|
Post by hcpride on Aug 3, 2017 9:51:10 GMT -5
BU has done a really job this past decade in making the university as competitive as possible. The university has made great strides in important metrics such as its US News rankings and the common data set numbers have been continually increasing in regards to class rank, gpa, and SAT/ACT. Here are the 2016-2017 common data sets: www.bu.edu/oir/files/2017/07/cds-2017.pdfRegardless, I agree that BU shouldn't really be in the Patriot League (I would prefer the CAA which the administration decided against). In general, BU isn't really going after the same student's as Holy Cross. BU has a much more national class of students and is going after the same pool of students as NYU, Northeastern, Syracuse, BC, George Washington, Miami, USC, Rochester and some large public flagships compared to Holy Cross which is competing for primarily east coast kids that want to go to selective LAC's.Actually, the data does not confirm that our (HC's) applicant overlap schools are east coast selective LACs: In no particular order the cross applicant schools are UMASS Amherst, UCONN, Stonehill, Loyola, MD, Fairfield, Providence, Villanova, Notre Dame, BU, BC, Georgetown, Notre Dame. (http://www.holycross.edu/sites/default/files/files/alumni/holy_cross_fund_four-pager_10-12-16_final_low_res.pdf). Page 4 in small print. Turns out the selective LACs on the east coast (Williams, Amherst, other NESCACs, other Patriot, etc. etc). are not at all our cross-applicants. Never have been. We are a LAC, but our competitors are not. I suspect our 'LACness' is not at all what is attracting the majority of our applicants. (I do agree with almost all of your points but just wanted to point out a common misconception. On another point, given the stats we doubtlessly enroll students rejected by BC and BU and now Villanova but I wonder to what extent we actually function as a safety school for the non-early decision applicants.)
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 3, 2017 9:54:10 GMT -5
Wasn't trying to let Ann off the hook at all but also wasn't looking to make a laundry list of hurdles in national recruiting for HC.
I also wasn't trying to disparage Worcester, just being factual. With any objectivity, most people would agree that Boston is a well-known city with a reputation for among the best colleges and universities in the country. Worcester, conversely, is unknown by the vast majority of people in the United States. I'd venture a guess that if you asked the people in the United States where Worcester was, the vast majority would say "England." Worcester, at best, is a neutral factor, not a "pull" for possible students. Boston, however, is a positive attractant to get students across the country, perhaps second to NYC. A leg-up for Boston University and (gasp) BC.
But, yeah, some might think that Ann has been mailing it in for years.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Aug 3, 2017 10:01:26 GMT -5
Boston: Without question, the best place to go to college in the US--though not everyone agrees.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 3, 2017 10:04:22 GMT -5
Then, perhaps there is a question about that.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Aug 3, 2017 10:27:00 GMT -5
Wasn't trying to let Ann off the hook at all but also wasn't looking to make a laundry list of hurdles in national recruiting for HC. I also wasn't trying to disparage Worcester, just being factual. With any objectivity, most people would agree that Boston is a well-known city with a reputation for among the best colleges and universities in the country. Worcester, conversely, is unknown by the vast majority of people in the United States. I'd venture a guess that if you asked the people in the United States where Worcester was, the vast majority would say "England." Worcester, at best, is a neutral factor, not a "pull" for possible students. Boston, however, is a positive attractant to get students across the country, perhaps second to NYC. A leg-up for Boston University and (gasp) BC. But, yeah, some might think that Ann has been mailing it in for years. I agree with your post but my point is that Worcester is not the primary reason for our under-performing admissions.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 3, 2017 10:33:53 GMT -5
Just keeping it real here, I have to admit I meet VERY few high school seniors now who have HC as a first choice. I do see it among recruited athletes and as a safety school. 25 years ago I commonly saw HC as a first choice (including as a 'reach' school) among seniors. Combination of many factors of course.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 3, 2017 11:00:58 GMT -5
Would appreciate knowing what you do for a living (feel free to PM me) and where you are located in order for me to get better context of your statements.
A high school guidance counselor in a New England or mid-Atlantic state would tell me one thing. A lawyer in Montana, something entirely different (exaggerating to make the point).
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 3, 2017 11:33:12 GMT -5
Would appreciate knowing what you do for a living (feel free to PM me) and where you are located in order for me to get better context of your statements. A high school guidance counselor in a New England or mid-Atlantic state would tell me one thing. A lawyer in Montana, something entirely different (exaggerating to make the point). Thanks. Happy to tell you I am a long time high school history teacher in a mid-Atlantic state and have spent the last 30 years working with students (and parents) from my school and others as part of the college selection/application/teacher recommendation process. As one might imagine, I work closely with my school's guidance counselors. (As far as relative cities go, there was a time [60's, 70's and 80's] that a good number of perspective students were a bit put off by Boston, NY, Philly, and DC in terms of livability/safety/crime/perceptions. HC enrollment may have benefitted from this perception, Now I find that those large cultural cities are 'in' among many perspective students. I don't think that helps HC. Location is just one of many large and small factors that one might see as challenges in the HC admissions construct.)
|
|
|
Post by alum on Aug 3, 2017 15:08:47 GMT -5
HC Pride---I am glad you answered that question. I have noticed that every kid you know seems to be going to Yale or some such place. I have to think you are either at a pretty top notch private school or in a suburban school with lots of high achieving parents.
