posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 10:05am on 02/04/2008 under colleges
orichalcum at 10:05am on 02/04/2008 under collegesSo, the college application numbers are out for this year. (These days, on March 31st you can just log on to the net and find out everywhere at once. I guess it's better than having to ambush the mail before your parents see it?)
8.1% of applicants got into Yale.
When I applied, it was around 18 or 19% - and that still felt like a total lottery. Now...well, I'm glad they're planning on significantly expanding the undergrad class, because I suspect that the difference between most of the successful and unsuccessful applicants is even tinier than it was in the 90's. But even more, it means that many elite-college applicants these days aren't able to figure out which college best suits them and try and go there - they're throwing themselves at every metaphorical person in the bar and hoping someone, anyone, says yes. I'm not even sure that the college tour is pointful anymore, because you might as well wait and see where you happen to get the luck of the draw and then decide.
I wonder if there's a way to go back to the regional popularity of schools. A lot of SLACs (small liberal arts colleges) in the rural Midwest and other less ideal locations have been having massive recruitment and financial trouble, because they used to get the best students in Ohio or Minnesota, but now many of those go or try to go to the Northeastern schools. While it might hurt diversity, it seems like everyone might be better off if there was less of a focus on the Top 10 (or 20) and more on the unique and local fit of many different institutions.
It might also help deal with the "bitter freshman" problem; your school is in a lot of trouble if 70% of students spend their first semester or year not concentrating on the joys around them but on how they wish they had gotten into someplace "better," where "better" often doesn't actually mean "better classes/more congenial classmates/exciting activities" but "higher-ranking." It becomes remarkably easy to blame, say, a bad intro. chemistry class not on your own work ethic or a confusing professor but on the institution, and to create a mythic ideal of how everything would be sunshine and puppies if only you had gotten into BigName U. I saw that at NU a bit and it's a real waste of energy and time.
Particularly at smaller but still selective institutions, I think that the quality of professors and students is overall excellent enough that you can get a great education at any of 80 or 100 different schools. The problem is convincing 17-year-olds of that.
8.1% of applicants got into Yale.
When I applied, it was around 18 or 19% - and that still felt like a total lottery. Now...well, I'm glad they're planning on significantly expanding the undergrad class, because I suspect that the difference between most of the successful and unsuccessful applicants is even tinier than it was in the 90's. But even more, it means that many elite-college applicants these days aren't able to figure out which college best suits them and try and go there - they're throwing themselves at every metaphorical person in the bar and hoping someone, anyone, says yes. I'm not even sure that the college tour is pointful anymore, because you might as well wait and see where you happen to get the luck of the draw and then decide.
I wonder if there's a way to go back to the regional popularity of schools. A lot of SLACs (small liberal arts colleges) in the rural Midwest and other less ideal locations have been having massive recruitment and financial trouble, because they used to get the best students in Ohio or Minnesota, but now many of those go or try to go to the Northeastern schools. While it might hurt diversity, it seems like everyone might be better off if there was less of a focus on the Top 10 (or 20) and more on the unique and local fit of many different institutions.
It might also help deal with the "bitter freshman" problem; your school is in a lot of trouble if 70% of students spend their first semester or year not concentrating on the joys around them but on how they wish they had gotten into someplace "better," where "better" often doesn't actually mean "better classes/more congenial classmates/exciting activities" but "higher-ranking." It becomes remarkably easy to blame, say, a bad intro. chemistry class not on your own work ethic or a confusing professor but on the institution, and to create a mythic ideal of how everything would be sunshine and puppies if only you had gotten into BigName U. I saw that at NU a bit and it's a real waste of energy and time.
Particularly at smaller but still selective institutions, I think that the quality of professors and students is overall excellent enough that you can get a great education at any of 80 or 100 different schools. The problem is convincing 17-year-olds of that.
There are 28 comments on this entry. (Reply.)