Acceptance rate doesn't mean anything!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot on this thread and others about how broken the system is, and how admissions offices need to make all these changes. There no doubt are issues that could be addressed, but the much bigger issue is the mistaken assumption (due largely to USNWR rankings and others) on the part of applicants, parents, high schools, etc. that there's a definitive group of colleges that are significantly more capable of educating the brightest students than other colleges are. People's understanding of appropriate matches for top students needs to expand SIGNIFICANTLY to include hundreds of colleges, not just a dozen or two. There's very little difference in the quality of education between the Ivies+ and their safety schools.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional has thrown college admissions into chaos.

Have admissions offices said it is now chaos?

The people I know in admissions say, yes, it's chaos

Can you name the schools? Because the people I know in admissions say it is the same as it has been for decades.

Also, the people I know in admissions are capable of changing things if they found it chaotic (like requiring test scores).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional has thrown college admissions into chaos.

Thankfully!
I've got to be honest that I still don't understand segregating the highest achievers so much in relatively small schools. I don't think it serves them especially well for the future either.

+1

OK, then be prepared for obscene numbers of applicants and an unmanageable workload for admissions officers. All of that leads to a lottery mentality. If you think that's great and appropriate for kids to have no idea what's a realistic list, then you're welcome to that opinion. I think its nuts (and unmanageable).

Tbh, an actual lottery does sound appealing. Have each college set some sort of eligibility criteria (either minimum GPA/class rank or SAT/ACT or certain AP scores or whatever) and just plunk randomly from that. A 1570 SAT is just not meaningfully more ready for even the toughest college than a 1420 is. Engineering schools might require a specific math score to be eligible. Forget having 13-14 year olds specifically curating their lives to appease a hypothetical AO 4 years hence, which is insane. Combine this with ranked preferences (each college first pulls from the pool who ranked them first), and we might actually be on to something. Might this dilute the name brand of the “tippy top“ (to use an expression I hate more than life itself), sure, it might in the short term. But I don’t believe it would diminish the actual education whatsoever, either in the long run or short term.

My bias is my kid was admitted to top choice school early and I think a lot of it had to do with the research he did into “why” and being able to articulate his answer in the essay. I guess I am a believer in trying to achieve good fit. So I actually would argue for the opposite of a lottery: limit kids to 5 private/OOS apps and require kids to really strive to find places where they would be happy. Then give kids automatic in-state acceptance at certain benchmarks such as class rank and rigor.

[Anonymous]

"I've got to be honest that I still don't understand segregating the highest achievers so much in relatively small schools. I don't think it serves them especially well for the future either."

As someone who went to a 99% first-gen, low-income, majority-minority, public high school, the experience of being among people who were all as smart and driven as me was wonderful. For the first time in my life people got my jokes. They didn't think it was weird that I read for pleasure. People understood why I preferred reading non-fiction instead of Danielle Steel. They enjoyed discussing things we'd read in class with me. As far as dating was concerned, I loved never having to pretend I was dumb in order to not risk bruising some guy's ego. It was heaven.

Whether the school name got me jobs or better pay wouldn't even matter to me. Those four years of respite from a world full of mediocrity was worth it. But, for the record, my first job right out of college was in a US Senator's office and my former college classmate was the one who got me in the door. Every other job I've had since then was because of connections I made when I was an undergrad. I have advanced degrees from other top schools. But the HSYP undergrad is where I made my friends for life.

People love to say that it's where you go to grad school that matters. I think that's true for law, but only with respect to certain aspects of the legal profession. Obviously, if you want to be a federal judge, that really matters. The reality is that by the time you go to grad school, most people are coupled up and they're living in apartments spread around the city. There is no late night bonding and silly adventuring that is essential to becoming friends for life. My study group from law school had two people with kids waiting for them at home every night. Even though I was still single and kid free, that didn't mean that I had access to a social scene among the law students. I actually spent most of my limited social time with college friends who lived in the city where my law school was located. My law school was a top one that people dream of attending.

The only downside to segregating the super bright kids that I can see is that it can make you less tolerant of people who can't write and aren't able to grasp concepts quickly. It's very easy to live in that bubble and forget that very few people in the world are like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I've got to be honest that I still don't understand segregating the highest achievers so much in relatively small schools. I don't think it serves them especially well for the future either."

