Reply to All these rejections and deferrals reported on DCUM and CC are shocking and discouraging

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "All these rejections and deferrals reported on DCUM and CC are shocking and discouraging"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]When applying to colleges and universities, applying to at least 3 safeties is the most important. If a student accurately identifies & applies to 3 safeties, then the number of apps to other schools should not be a concern.

If up to me, I would limit students to 12 applications although 10 is also a reasonable limit.[/quote]

With high stats kids being yield protected from safeties, it doesn't seem like safeties exist anymore.[/quote]

Not all schools yield protect. If it does, it's not a safety.[/quote]

THIS.  Not sure why some here can't grasp that.[/quote]
NP. Agree, schools that yield protect are not safeties. Food for thought: are there schools which now yield protect, but didn't appear to yield protect [i]prior[/i] to test optional admissions?

Many colleges outsource yield management to enrollment management consultants for big bucks. Those consultants use algorithms. The algorithms in the past incorporated score data and test optional students were but a tiny slice of the big picture. That all changed, of course, and the portion of test optional applicants is now much bigger [i]and [/i]more likely to enroll than a score-submitter.

It seemed that, in the past, some high-acceptance-rate colleges might accept several high stats applicants and anticipate that only a small fraction of those would choose to attend. Now, there is a sense that the algorithms cannot handle that, and so instead the high stats applicants are simply denied. Something is not right with the algorithms if high stats students are being denied from colleges with 80%+ acceptance rates.[/quote]

Well first of all, the acceptance rate at VT is 56%.  Secondly, plenty of high-stats students ARE accepted.  You only hear about those who were deferred or rejected because they're unhappy and disappointed and had fully expected to get in (for some reason).  You certainly can't take something like anonoymous websites as gospel.  [/quote]

The challenge with VT for high-stats kids is the unpredictability. Yes, definitely lots of high-stats kids (who are not URM/1st gen) get accepted but a notable number do not (I can see it just in our one school's naviance chart). A lot of families have not gotten that message and still treat it as a safety when it is not.

Nobody knows how much of those high-stats waitlists/denials are based on a yield algorithm vs. not making a good showing in the essays. People brush off the short answers as not being a factor since they are short and how can they possibly assess those for 40K+ applicants. But they are very clear that those are the only things very important in their process other than stats and personal qualities like URM/1st gen/residency.

I would tend to think a high-stats waitlisted kid is because of yield concerns. They have pulled a lot of waitlists in the past. But a high-stats denied is probably because they didn't see what they wanted in the essays and don't think you are a good fit for the school. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics