Marketing, admissions and universities

Published December 28, 2014

Editorial by Burlington Times-News, December 27, 2014.

Raise a hand if a son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter, niece, nephew, or fifth cousin (twice removed) mentioned college applications over Christmas.

Well, for those who did, we’re right there with you. A lot of holiday conversation was about what universities high school seniors were hoping to enter, applications, information on applications and, well, stuff teens receive from schools without even asking to see it.

Yes, if you thought the deluge of holiday catalogs and charitable solicitations this season was overwhelming, consider what high school seniors confront these days: hundreds of mailers from colleges and universities suggesting that they apply and implying they might have a shot, even if they haven’t met a school’s high standards. In fact, one teen within our earshot said she had received mailers from colleges she had neither contacted nor considered.

That’s a long way from those mass “College Days” high schools had back in our day.

Why so much marketing? It is largely the result of the college lists compiled by publications, most notably U.S. News and World Report, that offer extra weight in their rankings to colleges with low “admit rates” — those that offer admission to relatively few of the students who apply. There was a time when this sort of selectivity may have been an indicator of actual educational excellence, at least in part. But thanks to the rankings-driven race among colleges to appear increasingly choosy, it’s no longer so clear what the admit rate means.

Schools are now lowering their admit rate by inveigling more students into applying — thus the shower of mailers, as well as hundreds of emails and the occasional telemarketing call. And it works, to the detriment of parents’ wallets. Today, partly because of all the marketing and recruitment, students are applying to about twice as many colleges as they did 15 years ago. As admission rates have dropped to as low as 5 percent among the most elite colleges, students have applied to even more of them. It’s no longer very unusual for a student to file applications to 15 schools, at $80 or so a pop. (Though a few colleges are upping the number of applicants even more by making the process free and pushing their deadlines later.)

The rankings have become far too powerful, and schools have allowed it to happen. No doubt schools believe many students decide what college to attend based on the rankings, but it is a shame that they have been willing to tailor their admissions criteria and processes in response.

Turning this around will take a near-revolution among college leaders and families. High school counselors have been telling students for years that their happiness in college and their future success will depend more on finding the right fit than in responding to the glossy brochures or the magazine rankings. Students and parents need to start listening, because it’s true. As for the schools, they need to be brave. It would be easiest for the top-ranked colleges, including the richest, most famous Ivy League schools, to start the ball rolling. They have the least to lose because their reputations are solid and they’ll always draw plenty of students. They could demand that rankings publications at the very least eliminate these two counterproductive measurements, vowing not to provide any information at all for the rankings if that doesn’t happen. If those colleges and universities led the way, others might muster the courage to follow.

 Parts of the editorial were from Tribune News Service.

http://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/our-opinion/marketing-admissions-and-universities-1.418216?ot=hmg.PrintPageLayout.ot&print=nophoto

December 28, 2014 at 8:33 am
Keith Cooper says:

In the last paragraph: "They could demand that rankings publications at the very least eliminate these two counterproductive measurements..."

This is driving me crazy because I can only find ONE measurement (admit rate) mentioned in the content of the article. I feel like I must be missing something obvious. Any help?