Anonymous wrote:I started to read this, but he gets some things wrong (like ED and financial aid, students can decline if aid is not enough, Duke sends aid based on CSS, so likely would have cone with admission if admitted), and his bias shows in wording. Then I looked to see who was writing -- undersecretary under Trump.

Makes sense, thank you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems about right to me:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/college-admissions-applications.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ok0.G9-F.xk2gFRSMz5Td&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

The answer is simple, there was a spike in birth rate around 2006-2007, so there are more kids competing for approx. the same number of places in college, ie more competition and harder to get in. Based on the graph, it will be less competitive for the 2010-2015 cohort when they reach the college application age....

Oh sweet summer child.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1201798.page

The PP with the birth rate graph nailed it. Add in TO and covid, and you have the perfect storm.

I started to read this, but he gets some things wrong (like ED and financial aid, students can decline if aid is not enough, Duke sends aid based on CSS, so likely would have cone with admission if admitted), and his bias shows in wording. Then I looked to see who was writing -- undersecretary under Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems about right to me:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/college-admissions-applications.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ok0.G9-F.xk2gFRSMz5Td&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

The answer is simple, there was a spike in birth rate around 2006-2007, so there are more kids competing for approx. the same number of places in college, ie more competition and harder to get in. Based on the graph, it will be less competitive for the 2010-2015 cohort when they reach the college application age....

And test required should be back everywhere by then which will really make it easier for the top kids--less kids and fewer with the scores too.

The punchline:

"
But here’s what we can do: Hold the schools accountable for their processes and their decisions.

Institutions that receive federal funds should be required to clearly state their admissions criteria. Admissions as currently practiced is designed to let schools do whatever they want.

Colleges should also not be allowed to make anyone decide whether to attend without knowing what it will actually cost, and they should not be allowed to offer better odds to those who forgo that information.
"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They expect the college admissions process to find the exceptions.

Bingo. If college admissions officers are already doing the front-end vetting for you, why bother reinventing the wheel? As the saying goes, work smarter not harder.

Because college AOs are vetting high schoolers, which is different from the adults they will become, and becaise an employer isn't worried about having the right number of tuba players and shortstops and foret-gens in each hiring round.

Since when is being a tuba player or shortstop, without more, enough for admission to top colleges?

Anonymous wrote:Seems about right to me:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/college-admissions-applications.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ok0.G9-F.xk2gFRSMz5Td&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

The answer is simple, there was a spike in birth rate around 2006-2007, so there are more kids competing for approx. the same number of places in college, ie more competition and harder to get in. Based on the graph, it will be less competitive for the 2010-2015 cohort when they reach the college application age....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the so-called elite employers think they're doing well recruiting from a certain set of schools, what incentive do they have to spend more time/money looking elsewhere for (in their mind) marginal value?

None which is why the insanity will continue. The name of the school does not matter for some degrees, and I think most people understand it, but the name on the degree is the only thing that matters for certain professions as much as people insist otherwise. For all of the Barista jokes, who has a better shot at a hedge fund job- a lax player with an english degree from Princeton or someone with a 4.0 in business from Towson?

Trick question. They both have low odds. Hedge funds are hiring the lax player's classmate majoring in something more suitable for the job.

My English major investment banker college-roommate disagrees.

Hedge funds are not like investment banks. They wants kids who are solid in math, cs or physics. An English major will not pass the first round for hedge funds because it is only math or logic problems but may be hired by an IB. The math required for IB is basic algebra not so for quant funds.

And IB males big money so there's no problem for them.

If IB makes big money, quants are making multiples of that. Why do you think so many top college kids are trying to get into hedge funds. No kid who is at the top in math or cs at Harvard is dreaming of IB these days. IB is now for the second tier students at most places.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^sorry, couldn’t for force a student to attend a college they couldn’t *afford*. Typo.

Before you ED, you run the numbers on their website. If the final offer exceeds what you saw, you can go back to them for adjustment. If not, you are obligated to attend unless of course your situation has changed drastically. BTW, your affordability is determined by them, not you.

+1. This. Y’all have to take loans like everyone else. All y’all who had multiple kids in succession are sol too, btw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They expect the college admissions process to find the exceptions.

Bingo. If college admissions officers are already doing the front-end vetting for you, why bother reinventing the wheel? As the saying goes, work smarter not harder.

In effect they are outsourcing their personnel decisions to readers who make $45k and spend ten minutes on each application. This is not “working smarter”.

Oh, since when do the "readers who make $45k" make decisions about admissions offers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They expect the college admissions process to find the exceptions.

Bingo. If college admissions officers are already doing the front-end vetting for you, why bother reinventing the wheel? As the saying goes, work smarter not harder.

Because college AOs are vetting high schoolers, which is different from the adults they will become, and becaise an employer isn't worried about having the right number of tuba players and shortstops and foret-gens in each hiring round.

Anonymous wrote:^sorry, couldn’t for force a student to attend a college they couldn’t *afford*. Typo.

Before you ED, you run the numbers on their website. If the final offer exceeds what you saw, you can go back to them for adjustment. If not, you are obligated to attend unless of course your situation has changed drastically. BTW, your affordability is determined by them, not you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the so-called elite employers think they're doing well recruiting from a certain set of schools, what incentive do they have to spend more time/money looking elsewhere for (in their mind) marginal value?

None which is why the insanity will continue. The name of the school does not matter for some degrees, and I think most people understand it, but the name on the degree is the only thing that matters for certain professions as much as people insist otherwise. For all of the Barista jokes, who has a better shot at a hedge fund job- a lax player with an english degree from Princeton or someone with a 4.0 in business from Towson?

Trick question. They both have low odds. Hedge funds are hiring the lax player's classmate majoring in something more suitable for the job.

My English major investment banker college-roommate disagrees.

Hedge funds are not like investment banks. They wants kids who are solid in math, cs or physics. An English major will not pass the first round for hedge funds because it is only math or logic problems but may be hired by an IB. The math required for IB is basic algebra not so for quant funds.

And IB males big money so there's no problem for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the so-called elite employers think they're doing well recruiting from a certain set of schools, what incentive do they have to spend more time/money looking elsewhere for (in their mind) marginal value?

None which is why the insanity will continue. The name of the school does not matter for some degrees, and I think most people understand it, but the name on the degree is the only thing that matters for certain professions as much as people insist otherwise. For all of the Barista jokes, who has a better shot at a hedge fund job- a lax player with an english degree from Princeton or someone with a 4.0 in business from Towson?

Trick question. They both have low odds. Hedge funds are hiring the lax player's classmate majoring in something more suitable for the job.

They have the people skills. In an increasingly automated world dominated by artificial intelligence, the people skills will always win.

NESAC schools are heavily recruited by Wall Street, what relevant majors do they offer?

Exactly