And the award for the best college student-written editorial on highly selective college admissions of the year thus far goes to…Beni Snow of Princeton University. In a piece entitled “Princeton Admissions: Recruitment” in “The Daily Princetonian,” the newspaper of Princeton University, Snow makes correct point after correct point that torches Cole Aronson’s snooty piece that derides recruited athletes and athletics in general in “The Yale Daily News.” If you’re not familiar with Aronson’s nonsensical piece which reflects a lack of understanding of the highly selective college admissions process, do check out what we have to say about it. And what Yale’s baseball coach has to say about it too.
Kudos to Beni Snow on a well argued editorial in “The Daily Princetonian” and for defending athletes at Princeton as well as across the college landscape.
But let’s leave it to Snow now to make his case against Aronson’s poorly argued diatribe against Ivy League athletes — since the points he makes are absolutely correct. As Snow writes, “Recruitment is essential to attracting the most talented athletes to become Princetonians. In fact, recruitment should expand to other activities. Not everyone agrees. Some, like the author of a recent Yale Daily News column, believe that some student athletes are less deserving of attending a top school, that they are less intelligent, and that they got in on just the merit of their sport. As our own Luke Gamble points out, that isn’t true. On the 240-point Academic Index used by the Ivy League schools, athletes fall within a hair — just five points — of the rest of our student body. The dumb jock stereotype isn’t true at Princeton, since dumb jocks are not accepted.”
Snow goes on, “Nevertheless, the Yale column argued that recruited athletes are accepted not on their academic merit, but on the merit of their extracurricular activities. As if anyone at top schools isn’t accepted based on factors other than their academic performance. Princeton could easily fill a class with people who got 2400’s on their SATs and 4.0 GPAs. They chose not to do this because there is value in people having skills, talents, and passions outside the classroom. Or, as Gamble wrote, ‘Harvard didn’t accept Yo-Yo Ma because of his stellar high school grades, but rather because of so much else that he brought to the university.'”
Amen, Beni Snow. And you bet that schools like Princeton don’t just recruit athletes. They recruit the very best science researchers, the very best writers, musicians, you name it. These singularly talented students together form the basis of a well-rounded Princeton incoming class…which of course is not to be confused with a well-rounded student. Don’t confuse the two.
If you applied during the 2017 Regular Decision admissions cycle (to be members of the Class of 2021), you might be wondering when certain schools will be notifying you of their decisions. Well, wonder no more. We’ve aggregated some of those dates for our readers. And for all of those students and parents waiting to hear of word from one of the eight Ivy League universities, know that March 30, 2017 — just 20 days from now — is that notification date. At 5 PM Eastern Time to be precise. So the wait is almost over. But as the saying goes, “a watched pot never boils.” So stop watching that pot, high school seniors and their parents!
And, to our readers, if we haven’t included a highly selective university’s 2017 Regular Decision notification date that you’re wondering about, let us know. We haven’t posted every selective university’s notification date — just a select set of some of our nation’s most elite institutions. But if there’s a highly selective university you’d like included, just let us know and we’ll be sure to post the notification date for you.
Oh and if you’re curious to see how these dates stack up to the 2016 Regular Decision notification dates for America’s most highly selective universities, compare and contrast. But we’re sure you have better things to do. Like watching that pot. We kid!
|University||Regular Decision Notification Date|
|Amherst College||By April 1, 2017|
|Babson College||March 17, 2017|
|Barnard College||By the End of March 2017|
|Bates College||By April 1, 2017|
|Bentley University||By April 1, 2017|
|Boston College||By the End of March 2017|
|Bowdoin College||Between the 1st and 2nd Week of April 2017|
|Brandeis University||Or or Before April 1, 2017|
|Brown University||March 30, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|Bryn Mawr College||By Late March or Early April 2017|
|California Institute of Technology||By March 24, 2017|
|Carleton College||On or Before April 1, 2017 – By U.S. Mail|
|Carnegie Mellon University||March 23, 2017 – By U.S. Mail|
|Claremont McKenna College||March 24, 2017 at 2 PM Eastern Time|
|Colby College||On or Before April 1, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|Colgate University||March 20, 2017 – By U.S. Mail|
|Columbia University||March 30, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|Cornell University||March 30, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|Dartmouth College||March 30, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|Duke University||By the First Week of April 2017|
|Emory University||April 1, 2017|
|Georgetown University||April 1, 2017 – By U.S. Mail|
|Georgia Institute of Technology||March 11, 2017 in the Afternoon|
|Harvard University||March 30, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|Harvey Mudd College||April 1, 2017 at 3 PM Eastern Time|
|Haverford College||By the First Week of April 2017|
|Johns Hopkins University||March 17, 2017 at 3 PM Eastern Time|
|Macalester College||By March 30, 2017|
|Massachusetts Institute of Technology||March 14, 2017 at 6:28 PM Eastern Time (Pi Day!)|
|Middlebury College||March 18, 2017 at 8 AM Eastern Time|
|Muhlenberg College||Between March 15 and April 1, 2017 – By U.S. Mail|
|New York University||April 1, 2017|
|Northwestern University||By Late March 2017|
|Pomona College||By the End of March 2017|
|Princeton University||March 30, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|Rice University||Between Mid March and April 1, 2017|
|Sarah Lawrence College||By March 17, 2017|
|Smith College||March 24, 2017 at 6 PM Eastern Time|
|Stanford University||March 31, 2017 at 3 PM Pacific Time|
|Swarthmore College||From the Last 2 Weeks of March to April 1, 2017|
|Tufts University||By April 1, 2017|
|Tulane University||Between March 13 and April 1, 2017|
|Union College||By March 25, 2017 – 7-8 AM Eastern Time|
|University of California – Berkeley||March 31, 2017|
|University of California – Los Angeles||By Late March 2017|
|University of California – San Diego||By March 30, 2017 at 8 PM Eastern Time|
|University of Chicago||By the End of March 2017|
|University of Michigan – Ann Arbor||Early to Mid April 2017|
|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill||By March 27, 2017|
|University of Notre Dame||Between March 20 and March 31, 2017|
|University of Pennsylvania||March 30, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|University of Southern California||By the First Week of April 2017|
|University of Virginia||By March 30, 2017|
|Vanderbilt University||April 1, 2017|
|Vassar College||March 31, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
|Wake Forest University||End of March 2017 – By U.S. Mail|
|Washington University in St. Louis||By April 1, 2017|
|Wellesley College||By the End of March 2017 – Before Mid-Day|
|Wesleyan University||By Late March 2017|
|Williams College||By April 1, 2017|
|Yale University||April 1, 2017 at 5 PM Eastern Time|
Ivy Coach appears today on the pages of America’s oldest college newspaper, “The Dartmouth.” In a piece by Joyce Lee entitled “College receives 20,021 applications for Class of 2021,” Ivy Coach Founder Bev Taylor offers insight into year-to-year fluctuations in applications to highly selective colleges like Dartmouth. She also offers an assessment of the advantages of applying Early Decision and she takes note of how Dartmouth has been finding more and more success each year in appealing to international applicants in particular — not only in inspiring them to apply but in inspiring them to matriculate.
While there was a slight decrease in the total number of applications submitted to Dartmouth for the Class of 2021 as compared to the number of applications submitted for Dartmouth’s Class of 2020, there’s nothing to read into and no cause for alarm for Dartmouth — especially when Early Decision applications to Dartmouth were up this year compared to last year. As Lee writes, “Founder of college admissions consulting firm Ivy Coach Bev Taylor said that the percentage decrease was not a significant number and that while numbers fluctuate year to year, it does not necessarily mean that highly selective colleges have became more or less competitive. ‘More students applying doesn’t mean it gets more difficult [to get into the college],’ she said. ‘All highly selective colleges are getting better at is getting students to apply by making [the colleges] more noticeable.'”
The piece goes on, “Taylor said that in recent years, Dartmouth has been more focused on and successful in recruiting international students, which was reflected in the numbers for early decision applications. She said that students may choose to apply early decision to the College because there may be a higher chance of acceptance through the early decision process than through regular decision or early action at other colleges. This could explain the record high number for early decision applicants this year. ‘Dartmouth would rather see [early decision] numbers go up because it’s better for yield,’ Taylor said. ‘It’s not so much the percentages [as the] yield.'”
We couldn’t have said it any better ourselves. Oh wait. Have a question about Dartmouth’s application numbers for the Class of 2021? Let us know your questions by posting a Comment below. We look forward to hearing from you.
Did you know that you can decide your own major in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania? Well if you didn’t, you do now! Indeed for students who aren’t satisfied by the majors offered through the College of Arts and Sciences at Penn, they can come up with a whole new major of their own. It’s called the individualized major (an appropriate name for sure!). But of all of the students currently enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences at Penn, it’s interesting to note how many students are actually taking advantage of this rather interesting offering: one. Caroline Ohlson.
