Talk:College admissions in the United States

Archives

/Archive 1

Experimental Curriculums

"In addition, colleges such as Hampshire College, Beloit College, Pitzer College, Sarah Lawrence College, Bennington College, New College of Florida, and Reed College offer experimental curriculums."

Is this an exhaustive list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.250.44 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 rankings

This subsection should only be in articles that deal with college rankings, so I am removing it. 71.232.140.185 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit as the section is both notable (since it is a current event) and clearly related to college admissions. Please discuss on talk pages before reverting information which complies with Wikipedia policies. -Classicfilms 05:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems acknowledging that there is controversy about the rankings or referencing sites that contain letters from university presidents and others on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifler1978 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overview / List

Why are these sections needed? The Overview section now reads like a poorly written version of the Higher education in the United States article that distracts from the actual purpose of this article, and the List section is merely a link to the actual list. I propose deleting them and putting the Application process section below the lead. Also, a section on the history of the process in the U.S. and more flesh about how different colleges view it, not to mention the huge amount of controversy over the 'applications frenzy' is necessary.Classicalclarinet (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of competition?

As more and more young people are applying to college, the competition for admissions has increased greatly. I hear people say things like, "I would have never gotten into that school nowadays" because of the increase in applicants. This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/education/17admissions.html) from the NYtimes (Jan '08) makes some good points about increased admissions.

It points out that the population of college-aged people is swelling. In 2009 the largest group of high school seniors in this nation's history, 3.2 million are going to graduate.

It's now common for prospective students to apply to several schools. From the Nytimes article, "There was a time when kids applied to three or four schools, then to six or seven schools, and now, 10 or more is not uncommon,” said John Maguire, a higher education consultant."

I think this significantly increased compeition is highly notable and not even touched on here. It's a recent development, I feel sorry for kids now, more and more are going to college but less are accepted by the schools that they want to get into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.40.9 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge in content from College admissions counseling in the United States

The two topics -- College admissions in the United States and College admissions counseling in the United States, have much in common content-wise; both cover the admissions process, players (guidance counselors), application process and choices (ie Early decision etc). The first article (May 2012) is only 16K in length, with few references; the second (to be merged in) is about 100K with many references. So the combined article may be 116K -- that is, not too long. I think having two separate articles confuses people, like, what's the difference between them? (possible difference => more focus on admissions counseling, but I am thinking is this could easily be part of the combined article). I proposed merging this "counseling" article into the shorter-titled one. I wrote much of the "counseling" article but also I think it needs a better organization plan somehow, so if a merger is approved, then I would like to do it, but I will try for a more-sensible and workable outline. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Merged in new information. I kept most of the material from both articles but trimmed a few places where there was some duplication. There were sections on the criticism of the college rankings in the shorter article which I tightened considerably, since I felt it was mostly off the topic, and the ranking-criticisms is better handled in-depth elsewhere. In addition, there was a whole paragraph on the Common Data Set in the shorter article which I reduced to a sentence, since it seems that it is again mostly off the topic of College admissions in the US.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table full of errors under "Applications Considerations"

There is a table under the section "Applications Considerations" titled "Acceptances at selective schools: early vs regular admission (2009). This table is filled with multiple errors. I deleted it and another user reverted it, saying to discuss it here on the talk page first. First of all, the table does not even indicate what year the admissions data is for. The 2009 is actually referring to the source, which is the 2009 edition of Michele Hernadez's book A is for Admissions. I own this book, checked the cited page and found nothing resembling the data in the table on that page. I also checked the author's website, http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/, which contains admissions data tables for the last 8 years. Neither the data for the college class of 2009 nor the data for the high school class of 2009 (college class of 2013) even remotely matches the data in the table displayed on this page. I'll point out one of the many errors: Dartmouth's regular decision admission rate is listed at 6%, when it has not been below 8% for the last eight years at least, according to Hernadez's own website and many other sources of admissions data.

Yale's data is also mathematically impossible: the overall rate is derived from combining the applicant pools from early and regular decisions, which means the overall rate must be between the early rate and the regular rate. The data for the other schools in the table conform to this at least, while Yale's overall rate is lower than both the early and regular rate, which again is mathematically impossible.

Furthermore, the table "2012 Admission Decisions for selected colleges" under the section "How colleges evaluate applicants" already contains early, regular, and overall admissions data for a specific year, the most recent high school graduating class (2012). It also cites an NY Times source that contains the data it purports to contain. Blckmgc (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally found data for this table in Hernandez's book which I borrowed from the public library. I was careful to pull off the numbers as I saw them. It is highly possible that your copy of Hernandez and mine are different versions, since it is a popular book. I agree about Yale's data -- it does not make sense that the average would not be between the high and low numbers. And I am not sure exactly what year the data are for -- you make a good point. Still, I think it is too radical to eliminate the table entirely, since the table makes an excellent case about how applying early decision improves an applicants chances statistically. It is true that a more complete table happens later in the article. How about if numbers are taken from the more complete table for those selected schools? Then they'd be more current.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I was looking through the bigger table, and much of the data is missing such as for regular rates. My problem with the bigger table is that it is perhaps too large to slog through, and I doubt that readers could grasp the point -- that early applications substantially improve the statistical chance of acceptance -- as easily, but I suppose they could if they slog through it. But my problem now with the smaller table is that it tends to reinforce this elite Ivy-league thing, but I don't know how to choose a group of elite colleges without causing more fuss. So, tell you what -- delete the smaller table as you suggest. I'll try to fill in holes in the larger table perhaps by going to the colleges' own Common Data Set. And maybe more colleges could be added to the larger table if you feel that some are left out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using data from Hernandez's website which I linked earlier, http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/. It contains a wealth of tables for almost the past decade with early, regular, and overall stats. Some of the early/regular data is slightly off from some of the data the NY Times source. The early rates discrepancies are by less than %1. The regular rates are higher for Hernandez, which I highly suspect includes waitlist admissions, which very probably did not make it into the NY Times data which was last updated in early June 2012. All of the overall rates match perfectly between the two sources. I believe Hernandez's website is as valid a source as her book, and the NY Times source in question is not an absolutely perfect source anyhow, since it is, after all, titled "A First Draft..."

