How They Choose from the Wait List
How do you choose from the wait listed candidates? Do you choose people who will fit better at JHU than others; people who show the most interest, people who satisfy spaces open in certain academic areas, or a mix of all of this?
Any student on the wait list who chooses to remain on the wait list will have a chance for admission if spaces in the class become available and admission off the wait list will depend on how many admitted students accept their offer from Hopkins. The main thing to note is that if we decide to use the wait list this year EVERY applicant who chose to remain on the wait list will be re-reviewed for admission. When re-reviewing students for admission off the wait list our priority will always be quality of the student and what will they contribute to Hopkins, but we may also have to factor in additional concerns dependent on the make-up of the enrolling class. It is that last note that I will try to expand on.
If the decision is made to select students for admission off the wait list than a determination is made that we have not hit our targets for the enrolling class. This means that we have not enrolled the set number of students we want to enroll. Removing students off the wait list helps us make our yield number but also helps us make sure there is diversity in our class in every way shape and form.
It might be decided that when selecting students off the wait list we specifically want to target one area of academic interest … or we need to take students with no financial need because we have no aid … or we want students with a specific demographic breakdown — it all depends and unfortunately until we see the make-up of the class of 2013 we can not make a determination. Remember there is no guarantee that one will be admitted off the wait list just because they are a strong applicant, because there is no guarantee that we will need to take students off the wait list. Interest does matter but it is not the driving force of our decision making process.
The above is from the blog of one of the admissions officers at Johns Hopkins University.
South Korea Spends Record Sum on Education
SEOUL (AFP) — South Koreans spent nearly 30 billion dollars on education in 2008, more than in any previous year, despite the deepening economic downturn, official figures showed Sunday.
The increase, due largely to a rise in spending on private teaching including English-language learning, indicated South Koreans were reluctant to cut back on education despite a dramatic economic slowdown.
Household spending on education reached an all-time high of 39.8 trillion won (29.5 billion dollars) in 2008, up 7.7 percent from a year earlier, the Yonhap news agency said, citing Bank of Korea figures.
The global financial crisis has dampened consumer spending in South Korea and fueled a rise in unemployment.
The country’s per-capita gross national income fell to 19,231 dollars last year from 21,695 dollars in 2007.
Asian-American education group seeks delay in UC admissions reform
March 29, 2009 by admin
Filed under News, Standardized Tests
Asian-American education group seeks delay in UC admissions reform
By Matt Krupnick
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Posted: 03/27/2009 03:39:44 PM PDT
SAN FRANCISCO — The University of California’s recent eligibility reforms are breeding distrust for the institution among Asian-Americans, several scholars and community leaders said Friday.
UC should rescind or delay the changes until Asian-American and Pacific Islander groups comment on them, several speakers said at an Asian Pacific Americans in Higher Education conference in San Francisco’s Japantown. The UC Board of Regents adopted the changes last month; they are set to take effect in 2012.
Several groups have expressed concern that the new freshman standards will limit the number of Asian-American students attending the 10-campus system.
“How can we not be concerned?” said Patrick Hayashi, a retired UC Berkeley and systemwide leader. “The projections show our community will be decimated. We have to keep in mind that these numbers represent real people.”
The new criteria will eliminate a requirement for SAT single-subject tests, which university leaders have said are a barrier for underprivileged applicants. The reforms also guarantee admissions for fewer students but will allow more to have applications reviewed by admissions officers.
Lawmakers and others have said the university did not seek enough public input before last month’s decision, and many have criticized UC for not adequately explaining how they might affect Asian Americans. Legislators plan to hold a hearing on the issue Tuesday in Sacramento.
UC has estimated that the changes will lead to a smaller percentage of Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders in the pool of eligible applicants. White students stand to benefit most.
The university believes the new system is fairer to disadvantaged students, said Nina Robinson, UC’s director of policy and external affairs for student affairs. The unhappiness of the Asian-American community is unfortunate, she said.
“It’s not a surprise that a community that has been so deeply engaged and supportive of UC would be concerned,” Robinson told the Bay Area News Group after the conference discussion. “The president would not have supported the policy had he not felt it was fair and created opportunity.”
Several panelists criticized the university for changing the fundamental structure of UC admissions without first speaking to the Legislature or other groups. The 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education outlined goals for California’s public college and university system, making the top one-eighth of high-school graduates eligible for UC.
