With early decision deadlines at hand, admissions officers debate the merits of early applications. Louis Hirsh, a former director of admissions at the University of Delaware, shares his thoughts with the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Archive for November, 2012
Now that the 2012 elections have come to a close, this is the perfect time to reflect over the campaign season. Last week, The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Head Count blog discussed just a few of the ways that the political campaign cycle could be likened to the college admissions process: both create intense emotion on either end of the spectrum, create frenzy among analysts who attempt to predict outcomes, and invoke a desire to put bumper stickers on cars.
Burke Rogers, the director of college counseling at St. George’s School, shares a few more of the metaphors between admissions and political campaigns here.
In Miami last week at the College Board Forum, Caroline M. Hoxby, an economics professor at Stanford University, discussed some of her research that looks at some of the missteps that low-income students experience in pursuit of a college education.
The Chronicle writes, a staggering number of high-achieving low-income students – roughly 82 percent of an annual cohort consisting of 35,000 – do not apply to colleges that are thought to be “good fits,” at which students from similar backgrounds experience success. Many of these students do not possess savvy in the application process, limiting their college search to too few schools and often relying upon recommendations rather than seeking out the schools that appeal most to their ideals for a college experience. As a result, these students are more likely to attend schools that are less selective than they are qualified to attend.
So who are these students and how can colleges better recruit them? Hoxby’s research identifies the affected group as students coming from large urban areas, often under-served by their schools, who are “isolated” as one of few high-achievers in their peer group. Schools who target these students by mail more so than electronic communication (or better – in person), do well in recruiting and ultimately changing the outcomes of low-income students.