Would you object to re-filling in the table with data from the website? The data looks very sound to me and would get the point across about the statistically higher acceptance rates in early rounds. Blckmgc (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was looking over the Hernandez data and yes it looks reliable and well-organized. Hernandez is a recognized authority on this subject which is why she has been quoted rather extensively in the article along with many a handful of other consultants (there is mostly a consensus among them). Still, Hernandez, like the others, is a salesperson: she is selling her consulting services, her books, advertising on her website. As you are probably well aware, any reference in Wikipedia serves as a pointer, akin to a plumbing valve, directing eye traffic to flow to a particular website. So if we add another reference pointing readers to data on her website, the overall effect may constitute Search engine optimization via refspam. It is somewhat difficult to avoid this problem entirely since other consultants are selling stuff too (Dunbar, O'Shaughnessy, etc etc) and there are links pointing to their websites; it is a rather difficult issue since most are authorities and offer excellent information on their websites. My concern is to avoid turning this article into an extended advertisement for one particular consultant and to try to keep some balance as best we can.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I imagine we could use her information in another way, so let me ask your view about this. Suppose we use Hernandez's list of competitive schools (possibly adding engineering schools -- she somewhat neglects this category somewhat) but collect data from each school's "Common Data Set" which is, after all, her source. That might avoid any refspam issues while getting good information. And, to avoid issues like overemphasizing particular Ivy League schools, we could perhaps have a shortened table with perhaps five rows (see below) with only three columns -- overall admission %, early %, regular %. Data would be based on averages from the larger wikitable to be built -- there may be a bit of distortion using averages from the schools since we'd be treating each school as the same -- having equal weight -- when the reality is that some schools may get many more applications than others -- but overall this effect could be noted perhaps with an asterisk and is probably negligible overall).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivies (one line -- combined stats 3 columns: overall, early, regular)
Stanford/MIT (ditto)
Other highly selective universities (Duke, Chicago, Georgetown, Nwestern, JHopkins)
Liberal arts (Barnard, Bowdoin etc)
Engineering (Cal Tech, MIT, CMU, Rice, Ga.Tech, etc)

The advantage with a five-line format is that it is short and easily read, although information is collapsed.

And then I was thinking about expanding the larger table to include such data as percent of men accepted, women accepted, yield rates, transfer admission rates, waitlist numbers, region of country, type of early admissions offered (ie Early Decision, Single choice early action, etc). Since it would still be sortable by column, it might be a highly useful tool for students & parents searching for schools or deciding on strategies for admission. And the length of colleges & universities could be extended; I think some of Hernandez's schools are not included in the larger table (ie Scripps, Barnard, etc.) If the table became too large or unwieldy, then perhaps it could be made into its own article, with links pointing to it in the "College admissions in the United States" wikiarticle, or else summarized in the College admissions article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So wondering what you think about this. And would you be willing to help me yank the data off the Common Data Sets?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Common Data Set published by the universities themselves is the most reliable source of information, but even going to the Common Data Sets will not yield complete data. I just checked some recent Common Data Sets that I pulled from university websites, and sometimes they intentionally leave out certain data such as all early admissions data despite acknowledging an early admissions program. I'm also wary of creating an "Engineering" category because all of those schools you listed offer non-engineering programs, and I'm not sure which if any require applicants to apply directly to the engineering major, and which allow students to pick between engineering and non-engineering majors some time after the admissions process.

I must say I don't favor combining into those five categories. Categories such as "liberal arts schools," have huge variation in admissions rates that makes combining the rates create a large amount of distortion. Hernandez combines rates for "Ivies" because that term designates a specific 8 schools whose admission rates are fairly close, whereas we'd have to list all the schools we include in the "liberal arts" category otherwise readers will have many questions about that data. Perhaps make the table have two colleges that fit each of the categories you listed? That would be a nice sample and readers could look to the larger table for more information if they should so please.

For example, a table with early%/regular%/overall% for Yale, Cornell, Stanford, Georgetown, Northwestern, MIT, CalTech, Amherst, Barnard. This would also solve the problem I raised above concerning some schools declining to put their early admissions data in the Common Data Sets, because we could just find two from each category that do provide that information. I would be willing to extract that data if you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blckmgc (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Go for it. I like your idea of having the leftmost column be the early% btw. Suggest putting the schools you listed (Yale, Cornell etc) in alphabetical order lest we be criticized for favoring specific schools. And keeping the same table title roughly but adding a line at the top with smaller letters (use <small> and </small> before and after what you'd like to make small) saying "Source: self-reported data from colleges" or something to that effect. I think it would be a good idea to link to each college's CDS data with a reference perhaps after each school's name.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may try to improve the larger table but I am wondering how to make it more useful and complete while not making it so large that it is hard to use. One problem: the distance between the row headings, and data deep down in the row -- so if a user scrolls way down, the headings get lost making it difficult for them to know which column is which. Spreadsheets solve this problem by fixing the rows and columns. Do you know if Wikipedia has a similar way of fixing the rows and columns?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pictures down top right