The individualized major in UPenn’s College of Arts and Sciences sounds cool. But it also sounds complicated if you ask us. There’s likely a reason only one currently enrolled student has opted to follow this path…
Ohlson is intersected in the business side of the entertainment industry and so she designed a major she calls “Arts, Entertainment and Popular Culture.” As reports Kelly Heinzerling for “The Daily Pennsylvanian,” “‘I have always loved music, film and TV and thought that I wanted to work in the entertainment industry,’ Ohlson said. ‘I felt there was nothing offered here that was really getting at what I was really interested in, which is the business and more practical sides of entertainment and arts.’ After struggling to find a major that fit her interests, Ohlson decided to submit an intensive application detailing the plans for her major in the spring of her sophomore year.”
From its description, it sounds very complicated for a student to design his or her own major. And, as an alum who completed the individualized major candidly points out in the piece in “The Daily Pennsylvanian,” there’s a whole lot of bureaucracy involved since each individual course change needs to be approved in advance. Indeed that student recommends current and future students avoid creating an individualized major and instead choose from the more than 50 majors and 80 minors already offered through the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences. While creating an individualized major sure does sound cool, perhaps students would be happier and find their college experience a whole lot more enjoyable if they heeded this student’s advice. After all, there’s enough bureaucracy later in life. Who needs it in college?
What are your thoughts on the individualized major at UPenn? We’re curious to hear from you so post a Comment below and we’ll be sure to jump in on the conversation.
Donors to Harvard might read this one with some intrigue. There was a riveting piece in “The New York Times” by Stephanie Saul earlier this week about the unenviable position Harvard finds itself in as a court attempts to discern the assets of an influential donor to the university. Harvard University, the school that boasts the largest endowment of any school in the world, obviously highly values its relationship with major donors to the university. And while this particular court is trying to ascertain the accounts through which an alumnus is donating money to the university and revealing such could certainly jeopardize the school’s relationship with the alumnus, the bigger risk for Harvard is the precedent it’s setting by not maintaining the confidentiality of a donor’s private information. But of course Harvard, it seems, has no choice being as this is by order of a federal court in Boston.
You can bet that Harvard doesn’t wish to be in the news for being forced, by order of a court, to reveal the bank account information of an influential donor.
As Saul writes in her piece entitled “Harvard Ordered to Reveal Financial Records of Influential Donor,” “He is a wealthy international entrepreneur known for generous donations to his alma mater, Harvard. Now a court says the university must cooperate in a hunt for his assets. A federal judge in Boston has ruled that Harvard must provide testimony and produce documents disclosing the bank accounts, routing numbers, wire transfers and other interbank messages used by an alumnus, Charles C. Spackman, to send the university money. Mr. Spackman, a Hong Kong-based businessman, leads the Spackman Group, a global investment holding company with $1.5 billion under management. The ruling places the Ivy League college in the uncomfortable predicament of revealing confidential financial information gleaned from the donations of an influential benefactor. No small donor, according to his company website, Mr. Spackman sponsors a scholarship fund for Asian students at Harvard, leads the Harvard-Asia Scholarship Council and has served as a co-chairman of reunion gifts for the class of 1994. That is the year Mr. Spackman, also known by his Korean name of Yoo Shin Choi, obtained an undergraduate degree in economics.”
Harvard, and its development office, is likely worried that other influential donors to the university might be scared off from donating to the university if they know the school will reveal their bank account information and such. But it seems that this particular alumnus had a judgement against him and was syphoning off assets to the university — which means that Harvard may have to return the assets. So any donor really should know that this can happen if they happen to have a judgement against them. It just doesn’t help Harvard’s cause of securing major donations to get press for being ordered by a federal court to reveal an alumnus’ financial information. But while the case is interesting, we don’t think it’ll impact Harvard’s bottom line too much. Don’t worry, Harvard. You’ll be just fine.
Have a question about making donations to Harvard and other highly selective universities? Post your question below.
Curious about the value of the liberal arts — and a liberal arts education? Count renowned entrepreneur and tech guru Mark Cuban among the supports of the liberal arts. Whitney Houston may have believed that children are our future and Mark Cuban likely doesn’t disagree but he also believes the liberal arts are our future. Of course, the very best universities in America are liberal arts institutions so it’s not a revelation the higher education community is suddenly making — but it’s always good to hear folks from the tech community assert their belief in the liberal arts too.
