“Reach, target and safety” is the formula by which students were taught to craft a balanced list of colleges that included a few that were a sure thing, a few that matched the student’s academic profile and a few that ….”you have a chance of getting into”, as defined in this blog, But over the last few years, the “targets” were, well, missing the target and the “reaches” were slowly moving way out of reach.
Enter the pandemic and admission season Fall 2021, where the outcomes have been so wildly unpredictable that many in the field of admissions are suggesting new terminology JUST to describe the many nuances of reach. Recent suggestions are terms like “reach, big reach, statistically unlikely” and “might as well play the lottery, your odds are better”.
While the pandemic isn’t solely responsible for all of the chaos and confusion of this year, it certainly did exponentially enhance the already existing challenges and inequities in the system. One that the U.S. News and World Report ranking system began and the colleges have continued to perpetuate. One that defines “prestige” in large part on how hard it is to get in to the college. One that is far from “fair and balanced”.
I mean, how can college admissions be “fair” and students create a list that is “balanced” when the colleges’ goal is to admit LESS students, not more? How is that in the best interest of the student?
It’s not! In his recent book, Jeffrey Selingo addresses this as he describes how the college landscape is divided into the “have and have nots” or “buyers vs sellers”. Selingo cites Northeastern University as one example of a college that specifically developed and executed a plan to become one of the “sellers”, the elite colleges that everyone wants to get into. Over the last 20 years, they have increased their rank from #162 to #49 and for Fall 2019 only admitted 18% of their total applicants.
When speaking of fairness, it’s hard not to talk about standardized tests. For years, organizations like fairtest.org talked about the inequities of standardized testing and called for colleges to go test-optional. Their premise was that test-optional would increase the opportunity for a more diverse application pool. The pandemic was the chance to literally conduct a worldwide experiment. As testing centers were forced to shut down, the majority of colleges went test-optional or test-blind which resulted in a dramatic increase in applications amongst a more diverse group of students.
Finally, the playing field was fair, but was it? In the recent podcast “This American Life”, Rick Clark, Director of Admissions at Georgia Tech, talks about how colleges may “admit” more low-income and first generation students, which increases the diversity of their “admit profiles”, but that doesn’t mean they can afford to pay for them to attend. And in the end, the actual “enroll” profiles may be far less diverse.
Additionally, the surge of applications predominantly went to the colleges that were top-ranked and already receive large numbers of applications. The University of California system as well as the elite colleges saw dramatic increases in their number of applications, which has made it even harder for students to get in this year. And, as a rule, colleges “over-admit” in order to make their enrollment numbers as they work to predict who will accept their offers, which resulted in massive waitlists, and anxious and stressed-out students and their families who have to wait even longer to receive their final outcomes.
I wish I knew what the answer was or had a solution. It is encouraging that those in higher education are already using this pandemic to apply Winston Churchill’s advice to “never waste a good crisis” and figure out ways to improve this system.
But the colleges can’t do it alone. The more students choose to apply to just “name” or “top-ranked” colleges”, the more it perpetuates the landscape Selingo describes.
It’s more important than ever to remember that there are many, many colleges that are in the “buyer’s” category that Jeffrey Selingo talks about. Combined with resources like TuitionFit.org , families can find colleges that are balanced academically, socially and financially.
And while you can’t control all that is going on behind the scenes, you can control what’s important to you and finding the colleges that are best for you.
Know your “why”, be clear on your priorities and parameters, be creative and be realistic, both in how you build your list and how you evaluate your outcomes. And remember that, “where you go is not who you’ll be”. YOU create your success, not the college you attend.