Why do selective schools market?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

Point is they can fill a freshman class without advertising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

Point is they can fill a freshman class without advertising.

No, that is not the point. The point is can they build a better class easier if they have a larger cohort to choose from.

So again your claim was they know they'd never admit any of the kids they send the mailers to. How do they know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

They send the mailers based on demographics and scores. They have a very good idea of who is receiving the mailers and who they might admit.

You don’t seem to understand how sophisticated targeted marketing is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

Point is they can fill a freshman class without advertising.

No, that is not the point. The point is can they build a better class easier if they have a larger cohort to choose from.

So again your claim was they know they'd never admit any of the kids they send the mailers to. How do they know that?

As a former admissions person, the bolded is simply not true. For what it’s worth, University of Chicago’s mailer strategy is not viewed positively by a lot of admissions people, and is considered to be weakening its brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

Point is they can fill a freshman class without advertising.

No, that is not the point. The point is can they build a better class easier if they have a larger cohort to choose from.

So again your claim was they know they'd never admit any of the kids they send the mailers to. How do they know that?

As a former admissions person, the bolded is simply not true. For what it’s worth, University of Chicago’s mailer strategy is not viewed positively by a lot of admissions people, and is considered to be weakening its brand.

Calling BS here.

No college on the planet wants fewer applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DS is a hs freshman and must have signed up for some lists, because he's getting marketing material from schools he doesn't have a chance of being admitted to - but because they're advertising, he thinks he does. I know we're not ready for the college search yet, but it's pretty upsetting to me as well. Why do they do this?

Outside of a very select few (like HPYS), most schools don't have amazing universal name recognition and really do want more and different applicants. Schools like Chicago, WashU, Emory and top SLACs don't just want more DC prep school applicants since they obviously know those elite schools well. One of my funnier college-related memories was overhearing MIT interactions at a college fair in the middle of the US where several students clearly didn't know MIT and asked questions about "mitt" while making the rounds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

They send the mailers based on demographics and scores. They have a very good idea of who is receiving the mailers and who they might admit.

You don’t seem to understand how sophisticated targeted marketing is.

You don't seem to understand how any of this works. I guarantee plenty of people who qualify for admission receive those mailers. And there is no way for them to know without the application itself. The testing people don't sell names connected to individual scores, just pools and ranges; and test optional makes it less important if they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More apps = lower acceptance rate = more selective

Seems unethical to get kids' hopes up in order to lower your admissions rate.

Yes, but they don't care. The job of the people mailing you that stuff is to get your kid to apply so the institution can turn them down = a higher selective institution number that can be reported to the USNWR.

You people need to read and learn before you post your tinfoil hat theories.

USNWR has not used acceptance rate in their calculation for years.

But acceptance rate is always the first (and usually only) data point people cite when they talk about “selective/prestigious” schools.

You’re delusional if you don’t think the schools know that and encourage applications for that reason (among others).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More apps = lower acceptance rate = more selective

Seems unethical to get kids' hopes up in order to lower your admissions rate.

Yes, but they don't care. The job of the people mailing you that stuff is to get your kid to apply so the institution can turn them down = a higher selective institution number that can be reported to the USNWR.

You people need to read and learn before you post your tinfoil hat theories.

USNWR has not used acceptance rate in their calculation for years.

But acceptance rate is always the first (and usually only) data point people cite when they talk about “selective/prestigious” schools.

You’re delusional if you don’t think the schools know that and encourage applications for that reason (among others).

Did you read the sentence "so the institution can turn them down = a higher selective institution number that can be reported to the USNWR"?

Do you know that was what I was responding to?

Why are you moving the goalposts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

Point is they can fill a freshman class without advertising.

No, that is not the point. The point is can they build a better class easier if they have a larger cohort to choose from.

So again your claim was they know they'd never admit any of the kids they send the mailers to. How do they know that?

As a former admissions person, the bolded is simply not true. For what it’s worth, University of Chicago’s mailer strategy is not viewed positively by a lot of admissions people, and is considered to be weakening its brand.

Calling BS here.

No college on the planet wants fewer applicants.

Yes, they do. You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Reducing applicant pools is widely discussed in admissions circles now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

They send the mailers based on demographics and scores. They have a very good idea of who is receiving the mailers and who they might admit. We

You don’t seem to understand how sophisticated targeted marketing is.

You don't seem to understand how any of this works. I guarantee plenty of people who qualify for admission receive those mailers. And there is no way for them to know without the application itself. The testing people don't sell names connected to individual scores, just pools and ranges; and test optional makes it less important if they did.

You are just ignorant. You have no idea how any of this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

They send the mailers based on demographics and scores. They have a very good idea of who is receiving the mailers and who they might admit. We

You don’t seem to understand how sophisticated targeted marketing is.

You don't seem to understand how any of this works. I guarantee plenty of people who qualify for admission receive those mailers. And there is no way for them to know without the application itself. The testing people don't sell names connected to individual scores, just pools and ranges; and test optional makes it less important if they did.

You are just ignorant. You have no idea how any of this works.

Well since you provide so much evidence that I don't know how this works, I guess that is hard to argue.

Facts:

- There is no way for any college to know the likelihood of admission for any individual applicant.
- The college board does not sell individual scores, and in a test optional world it wouldn't matter if they did
- They are marketing a product just like people who send me mail for cars I would never buy and cruises I will never take
- Your idea that it is nefarious and cruel is preposterous absolutely without evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really someone here who is defending University of Chicago’s transparently sleazy marketing practices?

What is "transparently sleazy" about their "marketing practices"?

Sending weekly mailers to kids who they know they’d never admit in an effort to boost the number of applications they get is clearly sleazy. Come on.

How do they know they would not admit ANY of the kids that get their mailers?

Point is they can fill a freshman class without advertising.

No, that is not the point. The point is can they build a better class easier if they have a larger cohort to choose from.

So again your claim was they know they'd never admit any of the kids they send the mailers to. How do they know that?

If a school only admits 10-20% of applicants, yeah, they're not going to admit most kids they send mailers to.