As reports Renee Morad for “Forbes” in a piece entitled “Why Mark Cuban Believes Liberal Arts Is The Future Of Jobs,” “Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban shared a bold prediction about the future of jobs: that within the next decade, as automation becomes the norm, free thinkers who excel in liberal arts will be in high-demand. Cuban believes that the amount of change we’ll see for jobs in the next five or 10 years will dwarf what we’ve observed in the past 30 years, and that as artificial intelligence and machine learning takes center stage, there will be a greater need for expertise in subjects such as English, philosophy and foreign languages. According to his forecast, some of today’s most in-demand skills, such as writing software, will eventually be taken over by automation and skills like communication and critical thinking will become more important. Cuban said he believes ‘the nature of jobs is changing.’ He explained: ‘What looks like a great job graduating from college today might not be a great job five years from now.’ His prediction comes at a time when colleges are working diligently to help liberal arts majors secure jobs.”
Ivy Coach salutes the outspoken entrepreneur and “Shark Tank” star for going against the grain to champion the liberal arts, for daring to tell it like it is. For a man who values software developers and tech entrepreneurs as much as Mark Cuban does, it’s refreshing to hear his respect for the value of the liberal arts. Way to go, Mark Cuban!
There was an editorial yesterday in “The Yale Daily News” that is generating a bit of buzz. The piece was written by Cole Aronson and it’s entitled “Admissions and Athletics.” Aronson begins the piece with a headline grabber: “Yale should stop recruiting athletes. Nothing against sports — except that sports have nothing to do with the mission of a college as I see it.” We couldn’t help but read on. But much to our chagrin, Mr. Aronson’s opinions were not grounded in fact. Rather, his opinions seemed to be grounded in — we suspect — his own mediocrity at athletics.
Aronson essentially makes the point that athletics teach values but these values can be learned in any academic pursuit, like poetry. He argues that star basketball players can barely speak English on “ESPN” (which is, of course, a racist dog whistle) and that Yale is doing itself a great disservice by recruiting athletes. We did happen to gag a few times while reading the piece and while initially we suspected it was because of a man’s super strong cologne to our left, we realized the cause was likelier Mr. Aronson’s arrogant piece in which he essentially argues that sports don’t require brains. Has he ever played a team sport where strategy and analytics can be key components, like basketball or water polo? Has he ever competed in an individual sport where shaving off time can come down to a mastery of physics and nutrition, like swimming and running? If he did, he clearly didn’t play these sports very well.
We salute Yale baseball coach John Stuper for his excellent critique of a student’s misguided editorial on Yale athletes.
But rather than ridicule Mr. Aronson’s editorial, let’s leave that for the Yale head baseball coach, John Stuper. In a letter to the editor that appears on the pages of today’s “Yale Daily News,” Stuper writes, “As a former English teacher, I found Cole Aronson’s ’18 op-ed poorly written with absolutely no facts to support his assertions. I taught English at a community college; his article would have earned a C- in a composition class. I am tired of our athletes being labeled this way. Aronson cites ESPN, alluding to poor grammar from a star center. What does that have to do with athletes at Yale?”
Stuper goes on, “Aronson also has no idea how Yale admissions works. A committee reviews each application and decides if a student-athlete would not only survive but thrive. In 24 years, I have had three young men not get their degrees. One of them was drafted after his junior year and is currently in professional baseball. Seven junior draftees have returned and finished their degrees. Admissions looks at athletes with the same discerning eye as other applicants. It doesn’t matter if I tell them a recruit is the next Derek Jeter; he will not gain admission unless they are convinced he belongs here. In no other area of life — other than the military — are leaders groomed more than in athletics. I have spoken to many employers who have chosen college athletes on the basis that they were part of a team. All who criticize athletic recruitment should take 20 hours out of their week and devote it to something other than academics. Become a runner. Swim laps. Shoot baskets for 20 hours. The activity isn’t important. See what that does to your GPA. I think it will give students a deeper appreciation for the world of the Yale athlete.”
Amen, John Stuper. We couldn’t have said it any better ourselves and we salute all of your hard work in shaping the great minds — and leaders — of tomorrow.
Yale Law School has announced that Hearther Gerken will be its next — and 17th — dean. With the announcement, Gerken is set to become the first woman to lead the law school in its storied history. Gerken, who specializes in constitutional and election law, will succeed Robert Post in the position. She previously advised former President Barack Obama during his 2018 and 2012 presidential campaigns.
As reports Jingyi Cui for “The Yale Daily News,” “University President Peter Salovey announced the appointment, effective July 1, in a campuswide email Tuesday afternoon. The announcement marked an end to a search process that had been underway since Post announced in fall 2016 that he would step down at the end of this academic year, after serving as dean for eight years. ‘I’m thrilled and humbled,’ Gerken said. ‘[Yale Law School] is an incredible institution. I feel incredibly lucky to have a chance to be at the helm.'”