Nice photos guys! But, um, wtf?Thedarkfourth (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College Admissions Staff

This section, especially the second point of the paraphrase of Hernandez, comes across as biased and inflammatory. Hernandez happens to have been one of the type of admissions counselors described in point one, and clearly isn't fond of more professional, experienced admissions counselors. (I am not and never have worked as a college admissions counselor.) Many counselors have degrees from the college they're working for, advanced degrees, or have worked for several college admissions offices in successively responsible positions. I think that this section should be mostly omitted or at least edited down and placed much later in the article, as it is of very little use, imho, to students applying for college. But the bulleted items really need to go. I'd like to be able to recommend this article to clueless secondary school students, especially international ones, and I feel that this section is disparaging and discredits the entire article. Should I just eliminate this section, or the bulleted points? Thehunter8 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One way to fix perceived POV issues is to research it more intensely, add more references. I agree it gives only one view -- Hernandez's -- and says it is only one view; I am less certain whether it is "inflammatory" unless you're an admissions officer. Hernandez worked in an admissions office and is a widely acknowledged authority on college admissions (publishing several books on this subject). Deleting a referenced section might bring new biases. Improving it would involve more views about admissions officers (keeping Hernandez's, but possibly shortening it to balance out other views). In my view, describing the admissions counselors is relevant since they evaluate applicants; they are an important part of the process.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information describing the college admissions officers themselves -- very little (or else I haven't yet figured out the best search string). Who are they; ages; educational backgrounds; did they attend the college they represent? There is information about how they analyze applications. And I picked up these themes about college admissions officers -- powerful (ie make decisions obviously); generally savvy (ie can detect coaching in essays by comparing writing with SAT/ACT results, etc). I doubt there's been a good marketing study about the college admissions officers themselves; can anybody else find anything?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look into the materials provided by their professional association, NACAC. They publish an annual "State of College Admission Report" that might have some of the information you want to add to this article. If you don't find what you need to find, consider e-mailing them and asking for pointers; they might be helpful if you tell them why you're looking for the information (but be sure to stress that you need pointers to published information, not just information in an e-mail reply).

There might also be some basic information in some of the databases maintained by The Chronicle of Higher Education. I don't know for sure if they have anything related to admissions but they do some basic tracking of college and university job statistics so it's possible. ElKevbo (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks; will do sooner or later. About Hernandez stuff -- probably a good idea to trim it somehow.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style and length

This article jumps around a lot between the present and the past tense. Here's a sample that I didn't get to fixing.

One source noted that there is no penalty for wrong answers on the ACT so advisors suggest that it is okay to guess if time is limited; but on the SAT, incorrect guessing is penalized.[156] One report suggested that the SAT favors "white male students" from upper income backgrounds.[159] Another report suggests that the ACT has more questions geared to higher levels of high school mathematics...

There's also a lot of "One report suggests..."-type vagueness, and though there's often a link to a source it should be clearer in the article who these opinions are being attributed to (many of them are links to newspaper articles).

I've given up trying to fix these things, because this article is long. Is it perhaps too long? Cutting the weakly attributed griping might be a good place to start. Xnn (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over your changes. Generally I approve. However, I am not sure you're right about preferring present tense over past tense in some instances. When referring to a source from, say, 2009, that's in the past -- what the source said back then should properly be written using past tense. The problem happens when the source described something which may be (or may not be) continuing in the present -- then we have a choice: present tense? subjunctive? So, let's look at the current version, and I'll add my comments in parentheses:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One source noted (past tense-- it happened in the past, so that's right) that there is (present tense: since it continues today that there is no penalty -- so, the tense is correct) no penalty for wrong answers on the ACT so advisors suggest (tense? could go either way -- past tense, that the advisors suggested since it happened in the past, or present tense, that the advisors continue to suggest, etc -- so this is a style choice in my view) that it is (present tense: yes, still okay to guess -- correct tense) okay to guess if time is limited; but on the SAT, incorrect guessing is penalized.[156] One report suggested that the SAT favors (present tense: correct, since it continues to favor) "white male students" from upper income backgrounds.[159] Another report suggests (present tense: here, probably should be past tense -- so this may be incorrect) that the ACT has more questions geared to higher levels of high school mathematics...

About your criticism about "One source suggested..." If one of us writes "Some sources suggest..." we could get accused of being vague, or worse, using weasel words (in my book, a dubious criticism). If we name the source, such as The Wall Street Journal reported..." then sometimes it looks like we're overemphasizing that source, unduly. So, the "one source suggested..." sometimes is the only remaining acceptable alternative. If you remove the "One source suggested...." then it might bring up POV issues.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About your criticism that the article is too long. Well, don't read it. But there are many people who need this information -- college applicants, parents of applicants, school guidance counselors, newspaper reporters, foreign applicants -- so maybe some part of it may not be interesting to you, but it might be vital to some other readers for whom the information is highly important. And I challenge you to find a better source on this topic anywhere on the web -- anywhere. For point of reference, you may wish to look at the article a year or so before it was upgraded, and see that we're making progress. Last, some excellent editors have been going over it and improving it via copyedits and honing, such as LibrarianAnnie and another, plus other sharp folk watch it too. My sense is this is a very decent article but you're welcome to try to improve it further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about cost affordable alternative to US education

