Anonymous wrote:Merit aid is part of an overall marketing scheme. It’s part of the “soft sell.” Read the article—it explains.

Colleges hire consultants and use sophisticated algorithms to track how much time high school students spend on their website, how quickly they open emails from a college, etc. It all drives their marketing strategy.

Merit aid is part of an overall marketing scheme. It’s part of the “soft sell.” Read the article—it explains.

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?

Short answer: to drive down their acceptance rate.
Explain this to your DC, they will understand. Helps to take any potential emotion out of an already emotional process...

Anonymous wrote:Excerpt from Ron Lieber’s book about what a racket, numbers game the whole thing is. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1256800

What does this article - about merit aid - have to do with the topic of this thread - "Why Do Selective Schools Market?"

Anonymous wrote:Excerpt from Ron Lieber’s book about what a racket, numbers game the whole thing is. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1256800

Always thought that the college admissions process was a bit of a racket

Excerpt from Ron Lieber’s book about what a racket, numbers game the whole thing is. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1256800

Anonymous wrote:There are two facets of it 1) yes, "recruit to deny" is definitely a thing, increasing the pool of unqualified students lowers admissions rate which, while not part of the USNWR ranking anymore, is important to trustees and general public (plenty of posts here that indicate admissions rate is a meaningful indicator of quality when it really isn't all that) and 2) they do actually want to recruit more of certain groups and have to cast a wide net to get those.

So which is it?

Are they nefariously and purposefully inviting kids they know have no chance to accept? Where is your evidence of this? Where is your evidence that trustees care about lowering already low acceptance rates? And what difference does it make if the uninformed use acceptance rate as an arbiter of quality? So schools should not try and get more applicants so that the uninformed won't think they are better than they actually are? None of that makes any sense.

Or is it your #2 that they want to cast a wide net?

I'll answer for you. You are correct with #2.

Cynical view.. they have more money to spend on marketing. More apps can help fund for their marketing effort. I would rather they spend little to no money marketing but lower the tuition, but sadly it doesn't work that way.

And yes, marketing helps with brand awareness, recognition which may help them charge more tuition from incoming students.

To the posters who think every kid has a chance, I would think absolutely not. The colleges can absolutely leverage AI to target very specific group of URM, athletes etc. to build the class they want to build. MIT absolutely doesn't have to market itself to Asians in a top STEM school

There are two facets of it 1) yes, "recruit to deny" is definitely a thing, increasing the pool of unqualified students lowers admissions rate which, while not part of the USNWR ranking anymore, is important to trustees and general public (plenty of posts here that indicate admissions rate is a meaningful indicator of quality when it really isn't all that) and 2) they do actually want to recruit more of certain groups and have to cast a wide net to get those.

Anonymous wrote:even kids that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

Please explain to me how these schools know your kid doesn't "stand a snowball's chance in hell".

They don't.

You do.

So don't apply then. See how easy?

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 schools publish acceptance rate in their announcements/blogs.

Oh they publish acceptance rates! What horrible fiends!

And if they didn't publish them, you'd have a conspiracy theory as to why that is also.

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 there absolutely is prestige associated with kids going to selective schools, so of course it works well for the university to be seen as more selective rather than less so. Part of that is getting more kids to apply, even kids that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

You think they need a prestige bump going from 5% to 4%?

Preposterous.

As a rule all colleges want the largest number of applicants possible. From Harvard to your state directional. The people who work in the admissions offices work hard at the jobs - just like you - and want to help their colleges achieve their goals by building the best class they can.

The idea that these are nefarious people rubbing their hands while they trick you into handing over $79 or so is egocentric hubris.

You haven't cracked the code. You're making stuff up.

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 schools publish acceptance rate in their announcements/blogs.

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 there absolutely is prestige associated with kids going to selective schools, so of course it works well for the university to be seen as more selective rather than less so. Part of that is getting more kids to apply, even kids that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

Not sure many colleges care about the ethics of admissions, the legality perhaps, but not the ethics.