Template talk:Infobox U.S. college admissions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox U.S. college admissions template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Higher education

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

United States

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

Impetus for creation

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education § Admissions figures tables. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion around launch

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education § New template available for admissions statistics to replace the awful tables. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was also some preliminary discussion around automation at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_81#Bot_for_updating_U.S._college_admissions_statistics. Hopefully this work will be carried forward to completion in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative character of admission rate

From my research, it looks like a lower admission rate is usually associated with an increase in applications, which itself reflects an increase in demand, and that this is a qualitatively positive indicator (even though it is not necessarily correlated with "getting a good education"). Is that not correct? Bsherr (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is a associated, but in order to say that something is "good" in wikivoice, which is what green/red effectively does, we need to meet a pretty high bar, and I'm not sure if "associated" meets that — the information displayed is the admit rate, not the total applicants number (or a direct measure of demand). If I recall correctly (maybe @ElKevbo or someone else can recall better), there was also a feeling that admission rates can be easily manipulated (e.g. by encouraging lots of subpar applicants so you can reject them) and that we didn't want to imply that it means more than it actually does or non-neutrally endorse the admissions rat race. Sdkb ^talk 20:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the yield rate meet the bar but the acceptance rate does not? --Bsherr (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A higher yield rate is a more direct indicator of an institution's attractiveness. One way to think about it: Every college would say publicly that a high yield rate and high SAT stats is a goal of their admissions process. But many fewer would say publicly that they strive for a low admission rate, and the ones with more scruples about the toll the admissions process takes on kids won't even strive for it privately.

All that said, this isn't something I feel the most strongly about — when I initially created the template I coded it as green/red before changing my mind. Others may, though; I know @Robminchin commented about the choice. If we'd like to discuss this further, it might be good to run an RfC or something more high-visibility to attract more voices, given that it'll ultimately impact every U.S. college article once the rollout of this template is complete. Sdkb ^talk 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my understanding is that application numbers are somewhat easy to manipulate, at least in the short term. We can really see that when you look at application numbers change when an institution joins the common app, making it really easy for thousands of people to apply.

I also worry that we're getting near OR-territory by emphasizing things that aren't emphasized by many scholars and experts. I recommend taking a look at the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education to get a good view of what some prominent higher ed scholars think is important in terms of understanding institutions in common, comparable ways. The organization that now manages the classifications, the American Council on Education, is also planning to make changes to the classification system next year so you can learn more by looking at what they're planning to do and what has been written about their plans. ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccessible font size

User:Sdkb, is there a way accommodate your concerns here without contravening MOS:SMALL? Bsherr (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The font size for infoboxes is 88% of the normal font size for the page. <small> reduces it to 85% of that, or about 75%. That goes a little beyond the recommendation at MOS:SMALL, but it's still a clearly readable size, and I think the concern about maintaining a clear visual hierarchy, where the current more significant data is given visual prominence over the less important historical data, should IAR take precedence over the concern that some readers might find it too small. Sdkb ^talk 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I do not see a compelling reason to ignore MOS:SMALL in this template. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails the WCAG 2.0 AA standard, which is the basis for the guideline at MOS:SMALL. So I guess what I am asking is, surely there is another way to maintain a clear visual hierarchy that doesn't discriminate against the visually impaired, right? --Bsherr (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]