Ivy Coach salutes Yale University for breaking this glass ceiling, for choosing a woman to lead the nation’s most illustrious law school
And we’ll leave you with a “Did You Know?” Did you know that every single member of our nation’s highest court attended either Yale Law School or Harvard Law School? Although, yes, we see your hand waving in the back. There’s a caveat indeed. While Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did attend Harvard Law School, she received her degree from Columbia Law School.
While you’re here, check out a piece on dwindling applications to law schools across America.
We write about it each and every year without fail. In fact, we can’t remember a college admissions cycle in which it didn’t happen. One domino will, almost inevitably, always fall. This year, so far, a domino fell at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. But, Ivy Coach, what ever are you referring to…what dominoes are you talking about? We’re referring to universities mistakenly sending out offers of admission to students they didn’t intend to admit. We’re referring to that oops moment that keeps up just about every dean of admissions across America as they try to fall asleep.
As reports Christopher Mele for “The New York Times” in a piece entitled “You’ve Been Accepted to Columbia. Oops. Our Error.,” “When an applicant to the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health got an email on Wednesday saying it was ‘delighted to welcome’ her, she said she was overcome with euphoria. She began sobbing, and her body shook. ‘I couldn’t even control my body,’ said the applicant, a 23-year-old for whom Columbia was the No. 1 choice. ‘My teeth even started chattering. I didn’t even know that could happen.’ That jubilation lasted only about 75 minutes, however, as a second email arrived informing her — and 276 other prospective students — that the acceptance notices had been sent in error. When the applicant got the follow-up email, she said she had the same physical reaction as before — but for opposite reasons. She said that when she called the admissions office, a person who answered the phone apologized but could shed no light on why it happened.”
Shame on the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health for issuing acceptance notifications in error this year.
Every year we call on universities — undergraduate as well as graduate admissions offices — to be more circumspect with their notifications. These types of mistakes are entirely avoidable. There’s no reason for them. There’s no reason to get the hopes up of stressed out applicants and make the process all the more stressful. It’s high time that universities implement more measures to ensure these kinds of mistakes never happen again. While this year the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health has already made an egregious error, we’re confident this school won’t be alone. We’re confident another school (or schools) will notify applicants in error this Regular Decision college admissions cycle. We wish we were wrong.
And so, we’ll cut to our refrain when these schools issue acceptance notifications in error: shame, shame, shame on Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health for this error! You can, you must do better.
What does a Likely Letter mean, you ask?
Some of our students have begun receiving what is known in college admissions parlance as Likely Letters. A Likely Letter usually starts with a big congratulations. And why? Because what the college admissions office is articulating to the applicant is that, based on their review of the applicant’s impressive file, they will likely be offered admission. So to all students who’ve already received Likely Letters from highly selective colleges or who will receive Likely Letters in the coming days and weeks, congratulations indeed.
When parents and students read these Likely Letters, the most common question they ask us is: “Does this mean I’m probably going to get in?” As our students and parents know that we’re all about under-promising and over-delivering at Ivy Coach, they’re quite often surprised to hear us reply, “No. It means you’re getting in. In fact, it means you were among the strongest applicants to that school this Regular Decision cycle.” Yes indeed — what a Likely Letters means is…you’re in.
Think about it. Why would a college write you a letter expressing how it’s likely you’ll get in? Here’s your answer: Because unlike in the Early round in which you either made a binding Early Decision commitment to one school or chose one above all others to apply Early Action to, the Regular Decision round pits colleges against one another. They’re competing to land you as a student on their campus. They’re competing to increase their yield, to secure the best possible class among the students who applied to the university. They don’t want you going anywhere else. They want you!
Letting you know weeks ahead of time that you’re going to be getting in is a really nice gesture that takes the pressure off. They want you to wrap your head around going to this university. They’re counting on the primacy effect of social psychology — there is indeed a psychological advantage to letting you know first since you’ll start imagining yourself at this school well before you hear from other universities. You’ll start picturing yourself making friends there, studying in the libraries, dining in the dining halls. You get the idea.
Have a question about Likely Letters? Let us know your question by posting it below! And congratulations to all students who have started receiving Likely Letters! Know that you were among the strongest applicants to the university that conveyed to you it’s likely you’ll get in. And by likely, yes, they mean you’re in. Unless of course your grades drop significantly, you misbehave, etc. So stay out of trouble and keep those grades up!