I disagree with your (ie Flyte's) revert. Many applicants to US colleges can not afford the high priced tuition to elite schools such as Cornell, and actively seek realistic alternatives to keep them out of debt. Readers of such a choice, contemplating high college costs, would very much like to know about the Canadian alternative.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it, don't start an edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Wikipeida is not user guide or "how-to" for readers. The article about college admissions in the United States should contain only factual information about college admissions in the United States. If you believe Americans going to Canada to save on tuition is important to discuss (and you have evidence that it's a real trend), there are plenty of other articles that might be appropriate. College tuition in the United States, Higher education in Canada, or college tuition are some options.Flyte35 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, how come you didn't give Flyte here the same kind of warning that I got? Seems like you're playing favorites here. About the addition: Canadian alternative is directly relevant -- 10,000 Americans attend Canadian colleges and the numbers are growing; reason; sky-high US tuitions; it is directly relevant to parents and students applying to US colleges who have to cope with high tuition and the possibility of large student debt afterwards. NBC News was the source here; they were writing to an American audience about college admissions. Plus they made the point that college admissions to Canadian schools is easier, faster. This has nothing to do with a "how-to guide" but is directly relevant to the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC) One more thing: the article title is College admissions in the United States, that is, admissions to colleges that happen to take place in the US; it does not say where the colleges are physically located, so US high school seniors, applying to colleges, may very well apply to Canadian ones.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the same warning because reverting an edit once is not edit warring. It's repeated reverts that are troublesome (see edit war). Re: the substance of your argument, I undersand what you're saying, and the decisions Americans might be making because of high tuition are interesting, but American students attending college in Canada is simply NOT a feature of college admissions in the United States. As the first line of the article states, "college admissions in the United States refers to the process of applying for entrance to institutions of higher education for undergraduate study at one of the nation's 2,675 four-year nonprofit schools." So yes, it is about where the colleges are physically located: in the United States of America. It seems like the paragraph you're trying to add would be very appropriate in an article about college tuition.Flyte35 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "repeated reverts" which are troublesome, then I only reverted once so I do not feel the stern warning I got on my page from ElKevbo was warranted. And regardless of what the first line reads in the article, I believe the Canadian option is something American high schoolers should consider, and who do consider, in increasing numbers -- 10,000 are in Canadian colleges. That is, suppose you are a US high school student applying to colleges, or their parent, with limited financial means, then wouldn't you want to at least read a line or two about an inexpensive alternative? And this is not a "how-to"; rather, it is something that happens. It merits inclusion. Plus, there are other things which I think are left out of the article. As you should know, there are no length restrictions on Wikipedia articles other than practical guidelines, provided the content is notable and meets the necessary criteria; as computers become faster, as Internet speeds pick up, length will be less and less of an issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that the paragraph you're trying to include is not about college admissions in the United States. I see what you feel compelled to say and what the trend you're discussing is important, but if Americans do indeed feel compelled to attend Canadian universities in increasing numbers, that 's a function of tuition (about which there several articles where it might be appropriate to include your paragraph) , not the process of applying for entrance to institutions of higher education in the United States.Flyte35 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. How about including one line -- you choose the wording -- just mentioning that increasingly college-bound seniors are considering admissions to Canadian colleges as a way to lessen costs. Would that be acceptable?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I remember somebody saying that the article was increasingly being used as an information source by foreigners applying to US colleges, and the article lacked sufficient information about this. So maybe if it gets expanded somewhat, we should consider spinning off subarticles to keep the main one workable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to compromise (really, I do) but the article is about admissions to American colleges, so I don't think there's any reason to include anything about applications to colleges in other countries. Flyte35 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's agree to disagree. I feel it's important. If you were a parent with two college-bound students, wanting to learn about "college admissions in the united states", confronted with high priced private schools, crowded state schools, you would like to consider the possibility of a realistic alternative; a line or two mentioning the Canadian alternative seems entirely appropriate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedia article is not, as I explained above, a user guide for "a parent with two college-bound students." The question is not about whether or not students going to college in Canada to save on tuition is an important issue. The question is whether the issue that interests you is relevant to an article about the admissions process to American colleges. And it isn't, because it's just not about college admissions in America. Why can't you just put this in an article about tuition, which is really what the Canadian alternative is about?Flyte35 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules; I've contributed here many years; and I think this issue is highly relevant. Surely you realize that this article is read by all kinds of people with all kinds of purposes; these may not be apparent to you, since there are no real ways for them to comment on the article, to say what it is missing, or how it could be improved. So, as contributors, we have to guess at who these readers are, and to try to accommodate their needs for information. And my sense is these readers include high schoolers (primarily seniors), foreign students seeking admission to US colleges, guidance counselors, college admissions officials plus other administrators, parents of applicants, reporters (to figure out what has already been said, mostly, as well as a brief recap of the issue), academics perhaps studying admissions as a subject, and others. If I am right, how well does the article meet the needs of these diverse groups? It's not just you reading it; others matter. My suggestion is to put yourself in their shoes, and ask what you'd want to know, if you were them, and then you will have a better sense of how to improve this article. It's not about "how-to"; it is information on this whole subject. As a parent of applicants, in my view, it is highly important to learn about the Canadian option for the reasons I mentioned above. Before I worked on this article, maybe a year ago, it had meager information and had perhaps 100 pageviews a day; now I've got it in the range of 300+/day, and it is a much better information source, but it can be improved further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to worry about theoretical needs of all of these potential readers. If other people want to contribute and make suggestions they are free to do so. What would benefit the article (both for me and for "high schoolers (primarily seniors), foreign students seeking admission to US colleges, guidance counselors, college admissions officials plus other administrators, parents of applicants, reporters, academics perhaps studying admissions as a subject, and others") would be to keep it concise and readable and limit it to information relevant to the admissions process to American colleges. Your graph about going to Canada to save money on tuition, while potentially interesting somewhere, is extraneous to that, and that's why it shouldn't be there. Flyte35 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about keeping it concise, but one line -- one line -- mentioning an alternative to the high costs of US education, would be highly useful for parents as well as high schoolers. Tell you what -- let's ask ElKevbo his view; whatever he or she decides, I'll go with, fair enough?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I agree that the material doesn't belong in this article. I have some concerns about the sourcing but the overriding concern is that the material simply doesn't belong in this article as it doesn't match the topic of this article. This article is about college admissions in the U.S. but that material is about college attendance by U.S. citizens. There are obviously several areas of overlap and connection between those two topics but they're not at all identical.

