Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

Not all schools yield protect. If it does, it's not a safety.

THIS. Not sure why some here can't grasp that.

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 prior 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 and 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.

This is why I'm saying safeties don't exist anymore. It doesn't make sense that a school would reject a high stats student if they accept so many applicants.

It does make sense from the school's perspective when the ultimate goal is enrollment, in other words, "bottoms in seats." The problem is that the school is not in the sweet spot: highly selective/high yield OR less selective/open enrollment.

VT is moderately selective, which means that VT is trying to balance institutional priorities (e.g., 1st gen/URM/athletes, etc.), which means rejecting some high stats in-state kids AND reaching enrollment targets, which means ensuring that students that are accepted enroll (waitlisting high stats kids that may have better offers) but not accepting too many students, which leads to over enrollment.

I think the problem goes back to the algorithms and the enrollment management consultants. There seems to be uncertainty that the algorithms cannot account for, whereas in previous times (pre test optional) this was not a problem. Rather than admit 5 or 7 or 9, or however many, high-stats applicants for every 1 they expect to yield, they admit none because they are afraid of under or over enrolling. In other words, their mathematical model is bad.

I suspect that the model has difficulty predicting how many would enroll because there is much greater uncertainty on what those high-stats applicants' alternative options might be. (If the enrollment management experts can't figure it out, it's even tougher for the applicants making their lists...)

So basically, I'm blaming the $15B enrollment management consultant industry for failing to figure this out. Class of 2021 they were thrown for a loop. They should have it figured out by now.

Like medical schools

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's time for universities to take the sorority approach and introduce a "pref round" where applicants rank their choices and the colleges do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

Not all schools yield protect. If it does, it's not a safety.

THIS. Not sure why some here can't grasp that.

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 prior 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 and 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.

This is why I'm saying safeties don't exist anymore. It doesn't make sense that a school would reject a high stats student if they accept so many applicants.

It does make sense from the school's perspective when the ultimate goal is enrollment, in other words, "bottoms in seats." The problem is that the school is not in the sweet spot: highly selective/high yield OR less selective/open enrollment.

VT is moderately selective, which means that VT is trying to balance institutional priorities (e.g., 1st gen/URM/athletes, etc.), which means rejecting some high stats in-state kids AND reaching enrollment targets, which means ensuring that students that are accepted enroll (waitlisting high stats kids that may have better offers) but not accepting too many students, which leads to over enrollment.

Not a parent of a senior here, so please bear with me - So, how does that work, though? When I'm seeing reports of kids with 4.0+ GPAs that, at least according to parents, have good ECs being rejected from Penn State, for example, how was that not them being rejected by a safety?

The Penn State system received 95,999 applications. There are just too many high stat kids applying to the same schools, for the same majors.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's time for universities to take the sorority approach and introduce a "pref round" where applicants rank their choices and the colleges do the same.

My husband and I were just discussing this. A match ranking system like that for sororities and residencies would work well when kids are putting so many applications in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's time for universities to take the sorority approach and introduce a "pref round" where applicants rank their choices and the colleges do the same.

But many families on here do not even visit schools before they apply (we did).

I think the kids who have a strong preference indicate that by ED.

Many (perhaps most) do not.

Ridiculous. ED isn't an option for many families. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where their best fit rocket science program would be, even without a visit.

Anonymous wrote:Posters that keep saying that if you want VT you have to ED. I personally hate ED. Especially when it is a public university. I mean, come on! The primary purpose should be to educate Virginia residents. High stats kids should be able to consider all state schools, like you see in California. ED benefits colleges with guaranteed yield and full pay students. ED doesn’t really benefit students. Why shouldn’t kids get a chance to consider multiple colleges come April?

I miss merit based admissions. Stats.

Back when I applied to VT there was NO essay and admission was rolling. It was the easiest application of any schools I applied to. Basically, transcripts, test scores and recs. I received a notice I was in before Christmas and I was just general regular admission, undecided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's time for universities to take the sorority approach and introduce a "pref round" where applicants rank their choices and the colleges do the same.

But many families on here do not even visit schools before they apply (we did).

I think the kids who have a strong preference indicate that by ED.

Many (perhaps most) do not.

As long as schools have students who ED over a barrel with regards to finances, ED is always going to be a rich (or very poor) student's game.

Posters that keep saying that if you want VT you have to ED. I personally hate ED. Especially when it is a public university. I mean, come on! The primary purpose should be to educate Virginia residents. High stats kids should be able to consider all state schools, like you see in California. ED benefits colleges with guaranteed yield and full pay students. ED doesn’t really benefit students. Why shouldn’t kids get a chance to consider multiple colleges come April?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

Not all schools yield protect. If it does, it's not a safety.

THIS. Not sure why some here can't grasp that.

Not a parent of a senior here, so please bear with me - So, how does that work, though? When I'm seeing reports of kids with 4.0+ GPAs that, at least according to parents, have good ECs being rejected from Penn State, for example, how was that not them being rejected by a safety?

According to US News, Penn State's acceptance rate is 58% (could be lower now). FWIW, my kids have very high test scores and grades, and their safeties accepted 60%, 75%, and 94% of students. Overkill? Who knows. But we found schools that they would be very happy attending and that gave them good news before winter break of senior year. It makes the rest of the waiting much easier. (One ended up at a school that accepts less than 20% of students, the other is still waiting for more notifications.)

VA Tech says it is very important in the essays to write how the student would be a part of the community and what goals would be at VT and how VT would help achieve them. School counselors had spoken to a reader and were emphatic.

Don’t know how much it counts, but they said that it is “very important”. Writing generically is no good. Has to be specific to what the student would do at VT and why they want to be there.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's time for universities to take the sorority approach and introduce a "pref round" where applicants rank their choices and the colleges do the same.

But many families on here do not even visit schools before they apply (we did).

I think the kids who have a strong preference indicate that by ED.

Many (perhaps most) do not.

Maybe it's time for universities to take the sorority approach and introduce a "pref round" where applicants rank their choices and the colleges do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

Not all schools yield protect. If it does, it's not a safety.

THIS. Not sure why some here can't grasp that.

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 prior 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 and 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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

Not all schools yield protect. If it does, it's not a safety.

THIS. Not sure why some here can't grasp that.

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 prior 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 and 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.

This is why I'm saying safeties don't exist anymore. It doesn't make sense that a school would reject a high stats student if they accept so many applicants.