As someone who went to a 99% first-gen, low-income, majority-minority, public high school, the experience of being among people who were all as smart and driven as me was wonderful. For the first time in my life people got my jokes. They didn't think it was weird that I read for pleasure. People understood why I preferred reading non-fiction instead of Danielle Steel. They enjoyed discussing things we'd read in class with me. As far as dating was concerned, I loved never having to pretend I was dumb in order to not risk bruising some guy's ego. It was heaven.

Whether the school name got me jobs or better pay wouldn't even matter to me. Those four years of respite from a world full of mediocrity was worth it. But, for the record, my first job right out of college was in a US Senator's office and my former college classmate was the one who got me in the door. Every other job I've had since then was because of connections I made when I was an undergrad. I have advanced degrees from other top schools. But the HSYP undergrad is where I made my friends for life.

People love to say that it's where you go to grad school that matters. I think that's true for law, but only with respect to certain aspects of the legal profession. Obviously, if you want to be a federal judge, that really matters. The reality is that by the time you go to grad school, most people are coupled up and they're living in apartments spread around the city. There is no late night bonding and silly adventuring that is essential to becoming friends for life. My study group from law school had two people with kids waiting for them at home every night. Even though I was still single and kid free, that didn't mean that I had access to a social scene among the law students. I actually spent most of my limited social time with college friends who lived in the city where my law school was located. My law school was a top one that people dream of attending.

The only downside to segregating the super bright kids that I can see is that it can make you less tolerant of people who can't write and aren't able to grasp concepts quickly. It's very easy to live in that bubble and forget that very few people in the world are like you.

As a professor I can challenge students more in a highly selective school than I can in a less selective school. I don't think some of the fine-grained distinctions matter, but if nearly everyone in a school has done well in rigorous high school courses and has test scores in the top 10%, the classes will be more challenging. Colleagues who teach in less selective institutions are really frustrated by the lack of preparation of many students and adjust their content and standards lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I've got to be honest that I still don't understand segregating the highest achievers so much in relatively small schools. I don't think it serves them especially well for the future either."

As someone who went to a 99% first-gen, low-income, majority-minority, public high school, the experience of being among people who were all as smart and driven as me was wonderful. For the first time in my life people got my jokes. They didn't think it was weird that I read for pleasure. People understood why I preferred reading non-fiction instead of Danielle Steel. They enjoyed discussing things we'd read in class with me. As far as dating was concerned, I loved never having to pretend I was dumb in order to not risk bruising some guy's ego. It was heaven.

Whether the school name got me jobs or better pay wouldn't even matter to me. Those four years of respite from a world full of mediocrity was worth it. But, for the record, my first job right out of college was in a US Senator's office and my former college classmate was the one who got me in the door. Every other job I've had since then was because of connections I made when I was an undergrad. I have advanced degrees from other top schools. But the HSYP undergrad is where I made my friends for life.

People love to say that it's where you go to grad school that matters. I think that's true for law, but only with respect to certain aspects of the legal profession. Obviously, if you want to be a federal judge, that really matters. The reality is that by the time you go to grad school, most people are coupled up and they're living in apartments spread around the city. There is no late night bonding and silly adventuring that is essential to becoming friends for life. My study group from law school had two people with kids waiting for them at home every night. Even though I was still single and kid free, that didn't mean that I had access to a social scene among the law students. I actually spent most of my limited social time with college friends who lived in the city where my law school was located. My law school was a top one that people dream of attending.

The only downside to segregating the super bright kids that I can see is that it can make you less tolerant of people who can't write and aren't able to grasp concepts quickly. It's very easy to live in that bubble and forget that very few people in the world are like you.

You are a textbook example of WHO benefits from the Elite/T25 educational experience. But for those who had this experience all their life, they will do just fine/similar at any school.

[Anonymous]

My DS goes to a SLAC that has a single digit acceptance rate. It’s very misleading though because it’s one of a few schools that is need blind/meets full need for domestic students but is need aware/meets full need for international students. So it attracts lower income international applicants who don’t have a great chance of getting in but if they do the school meets full need. The school also meets full need without any loans. So overall acceptance rate is single digits but it’s unclear how many applicants are domestic. Also, like many schools, ED rate is higher.