I think that location hurts. I think that the decline of Catholic high schools hurts. I am not impressed with the outreach done by HC Admissions. All of that said, one very little way that we can all help is by wearing an HC ball cap everywhere we go and by pushing the school to every kid we can.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 3, 2017 15:30:01 GMT -5
That last point is a good one. alum. I have had a number of folks stop me and ask abut HC because of something from HC that I am wearing.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 3, 2017 16:40:59 GMT -5
HC Pride---I am glad you answered that question. I have noticed that every kid you know seems to be going to Yale or some such place. I have to think you are either at a pretty top notch private school or in a suburban school with lots of high achieving parents. I think that location hurts. I think that the decline of Catholic high schools hurts. I am not impressed with the outreach done by HC Admissions. All of that said, one very little way that we can all help is by wearing an HC ball cap everywhere we go and by pushing the school to every kid we can. Not very many at all to HYP (I have taught a few thousand kids over the last 30 years but not too many to the Ivy League) and I hope I haven't given that mistaken impression (looking back over my posts I don't think I have). I did post obsessively on the six (yes 6) HC-Yale baseball games this past year. In my defense that included a huge NCAA playoff game and I know one of the HC players I have frequently noted that a very good number of my students have gone on to BU, BC, Northeastern, GW, GT, ND, and Villanova and I've also noted fairly frequently that HC seems to be a bit out of that particular mix nowadays (in my sample size and with the exception of a few sports recruits). Almost no NESCACS FWIW. The parent/student reaction to an HC suggestion is indeed enlightening. I've done it a few hundred times. And listened. To the point at hand. As the HC admissions office knows very well, things (including college reputations) change. And many of the causes for those changes are out of their control. As you note, location and lack of Catholic High Schools certainly hurt. Gains (in reputation and statistical measures) by our traditional rivals certainly hurt. Macro trends in high school senior aspirations for study may hurt. Secularization of society may hurt. Lack of merit aid may hurt. (FWIW, Holy Cross receives plenty of applicants to pay the bills and I think the unspoken question frequently is if we are still attracting the quality applicants in the numbers we would like. I hope that is not an awful thing to say.)
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 4, 2017 8:24:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Aug 4, 2017 8:26:53 GMT -5
BU has done a really job this past decade in making the university as competitive as possible. The university has made great strides in important metrics such as its US News rankings and the common data set numbers have been continually increasing in regards to class rank, gpa, and SAT/ACT. Here are the 2016-2017 common data sets: www.bu.edu/oir/files/2017/07/cds-2017.pdfRegardless, I agree that BU shouldn't really be in the Patriot League (I would prefer the CAA which the administration decided against). In general, BU isn't really going after the same student's as Holy Cross. BU has a much more national class of students and is going after the same pool of students as NYU, Northeastern, Syracuse, BC, George Washington, Miami, USC, Rochester and some large public flagships compared to Holy Cross which is competing for primarily east coast kids that want to go to selective LAC's. No doubt, BU has come a long way but the actual enrolled stats will be lower than the ones cited in the posts above. Be interesting to see if BU solves their yield problem which remains quite low --- Any idea what the yield rate (a very useful metric for many reasons in the current era of super-pumping app numbers) is for the incoming class?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Aug 4, 2017 8:40:18 GMT -5
From Wikipedia:
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
The term was popularised in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]
It's hard to tell what to believe when it comes to college statistics when we see data on (1) applicants, (2) accepted students, and (3) accepted students who actually enroll
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 4, 2017 9:07:10 GMT -5
BU has done a really job this past decade in making the university as competitive as possible. The university has made great strides in important metrics such as its US News rankings and the common data set numbers have been continually increasing in regards to class rank, gpa, and SAT/ACT. Here are the 2016-2017 common data sets: www.bu.edu/oir/files/2017/07/cds-2017.pdfRegardless, I agree that BU shouldn't really be in the Patriot League (I would prefer the CAA which the administration decided against). In general, BU isn't really going after the same student's as Holy Cross. BU has a much more national class of students and is going after the same pool of students as NYU, Northeastern, Syracuse, BC, George Washington, Miami, USC, Rochester and some large public flagships compared to Holy Cross which is competing for primarily east coast kids that want to go to selective LAC's. No doubt, BU has come a long way but the actual enrolled stats will be lower than the ones cited in the posts above. Be interesting to see if BU solves their yield problem which remains quite low --- Any idea what the yield rate (a very useful metric for many reasons in the current era of super-pumping app numbers) is for the incoming class? 