02 September 2014

Over 90% of College Lists Need Improvement

Posted in Your College List, Early Admission, Perspectives

and other findings from our beta test

As most of you know, we completed a beta test of College Kickstart at the end of July.  With student and parent participants from public and private schools, our goal was to measure how effective we could be in helping users build a sensible college plan.

The results are in, and we're quite excited by the findings:

  • Needed list improvements were identified for 91% of users
  • Odds-boosting early admission opportunities were found for 91% of users
  • Work and cost avoidance opportunities were found for 81% of users

What's even more compelling is how much College Kickstart is boosting odds and setting up applicants to avoid unnecessary work and cost:

  • On average, 2.6 early admission opportunities were identified, resulting in a 63% boost in odds
  • On average, up to 4.2 applications could potentially be avoided, saving up to $282 in admission fees

Read on for the details.

  

Background

The objective of the beta test was to measure the effectiveness of College Kickstart in creating  college plans.  We focused specifically on three areas:

  • List quality
  • Odds maximization
  • Work and cost avoidance

Each beta participant was provided access to College Kickstart and executed cases by entering an academic profile, a rank ordered list of 6-12 schools, and indication of their level of commitment to their top two schools.  Results were tracked and formed the basis for the analysis.  On average, each participant ran eight cases.

Beta participants included students and parents from both private and public schools, primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area and New England.  Students were typically B students or better, with combined SAT reading and math scores in excess of 1000.  

 

BetaStatsDemographics 

List Quality

The first area of focus was on list quality.  As you may recall, College Kickstart assesses list quality based on the mix of schools on the list and the odds of getting to at least one of them. Each school on the list is first categorized as a safety, target, reach or unlikely school based on school selectivity and the applicant's academic performance relative to entering students.  The mix of schools is then compared to a reference standard, list odds are calculated, and a grade is assigned based on findings.

Key findings:

  • Initial list size and quality.  On average, initial lists consisted of approximately 9 schools and earned a list quality grade of "C" (2.1 out of 4.0).   
  • Percentage of lists requiring improvements. 91% of initial lists submitted by users were in need of improvement.  Of these cases, a whopping 92% were deemed overly aggressive and in need of safety/target schools to balance out the mix and improve odds of success.
  • Exit list size and quality.  After using College Kickstart, the average list size for each user increased from 9 to 10 schools, but list quality improved from a "C" (2.1) to a "B" (3.0). 
  • Impact on list odds.  By improving list quality, the odds of admission to at least one school on the list improved from 89% to 95%.

 

The findings suggest that College Kickstart is adept at identifying changes to improve list quality and odds of admission to at least one school on the list.  Given the high proportion of overly aggressive lists, the findings also suggest that College Kickstart is effective at helping users to set more realistic expectations about their college prospects.

 

BetaStatsListCheck3 

Odds Maximization

The second area of focus was on odds maximization.  This is accomplished in College Kickstart by capitalizing on odds-boosting early admission opportunities.  A proprietary algorithm is used to isolate only those opportunities that are appropriate for the user based on several factors, including rank order of the list, strength of commitment to the school, available plans and plan terms and conditions.

Key findings:

  • Hit rate.  Early admission opportunities were identified for 91% of users. This includes only those opportunities deemed appropriate for the user.  For example, early decision was only recommended when the user indicated strong commitment to attending the institution, or restricted early action was only recommended if program terms and condictions were met.
  • Average opportunities found. On average, 2.6 early admission opportunities were found for these users.  With an average list size of 9-10 schools, early admission opportunities typically accounted for 25-30% of the total list.
  • Impact on admission odds. On average, early admission resulted in a 63% boost in admission odds for the schools identified. "Boost" is defined as the percentage difference between the early and regular decision admission rates for a school.  For example, if the early action admission rate for School A is 30% and the regular decision admission rate is 15%, the boost is 100%.  If the early decision admission rate is 33% and the regular decision admission rate is 15%, the boost is 120%.

 

The findings suggest that College Kickstart is also quite effective at capitalizing on early admission to maximize admisison odds.  An average of 2.6 appropriate opportunities were identified for 91% of users, resulting in an odds boost of 63% for those schools.

BetaStatsEarly3

 

Work/Cost Avoidance

The final area of focus was on work/cost avoidance.  As you may recall, College Kickstart looks for opportunities to help users avoid unnecessary application effort and cost.  This is made possible when early admission opportunities have been identified and their notification dates occur before the application due dates for other schools on the list.

Key findings:

  • Hit rate.  Potential work/cost avoidance opportunities were identified for 81% of users.
  • Average applications potentially avoided.  An average of 4.2 applications could be avoided if the user is admitted to their highest ranked early admission school.
  • Average application fees potentially avoided.  An average of $282 in application fees could be avoided if the user is admitted to their highest ranked early admission school.

 

Again, College Kickstart appears to be effective in setting up users to avoid work and cost.  Work/cost avoidance opportunities were identifed for 81% of users, setting them up avoid up to 4.2 applications and $282 in fees if admitted to their highest ranked early admission school.

 

BetaStatsActionPlan3

 

Summary

A beta test was conducted during the summer of 2014 to assess the effectiveness of College Kickstart along three dimensions: list quality, odds maximization and work/cost avoidance.  Test participants included students and parents from public and private schools located primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston.

The findings suggest that College Kickstart performs extremely well along all three dimensions:

  • Needed list improvements were identified for 91% of users, resulting in an increase in list size from 9 to 10 schools, a 43% improvement in list quality and 7% improvement in admission odds. 
  • Odds-boosting early admission opportunities were identified for 91% of users.  For these users, an average of 2.6 opportunities were identified, resulting in a 63% boost in odds for those schools.
  • Potential work/cost avoidance opportunities were identified for 81% of users.  For these users, an average of 4.2 applications and $282 in application fees could be avoided if accepted to their highest ranked early admission school.

Taken as a whole, College Kickstart provides a straightforward way for families to create sensible college plans--ones that are realistic, maximize odds, and minimize work and cost.  

 

Cron Job Starts