“This is a departure from the Master Plan,” said Steve Boilard, higher-education director for the state Legislative Analyst’s Office. He said that the university’s constitutional independence should not allow it to make changes without a public mandate.
The independence “doesn’t mean you can do anything and say it’s the top one-eighth,” he said.
Accepted to College?
March 26, 2009 by admin
Filed under Choosing College
Now that your child is accepted to the colleges your child and you hope to gain admission to, what is next?
1) Look at ALL the offers.
2) Visit the school again.
3) Discuss who is footing the bill.
4) Consider buying a home in the town where your child is going to school.
5) Ask about starting salaries of graduates.
6) Consider Work-study programs.
7) Look for paid internships.
Be honest.
9) Consider taking a gap year.
10) Don’t forget your tax credit of up to 2500$ each year for the tuition you pay.
College Admissions Lottery
March 24, 2009 by admin
Filed under Choosing College, Just for Fun
Here is an interesting article from insidehighered.com about the college admissions process.
By Chad Aldeman
Students will soon be receiving word from their chosen colleges and universities, but as more students apply to more colleges than ever before, the joy of acceptance or the agony of rejection are increasingly random. It’s time to stop treating the college admissions process as we have in the past, and start treating it as it’s become: a lottery.
A friend of mine worked for two different college admissions departments. The first was a traditional liberal arts college in the Northeast, an institution that prided itself on the character of its class. Admissions officers there more or less knew the high schools of applicants, had time to read the students’ personal statements and letters of recommendation, and truly thought about whether the applicants would be a good fit for this particular institution. It was a relatively sane process.
Mainly because of the sheer size of the applicant pool, my friend’s second institution operated differently. This competitive institution in the greater Washington area relied much more heavily on the all-important numbers — high school grade point average and SAT score — rather than some holistic determination of student quality.
Each year, thousands of qualified applicants bombarded the admissions office, and, even after setting a relatively high standard, the admissions office had far too many qualified applicants to choose from, and very little time to do so. During admissions season, each officer was expected to sort through 50 distinct applications per day, five days a week. At eight hours a day, not counting breaks, meetings, visitors, and phone calls, the admissions officer had roughly 10 minutes to devote to each applicant (eight hours a day times 60 minutes per hour divided by 50 applicants). Ten minutes, unless, as my friend points out, they were athletes or legacies.
At many institutions, in other words, it is a far more random process than colleges would like students to believe. The myth of a meritocracy, on which the selective admissions system is built, is substantially a lie.
Selective colleges did not mean for this to happen; rather, they are victims of their own success, along with the emergence of a truly national higher education market and the rise of a rankings-driven consumer culture. But, there is no going back now, so colleges should embrace the unavoidable randomness and go from a lottery-like system to a true lottery.
Institutions would set a threshold based on high school grades and SAT score and then open the lottery to anyone meeting those levels. A public university might have one lottery for state residents, after determining how many slots they should receive, and fill remaining spots with another lottery for out-of-state students. Everyone would have an equal chance of gaining admission, and the process wouldn’t be subject to influences from money, alumni, or human error. Students who submit scores would be eligible for admission to institutions without going through the tedious and expensive process of writing essays, asking for recommendations, and paying separate application fees to each institution. They’d pay one fee to be a part of the lottery. Institutions would save on the cost of operating admissions offices that would be better invested in scholarships or teaching.
There are several examples of lotteries operating successfully in other fields. The system of placing medical students in residency programs is a good example of a large, higher education-created lottery. An objective third party inputs preferences from residency programs and prospective students, and then conducts a fair, impartial matching process to fill seats. Successful lotteries vary in the level of control afforded participating parties, but they require some minimal standards, an ability to receive preferences from each party, and then an objective system to match the two sides.
A lottery would increase opportunity for students who lack social connections, and a lottery would make it impossible for colleges to favor candidates unlikely to need financial aid over those who do. It would also reduce the perceived stigma of non-acceptance, and thus the terrible pressure that many high school students face. It would create an objective baseline for each institution, end the pretension that college admissions are non-random, and focus institutional missions back where they belong: teaching and preparing students to be productive members of society.
College admissions are already random; let’s just admit it and begin developing a more effective system. A lottery might be the answer.
