This paper is a response to Clinton F. Conrad's article, "Beyond the Folklore." Conrad's strategy for assessing undergraduate quality echoes the sentiments espoused by many admission and college counseling professionals over the years at various workshops for students and families that focus on navigating the process. As transcendent as the components of the strategy are, in today's complex admission landscape, they are tested by a number of external factors that emerged since that time. As the author began to think about Conrad's piece, he remembers one morning this past summer when they welcomed scores of visitors for their information sessions and campus tours. The majority of those students were rising seniors, many of whom had started their college search in earnest several months before in the winter of their junior year. While these families may have acquired a working knowledge of the college selection process during that period based upon their visits and prior connections and meetings with counselors, how many of them took the time to engage in such a methodical approach that Conrad suggests? Or, do they continue to rely on folklore, prestige, reputation, rankings, etc.? The past two years, the author had the privilege of chairing the NACAC/"U.S. News & World Report" Ad Hoc Committee. They specifically engaged with members of "U.S. News & World Report" on issues of methodology, the rankings' influence on families and the effects on best practices among colleges and universities. Part of the recommendations highlighted focusing methodology on more value-added, personalized weights centered around outcomes and student satisfaction and engagement. This approach could be applied according to Conrad's strategy for assessing undergraduate quality. However, one omission is the lack of consideration on the transcendent issue of access to need- and merit-based funding. Certainly since 1989, the rising costs of higher education may have been reflected in a more recent version of Conrad's strategy.