accept a tiny percentage of their applicants, so in order to assure an acceptance, the student has to apply to a lot of them, even if the schools are selected carefully with a view to appropriateness.
I think this is a common conception, but I'm not sure that applying to MORE schools of the same level of competitiveness automatically improves one's odds of admission.
Let's use the example of lottery tickets. If you buy more tickets to the SAME lottery, your odds do go up because you have more "chances" of having the winning number.
But, if you buy tickets to MORE lotteries instead of the same lottery, and each lottery has similar odds, your chance of winning any single lottery doesn't improve. Let's say you buy ten tickets to ten lotteries where you have a 10% or less chance of winning, you still only have a 10% chance of winning ANY one of the ten lotteries, not a 100% better chance of winning because you've bought tickets in 10 lotteries where the odds are 10%.
On the other hand if you spread those ten tickets among lotteries that have different odds -- say 3 where there's a 10% chance of winning, 4 where there's a 50% chance of winning, and 3 where there's a 90% chance of winning, your odds of "winning" at least one lottery improve.
It's similar with colleges -- if you just tack on more applications to reach schools or schools that reject 90% of applicants, your chances of being admitted to any single college is still exactly the same.
On the other hand, if you spread your applications among colleges where you have different odds of being admitted--- the old reach, match and safe bets --- you do improve your odds of being admitted to at least one of the colleges you've applied to.
Of course, this analogy isn't perfect because a lottery is a truly random draw and all lottery buyers have equal odds as long as they all have the same number of tickets. With colleges there are multitudes of factors that might influence any student's odds, including their academic achievements, their extracurricularls, and who else is applying.
But, that's all the more reason to spread your odds by buying "lottery tickets" to a group of colleges where you have better odds of being admitted to at least some of the schools, instead of just buying more tickets to schools where the odds are pretty much the same.
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 05:01 pm |
|
Hi Carolyn. I think we were making the same basic point at virtually the same time!
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 145 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 07:04 pm |
|
CarolynLawrence wrote:
But, if you buy tickets to MORE lotteries instead of the same lottery, and each lottery has similar odds, your chance of winning any single lottery doesn't improve. Let's say you buy ten tickets to ten lotteries where you have a 10% or less chance of winning, you still only have a 10% chance of winning ANY one of the ten lotteries, not a 100% better chance of winning because you've bought tickets in 10 lotteries where the odds are 10%.
But you don't care about a single lottery. You want to win at least one 10% lottery. You can only enroll in one school.
If you buy one ticket to a 10% lottery, your chance of winning a lottery is 10%. If you buy ten tickets to that lottery, your chance of winning at least once is 65%. If you buy ten tickets, each to a different 10% lottery, your chance of winning at least one of those lotteries is the same, 65%.
So, if you are the kind of student who wants to go to a lottery school, and you have the stats that give you around a 10% chance of being admitted to a lottery school, you should DEFINITELY apply to a lot of lottery schools. Your chance of being admitted to at least one of those goes way up if you apply to a lot: 10% if you apply to one, 65% if you apply to ten.
Since a 65% chance of being admitted to at least one of the top schools is a 35% chance of not being admitted to any of them, you also should apply to some schools where you have a better chance of being admitted.
Smart players play the odds. Colleges act in their best interests, not the best interests of their applicants, when they make admissions decisions. Applicants should act in their own best interests.
This being said, Fang Jr's best interests do not include applying to fifteen schools, and he will not do so.
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 09:21 pm |
|
To take your analysis a bit further, in fact you don't know your odds of getting admitted to one of those lottery schools. It may be only half as great as you think, for example, not for random reasons but because you are lacking in some key or special characteristic that they are looking for or that gives you a "true" 10% shot. In your example, you may end up with much less than a 65% chance of getting into at least one of the lottery schools, and hence you'd better not get too cocky or get your heart set on getting in.
You want to choose a strategy -- compose the palette of colleges that you're interested in -- that doesn't just minimize the chance you will be shut out of the lottery schools but also minimizes the chance that you will be shut out of perhaps even better schools for which admission is not as competitive, or shut out of good schools with a better fit to your talents and other tastes.
Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 09:25 pm by mackinaw
|
Current time is 04:31 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
|