'Yield' is indeed an interesting stat but is not one that grabs the attention of prospective students and parents - they seem to focus more on selectivity, USNWR rankings, and average SAT/ACT board scores when it comes to stats. To be fair, BU did not adopt the HC 'test score optional' super duper pump for increased applicants but doubtlessly otherwise strategizes to maximize applicant numbers - and enhance selectivity. The light knock on Villanova for years has been their relatively high selectivity (they know they lose a fairly high number of accepted students to BC, Georgetown, and ND so they have to initially accept a large number) and their yield stats (since, indeed, many of their accepted students wind up at BC, Georgetown, and ND). One look at the high stats of accepted and enrolled students at places like Villanova (and BU) puts the issue in perspective for the savvy students/parents. The very best way to game the yield stat is to max out on early decision applicants - then there are far fewer slots to accept for. That may be the HC strategy as evidence by the staggering acceptance rate for HC binding early decision. (NB the 25% recruited athlete number does not, by itself, comprise the early decision staggering acceptance rate). Of course it may mean lowering academic standards quite a bit to pump up that number. Those of us with access to Naviance know the academic qualifications it takes for a male full payer to be accepted via early decision at Holy Cross nowadays. - I'll leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 4, 2017 9:07:38 GMT -5
One has to be careful with respect to the yield rate for HC for two reasons.
1.) The relatively high percentage admitted early decision.
1. a.) The high percentage of recruited athletes in each enrolling class. If between 20-25 percent of the entering class is recruited athletes, who have a yield rate of 100 percent, the yield rate for the remainder of the class drops significantly. (Recruited athletes would be a subset of early decision.)
|
|
|
Post by somedaycamesuddenly on Aug 4, 2017 9:19:09 GMT -5
BU has done a really job this past decade in making the university as competitive as possible. The university has made great strides in important metrics such as its US News rankings and the common data set numbers have been continually increasing in regards to class rank, gpa, and SAT/ACT. Here are the 2016-2017 common data sets: www.bu.edu/oir/files/2017/07/cds-2017.pdfRegardless, I agree that BU shouldn't really be in the Patriot League (I would prefer the CAA which the administration decided against). In general, BU isn't really going after the same student's as Holy Cross. BU has a much more national class of students and is going after the same pool of students as NYU, Northeastern, Syracuse, BC, George Washington, Miami, USC, Rochester and some large public flagships compared to Holy Cross which is competing for primarily east coast kids that want to go to selective LAC's. No doubt, BU has come a long way but the actual enrolled stats will be lower than the ones cited in the posts above. Be interesting to see if BU solves their yield problem which remains quite low --- Any idea what the yield is for the incoming class? To be completely honest, there won't be a "solving" of Boston University's "yield problem." BU is in a relatively competitive market and is becoming a national university where students have a lot of choice. Often these students will choose the higher ranked NYU or get into an Ivy, or maybe they like the Northeastern Co-Op or opt for the lower ranked Syracuse with big time athletics. BU has begun to admit more of its students via Early Decision (a record 4,100 applied this way for the class of 2021) and that will help, but BU will never have the yield Holy Cross does, although the acceptance rate has been driven well below that of HC due to BU's position as an increasingly national (84% OOS) and international university (13,000 apps in the class of 2021 were from international students.) With how many schools kids are applying to nowadays, I honestly don't think the 22% yield (Class of 2020) BU has is that bad for the type of university market we compete in, and the sheer amount of apps BU gets, 60,701 in fact. BU has done a good job marketing and pushing its positive metrics in marketing itself such as #32 global university US News, #39 national university US News, #79 Forbes, and #64 Times. This marketing is becoming reality with the reputation and quality of the undergraduate section of BU beginning to catch up with the highly rated graduate programs as a whole for Dental, Medicine, Business, Public Health, Engineering and Law. At the end of the day you don't have to believe me but I think looking at the BU common data set will shed some light on how far BU has come and how it compares to HC. www.bu.edu/oir/files/2017/07/cds-2017.pdfwww.holycross.edu/sites/default/files/files/planningandspecialproj/cds_2016-2017.pdf
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Aug 4, 2017 9:35:27 GMT -5
I'm not defending HC -- just pointing out some facts that some can dismiss or not. I've written many times that HC needs an admissions overhaul. I'm also a fan of the rankings, the more the merrier, and wish HC did much more on that score (as BU has done) since, whether we like it or not, a higher ranking increases the perceived value of the degree.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 4, 2017 10:16:34 GMT -5