With that said, if there are really good references that specifically describe that high costs dissuade people from applying and accepting admission to U.S. colleges and universities then that probably deserves a brief mention in this article. But even that probably shouldn't focus specifically on U.S. citizens and their alternative destinations unless that makes for a particularly prominent and interesting example. Such an example might prove too distracting and make the brief mention too long, too. ElKevbo (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for your interpretation. We'll go with your view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about FAFSA information being (mis?)used by college admissions

Lynn O'Shaughnessy is perhaps the best kind of expert we can have here -- she's up-to-date, knowledgeable. She's written extensively in US News, elsewhere, quoted widely. About college admissions officers picking up FAFSA information about other colleges being applied to, she quoted other reliable sources -- Mark Kantrowitz, director of the National Association of College Admissions Counselors, who agreed this was happening, plus there's a report from Inside Higher Ed that this practice happens to the point that government officials are thinking about closing this loophole. Plus, the information is not pure advice, but describes what happens in college admissions -- which is the proper subject of this article -- and if some readers use it for advice should not be a reason to delete referenced reliable information. What happens? Colleges glean data about other colleges applied to from the FAFSA data. This is important, relevant to the subject. Last, an external link to those schools providing the best financial aid is relevant since financial aid decisions are bound up with admissions decisions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your description above doesn't match your edit. Instead of just describing how some institutions are interpreting this specific bit of FAFSA data, you have gone beyond that to also pass along advice to applicants ("so it was recommended that colleges be listed alphabetically on the FAFSA form to obscure any preferences") which is the (most) troublesome part of your edit. That's where you cross the line from encyclopedia article to how-to guide.

And please don't edit war over this. It's BRD, not BRRD. ElKevbo (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree -- what is happening in college admissions is officers are picking off FAFSA data and advisers are recommending alphabetical order -- both are relevant facets to the subject of College admissions in the United States. It is not me advising applicants; rather it is merely describing what is happening, which is an encyclopedic purpose and within the purview of this project. It is in the news; the information is notable and useful and encyclopedic. If we disagree about this subject, let's get third party opinions, rather than you finger-wagging me as if I'm edit-warring, when you are the one who reverted my addition without much of an explanation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the "it was recommended" line. This is the source. There's one person recommending this. It's not worthy of inclusion.Flyte35 (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional sources: Inside Higher Ed magazine, a well-regarded journal, plus CBS News, reporting that colleges do peek at the order of other colleges on the FAFSA form and use it to either deny admission or aid, and that millions of parents and applicants are disadvantaged by college admissions departments by this tactic. There will be more sources in future because of the controversy (ie with government getting involved perhaps to limit information disclosed to colleges about other colleges applied to -- privacy issues etc). Another college consultants are picking up the story, and advising alphabetical order of colleges on FAFSA.Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the subject as being about a process -- with various players such as applicants, parents, admissions officers, colleges, consultants, high schools, and others, with varying agendas. I agree the article should not exclusively be a "how-to" guide since it would be original research by trying to be an admissions consultant (competing with other consultants); instead, the article examines what competing views say, trying to find balance, pointing out where there is disagreement, taking a step back and using secondary sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Since there are varying purposes, it is hard to extract out what is pure advice from descriptive information; for example, the recommendation about alphabetizing the order of colleges listed on the FAFSA form could be interpreted as advice for applicants/parents but it could also be used by academics who study Complex systems since the admissions process is an example of a dynamic system, or could be used by academics studying privacy issues (since what is going on is, in a way, a breach of privacy -- the govt disclosing rather personal information to colleges which can negatively affect their chances for acceptance and aid). That said, I bet the vast majority of readers here are students applying to college and their parents; what do they want to know? This article in its current form (and there is an advice component) -- daily page readership is routinely above 400; a few years ago it was not as comprehensive and barely broke 100, the point being that this article is useful and serving the needs of readers, that is, I think we've all done a good job here of contributing to Wikipedia.-Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last, one thing I'd like to point out as a parent who has just gone through this process, through much aggravation, expense (almost $1000), is this: parents and students come at this process maybe once or twice in a lifetime, so we're new at it, we don't know what we're doing, we try to do the best for our teenagers on something we consider important which could affect the life-chances of our offspring; in contrast, college admissions officers have been doing this year after year, they know the ins and outs. In a sense, it is a battle between these two agendas: applicants vs admissions officers. The admissions officers know they can figure out the other schools being applied to, and use the order listed on the FAFSA to deny admission or reduce aid, but parents and applicants do not know this -- they're blindsided -- which, for me, is a compelling reason to keep this one factoid in this article. It's the only fair thing we can do here. Like, if others here have or will someday have college-bound kids, then that is exactly the type of information they'd like to know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those other sources "recommend" anything, however. The recommend line should not be included.Flyte35 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources recommend colleges be listed alphabetically: Inside Higher Ed and Lynn O'Shaughnessy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two people, "Todd Johnson, a private college consultant who advises wealthier families on admissions," who is the one guy Inside Higher Ed interviewed, and O'Shaughnessy. It's just not that important.Flyte35 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources. Sources include David Hawkins -- director of public policy and research for the National Association for College Admission Counseling; I can not think of a better source. Further, Rachel Fishman of Higher Ed Watch. Numerous private consultants such as Maguire Associates and Ivy Coach say alphabetize. College enrollment expert W. Kent Barnds says colleges use FAFSA position. This information is vital for applicants and parents (it can affect how much aid $$ they get or whether they get in), college counselors, reporters, government officials, college admissions officers. Why do you think it is not important?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Ivy Coach link above actually leads to a recommendation that applicants list schools in alphabetical order. Clearly some people do say that applicants should list their schools in alphabetic order. I'm sure of you google around enough you can find some more sources. But is this widespread or meaningful enough to include? Is it an important part of the process of college admissions in the United States? My general concern is that it looks like this is just becoming a Christmas Tree project; adding more and more ornaments without regard to the article as a whole and whether or not it's meaningful to the article as a whole or provides a comprehensive and readable summary of the subject.Flyte35 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources recommend alphabetical order on the FAFSA (including O'Shaughnessy). Parents and applicants spending $500 to $1000 on college applications might disagree strongly with you -- they might feel it is highly important to know about the FAFSA position -- it may mean getting accepted or rejected or waitlisted at a school or getting less aid offered. It is important enough that prominent consultants are talking about it. It is only a few lines long. There are no guidelines requiring that this particular article must be a summary; unlike newprint, it doesn't cost anything to include more information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