I'm not defending HC -- just pointing out some facts that some can dismiss or not. I've written many times that HC needs an admissions overhaul. I'm also a fan of the rankings, the more the merrier, and wish HC did much more on that score (as BU has done) since, whether we like it or not, a higher ranking increases the perceived value of the degree. The 'test score optional' scheme HC enacted enormously pumps up applicant numbers and greatly enhances our selectivity numbers. 41% pump from the scheme in the first year alone. Beyond waiving application fees there is no better false pump. Given this, we (HC supporters) cannot now criticize the attempts of others to increase applications. The 'early decision' max out strategy greatly enhances our yield numbers. Those two schemes are the reason why our stats are as good as they are. (Just imagine our stats without these two schemes) Neither scheme enhances the number of quality applicants nor actually adds to the school's academic reputation. Who's got a plan for that? Please don't say free applications.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Aug 4, 2017 10:42:59 GMT -5
You know what, speak for yourself and don't tell me what I can write. I am fully aware of what HC has done and written many times about it before you showed up on this board. I've criticized HC's policies lots of times and if you don't like my pointing out two additional facts about BU I could care less.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 4, 2017 11:50:25 GMT -5
One has to be careful with respect to the yield rate for HC for two reasons. 1.) The relatively high percentage admitted early decision. 1. a.) The high percentage of recruited athletes in each enrolling class. If between 20-25 percent of the entering class is recruited athletes, who have a yield rate of 100 percent, the yield rate for the remainder of the class drops significantly. (Recruited athletes would be a subset of early decision.) Never hurts to remind folks that 'yield' can be a bit tricky (and strategically managed). IMHO it is one of our better stats (relative to our selectivity and our ['test score optional'] board scores, for example) on its face but, upon the further examination you provide, perhaps not so much. (I remember the Tufts Syndrome several years back wherein a few colleges were accused of rejecting overqualified students [believing they would be accepted into more selective colleges and go elsewhere] to build their yield statistic. Yet another way to 'manage' yield. Probably still happens at a few places.)
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Aug 4, 2017 15:23:01 GMT -5
Sustained, higher yield rates are important to HC (for both selectivity and financial reasons), which is why Fr. B cited it in his chat recently with alums. Lots of numbers can be manipulated and "tricky" but, in composite, they offer a good snapshot of a school's relative position.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 5, 2017 7:45:02 GMT -5
Although essentially a non-factor to prospective student/parents, it is certainly true that accurately predicting yield during the admissions process is a core function of admissions and very important to the college in that respect. Some stats are far easier to manipulate than others. USNWR stopped factoring 'yield' stats into their widely read annual ranking long ago because that particular stat is so easily manipulated: www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/us/college-rating-by-us-news-drops-factor-in-admissions.htmlDipping heavily into the ED pool (which rankles some observers as being particularly unfair to students) is an obvious, well known, and easily-executed tactic to improve yield. A cynic might say that since our selectivity three year trend is 37% (2015), 38% (2016) and now 39% (2017) and our board scores are what they are, focusing on improving the easily manipulated 'yield' statistic would be a bit of a diversion.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Aug 6, 2017 14:14:32 GMT -5
Think we are talking past each other. I am not a fan of our admissions decisions at all, but yield rate, combined with other numbers, does matter beyond planning for how many beds will be needed for the next year. Not doubt it can be gamed. Lots of rankings can be gamed (including US News). Years ago Chicago had a relatively high acceptance rate compared to its peer schools but then decided to change its approach to drive their rate down. Quite a few top-end schools encourage students with zero chance of getting accepted to apply. For these reasons and more, I've become more of a fan of composite rankings (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/10/20/heres-a-new-college-ranking-based-entirely-on-other-college-rankings/) and others.
What annoyed me was someone from BU patronizing HC on our board. Until our BOT wakes up nothing will change in admissions.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 7, 2017 5:55:17 GMT -5
Agree we're talking pasts each other on yield since I'm frequently looking at the 'yield' stat from a user end (wherein the students/parents have virtually no concern about the stat if in fact they know of the stat's existence) while from the institution's end it may have some value. I suppose that (and the ease with which it is inflated) is why USNWR (and the Washington Post 'new college ranking' you cited) don't use the stat but colleges do take some obvious steps to inflate it.
I admit I am generally not a big fan of early decision (not withstanding the $ benefit for colleges and 'yield' benefit for colleges) and that might account for a portion of my dislike for the stat. As one raises early decision selections, one raises the yield. UPenn famously did that to overtake some fellow Ivies on the yield statistic. Again, I am looking from the user (student/parent) end.
I find the Naviance scattergram is now far more influential on student/parent college selection and applications than rankings in any case. Bright students (Scores/GPA) want to apply where other similarly bright students (Scores/GPA) are applying. And that is not necessarily good news for those looking to improve applicant quality at HC. (Note: Even if the student does not submit their scores to a particular college, the scores are part of the Scores/GPA data point in the Naviance scattergram)
|
|