I did not write the below; I found it in an HTML comment on College application. It needs sourcing, but otherwise is an interesting kernel to start a History section on this page. (From my limited familiarity with other countries' admissions processes, it appears to apply to the U.S. only.) -- Beland (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft content

In the 1800s, college admissions requirements included subjects such as Greek and Latin, which were taught by very few public schools; the pool of applicants was effectively limited to students who had graduate from "preparatory schools" whose role was specifically to meet college entrance requirements. Around the end of the 1800s, the College Entrance Examination board was formed and colleges, notably Harvard under Eliot, began to use entrance examinations that evaluated an applicant's academic potential. In the 1920s, interviews and essays were added in order to shape the pool of entrants to fit the social and ethnic preferences of the schools and their alumni. Photographs were required on applications from about 19xx to 19yy, to assist admissions officials in determining the race and ethnicity of applicants; this requirement was dropped when advances in the civil rights moment made open racial discrimination unacceptable.... Nope, I guess I'm wrong about that, "optional" photographs are apparently still solicited by colleges...

If the information is already in another article I don't think it needs to be in this one, too.Flyte35 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this

Universities where Americans can study, in English, outside the U.S. Source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

additions about list of party schools

Adding an entire section with this change based on a list of party schools seems to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE; maybe trimming it to one line?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a major problem which someone else needs to fix

There are dozens of SFN references to some source named "Mamlet" but there is no actual citation for these footnotes. In other words, they are all (probably 50 of them) technically unsourced citations. Hopefully the person who added these citations is still watching this page and can provide the source. I would volunteer to fix it but I have no idea who that reference could be. LaurentianShield (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I might be able to fix it, but editors who have been traditionally editing this page need to pay attention because it is kind of a mess. Apparently what happened is there was a list of references using the SFN citation procedure, although evidently even that was faulty. I see some old revisions in 2014 where the references are listed, but on first glance it appears there is not "ref=harv" parameter -- or for some reason, anyway, the link does not "drop down" as it should. Then in the mean time evidently someone else deleteded these references altogether. So I think I can pull them up, but I don't have time to check each citation against the text. LaurentianShield (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mamlet and Vandeverde source I read in a bookstore; it is here. Problem is, the reference was listed in a "Further Reading" section, which got chopped by some editor after a while, along with Dunbar's book and a few others. The reference is reliable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tomwsulcer! I never doubted the reference BTW. I added in the ref=harv so that the SFN works the way it is intended. I did see that there was some good faith edit a while ago that merged in the suggested reading, which was improper. The way I have it now is the way the SFN template recommends doing it. Please comment further here if there are any issues. Some of the other references ,ay need to be added back also, I will investigate. LaurentianShield (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LaurentianShield for your astute handling of these issues.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent quick deletion of an edit

I myself am far from a subject matter expert on this page, but I am watching it based on an edit I did. Tomwsulcer made a good faith edit of what I thought was a good general point, and it was immediately deleted with the comment "an op-ed is not a good source for anything other than the author's opinion". I definitely disagree that this is a criterion for not being a "reliable source", which is what matters here. Furthermore the Op-Ed piece refers to another study, and I think the point that Tomwsulcer was making is an important point in general. I don't want to get myself involved in an edit war (like I say I am not an SME by any means) but I like the edit and want to make a statement in support of it. LaurentianShield (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was in the NY Times, and yes it was an op-ed, but it was based on a solid study, and there are additional sources now. Personally, I'm rather cynical that there will be any change of policy by college admissions departments, but who knows.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with recent changes

The recent changes here have removed some colleges (eg TCNJ, Rutgers) while adding others (Bates etc). I think it's important to keep the dates of the data in the title -- the results were from roughly 2012 and are getting old. I think what is needed is a rationale for inclusion -- some easy-to-agree-on criteria for what qualities or attributes of a college that suggest inclusion. If criteria are too broad, the list might become so long to be unmanageable (or we could make the list into a separate article). Ideally the statistics should be up-to-date and referenced -- with a reference for each college right in the chart (not at the top of the chart -- MIT's reference is on the table title and it really doesn't belong there. A minor issue is using decimals, like in Bates College have a decimal point -- ideally all numbers are all rounded to a whole number (best bet in my view) or have one decimal point to allow for easy comparison. I used to work in market research and the decimals, in my view, are distracting and suggest a level of precision that is not warranted. Any thoughts here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to better the article

This article basically reads like a booklet written by a private citizen to force opinion on college admissions. The entire article featured unclear charts (now fixed), and outdated information (partially updated but there is more work to be done.) Here are Wikipedia guidelines to be considered when editing this article.

To see how articles are supposed to sound and read as per Wikipedia guidelines click here.

To see how to properly and concisely covey information (especially statistical information) click here.

To see how charts are supposed to be formatted, with regard to the previous colorization, (should more be added), click here.

To see how to stay on topic and avoid extremely detailed and obsessively noted subtopic of college admissions click here.

Overall check out: Wikipedia:Writing better articles, and make sure this article is easy to navigate.

Thank you. Wentworth Washington (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Page

In consideration of the revelation that users Trenta5, Odwallah, Yorkshiremany, FirstLordofDowningStreet, Wentworth Washington and maybe more were all sock puppets of the now banned DonSpencer1, I am reverting this page back to 02:09, 29 May 2016‎ edit‎. This date was chosen as it reflects the last state of the page prior to DonSpencer1 engaging in sock puppetry to manipulate page.74.70.116.187 (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

enrollment limits

This article doesn't give any info on whether US colleges have fixed enrollment limits or are flexible in how many students they admit, depending on how many interesting applicants they get. Interestingly the article has absolutely no charts or even any statistics on this and doesn't use the word "place" at all and the words "spots" and "vacancies" only once or twice. These terms also seem to be rare in US media whereas they or their foreign language equivalents are very common in other countries, including English-speaking ones.

Does this mean US colleges simply admit more students and increase class size or hire more professors when they get and admit a larger number of interesting applicants, or is this only a vocabulary difference between US English and other kinds of English and other languages? In other countries there is a very real concept of (and even panic about) the existence of only a certain very precise number of university places, whose number is often publicly known, whereas this concept doesn't exist or is at least not talked about publicly in the US.

US English of course does have similar expressions to those in other kinds of English and in other languages such as "she got a place at X" etc. when talking about individuals, but even then "she was admitted to X" is more common, and one never seems to hear talk about how many places any college has for freshmen.--Espoo (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. Thanks for bringing it up. My (uneducated) guess is that class sizes, that is, the number of spots or places or slots open for students, is fairly fixed from year to year, and depends on factors such as dormitory space, classroom size, but that there is room for a little variation, most likely. That is, if an incoming batch of students looks particularly appealing, then the college may open up a few more slots, perhaps by doubling up some students in dormitory rooms? But my overall hunch is that the admissions department probably gets fairly firm limits from the college's administration about how many positions it can offer each year. It is perhaps strictest at the elite colleges, and maybe state schools too (which are guided by law?) but maybe varies more at second and third tier liberal arts colleges, which may be struggling to get enough incoming students for reasons of profitability. But this is my guess -- why not look into this issue and add to the article as you see fit?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on College admissions in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626055807/http://www.collegenews.org/x7131.xml to http://www.collegenews.org/x7131.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on College admissions in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on College admissions in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on College admissions in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Policies related to Race Admission Have Been Repealed

Here, it is even noted that it happened "Tuesday"[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4101:41F9:8109:D7B1:C458:FB0D (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with "Race and ethnicity" section

There are a few problems with the "Race and ethnicity" section in this article. First, it's significantly biased toward the view that taking race and ethnicity into account is bad. Nearly the entire section is based on the views and evidence from people who believe this practice is wrong. That's particularly evident in the sentence that summarizes Supreme Court decisions: "At the same time, rulings by the Supreme Court have prevented race from becoming an "overriding factor" in college admissions when the rulings have said a lot more than that including providing (a) support for the use of these criteria and (b) legal guidance on how the criteria can (and cannot) be used.

Finally, the most recent edits to the section have been especially lazy and unhelpful for readers in that one or more unregistered editors have simply added a stand-alone sentence saying that the Department of Education has rescinded much of its guidance in this area. That's true but the information is unhelpful because the guidance isn't mentioned anywhere else in this article. Moreover, without any other context (e.g., this move is political in nature and not legal, it's an extraordinary move to change guidance without the legal landscape having changed) this information is misleading and incomplete (like the rest of this section!). ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that doesn't explain if my edit is controversial enough to violate the NPOV policy. The story was in standard news articles and relates to college admission based on race. It is also not at all meant to promote racial prejudice.68.47.65.239 (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that your edit by itself is a big POV problem. By itself it's just lazy and unhelpful for readers because the guidance that was rescinded isn't mentioned anywhere else in the entire article. So readers have no idea what you're talking about. Moreover, to simply say that the guidance was rescinded without providing any of the political and legal context is very unhelpful and may be construed as misleading.

If you think the guidance is worth including in this article, feel free to propose some ideas or draft text. But don't just plop down one sentence without any context or explanation just because it was recently in the news. ElKevbo (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you've added an additional sentence to provide some context but unfortunately what you've written is wrong. These are not policies that anyone in the federal government enforced but guidance from the relevant departments that were essentially their interpretation of the laws and legal cases. That the laws and legal cases haven't changed recently is one of the reasons why the removal of this guidance is so extraordinary and clearly political in nature. I strongly recommend you do a lot more research into this topic if you want to read about it; I'd recommend starting with the decisions handed down in the three relevant Supreme Court cases (two of which weren't even mentioned in this article until just now!): Grutter v. Bollinger, Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), and Fisher v. University of Texas (2016). ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I weeded out some of the older links, as well as for-profit links, but kept the useful ones which have good information. This article serves diverse constituents: researchers and academics interested in college admissions, students applying to college, parents of those students, educators, admissions professionals, etc etc. Rationales for specific links:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estimated college cost calculator. Useful tool from College Board.
CSS Profile college aid estimator Again, a helpful tool for those seeking financial aid.
National Center for Education Statistics Government website with loads of statistics.
Workshop on campus visits This one fills a gap about campus visits.
The Truth About College Admissions TED talk, helpful, check it out.

I continue to think that given the many points of view on this subject, that having an External Links section is a must.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this discussion!

I removed the TEDx talk; it's not a TED talk but one that is inherently self-promotional.

I also have concerns about the Vimeo link. Why is it essential? Who produced and what are their qualifications as experts on this subject? Is it widely applicable for many readers? (I think the answers are: No, I'm not entirely sure, and no.)

I'm especially concerned that several of these links fall into the same trap as the rest of the article by focusing exclusively or primarily on "traditional students" when we know that the majority of undergraduate students in the U.S. are non-traditional (e.g., https://www.clasp.org/blog/nces-releases-new-data-today%E2%80%99s-nontraditional-students-0). ElKevbo (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The TED talk I watched recently and it struck me as new and important information for anybody seeking to learn the essence of college admissions to top schools. I revamped this article years back, and none of the sources said what this TED talk was saying. If there is promotion, who is getting paid? what are they selling? So I don't see it as promotional but instructional. The Vimeo lecture fills a gap in our coverage of the campus visits (not that much info there), and the guy is an expert on interviewing skills. My sense is that most readers of this article are high school students applying to college, and their parents, and content on this subject is what they're looking for. I agree about a need to expand our coverage for non-traditional students.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth reviewing WP:NOTHOWTO and remembering that this article should focus on the phenomenon of college admissions in the United States, not how to be successful in applying to a college. (I also object to any significant focus on "top" schools given how few students actually attend them. Our collective fascination with the Ivy League and a handful of other institutions is very detrimental to a sound understanding of postsecondary education in the United States.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree about your position on the 'top' schools but at the same time, strategies for getting in to them tend to work for admission to any school. I do think that trying to disentangle the phenomenon of college admissions from the process of gaining admission into them is problematic. The subject of 'college admissions in the united states' is not a static fixed noun like a particular plant or mineral, but rather it must, of necessity, describe a process, so strategies employed to gain admission must be a part of this article. I'm not that fascinated with the Ivy League; I didn't go there, but I bet that most students and parents reading this article have aspirations to getting in to a top school, whether that is realistic or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, would the pandemic make the information in this article out of date or irrelevant? I am asking because since the class of 2020 high school seniors didn't get to take SAT/ACT tests and universities admissions let it be known that 2020 graduates didn't need the tests for acceptance into universities and colleges for 2020. Is there any new information regarding acceptance for the next few graduate classes? Alvarez003 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a criticism section (2021)

I’d like to float the idea of adding a criticism section to this article. Especially after Covid and the college bribery scandal in 2019, there have been countless opinion articles and books and statements by politicians regarding criticisms to the college application process in the US. There are some to do with racial and financial equity, standardized testing, essay writing, obsession over rankings and prestige, feeder high schools, and loads of other things. It literally could go on for so long. (Without saying too much and doxxing myself, I applied to a lot of selective colleges last year and am now in my first year of undergrad at one, so many of these issues are currently ingrained in my brain.)

The only thing is that this article is kind of bloated already and a few of the criticisms we would mention our kind of interspersed elsewhere. It would also be a challenge deciding what to include and what not to include.

Also not helping is the fact that many relevant articles tangentially related to college apps are slightly underdeveloped in regards to the actual process (eg. Advanced Placement) so there is some info that exists but isn’t on Wikipedia, which we ought to track down somehow.

Thoughts? Ultimatescapegoat (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alvarez003 (article contribs). This article did a good job of being relevant to its topic. There was no point in the article were I felt that it distracted me with information different to its topic. I liked how this article was neutral and was broad enough to cover almost every college in the country. There didn't seem to be any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular college/university, which allows for freedom of choice by the reader to look into universities and colleges they prefer. Alvarez003 (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 27 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scottja22 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Scottja22 (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Via" Highbeam Research

Highbeam, now defunct, simply captured news stories from regularly published sources. (It was sort of an archive of those sources.) Those original sources, not Highbeam, thereby provide the WP:Verification of information posted. So when we say "via highbeam research" we are posting an archive of an archive. I submit that WP:DEADLINK is fulfilled when we tell the reader what the original source was and provide the archived Highbeam link. Adding "via" only clutters the citation. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History or Methods Section

CommonApp and other tools should be discussed in detail in a History or a Methods section because it provides some context on how college admissions has been done in history and recent changes with Internet methods. Currently the introduction section of the article seems to include history and describing changes by the internet but moving them into a designated section seems interesting. Also adding details about early days of college admissions may also be useful. Raeeddoesgaming (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]