What changed?

[Anonymous]

I graduated high school in 1998. I grew up in a small town out west where around 60% of graduating seniors went to college, and the vast, vast majority went to state schools, with a significant number going to community college. Getting into and attending the state flagship meant you were smart and middle or upper middle class, because you could afford to travel across the state to attend instead of living at home.

While I was in high school, I remember two transfers who moved to our town from out of state, one from California and one from Texas, both from big cities. Both had been attending "top" suburban schools before they moved (my town had only one high school and no private options beyond MS, plus the private schools were very religiously focused).

I became friends with both of these students, in part because we were similar -- all honors classes, very academically minded, definitely going to college, all had plans for grad school as well. Their approach to college was incredibly foreign. They'd both already taken the PSAT multiple times in order to maximize their SAT score. Both took formal test prep classes. Both engaged in resume-building -- selecting extra-curriculars and elective classes specifically to brand themselves for college and to balance their resume. Both sets of parents hired professional editors to help prepare their college essays. One wound up at Stanford (where she was a legacy) the other at a Seven Sisters school where she was very unhappy but graduated and went onto med school.

I did none of that stuff (and had parents who would never have paid for it or understood what even was the point). I attended this state flagship on a scholarship and went on to a top law school.

I think these approaches have been around a long time, they've just spread. Those big, wealthy suburban high schools have been playing this game for decades, and of course elite private schools basically invented the game. But there are more people and the intensity has gone up. I think for people like me from more rural/isolated backgrounds, if you didn't have an experience like mine where you encountered kids from those schools in high school, you might think "everything changed." But you were just sheltered from it.

In my home town, it's pretty similar to the way it was when I was there. Plenty of kids don't go to college at all -- they go work on family ranches or go to vocational school and start working. Plenty of people still attend community college or small, non-competitive (and inexpensive) state schools. The "smart" kids still go to the state flagship with a small number heading out of state. A lot of this still comes down to your socioeconomic status and your parents' education levels. It honestly has not changed much, even if the exact test scores and GPAs have shifted and there's stuff like test optional and kids applying to more schools. It's really amazingly consistent almost 30 years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are far more kids applying to college, and accordingly far more top kids. But the number of slots to fill hasn’t changed (much), so it’s much harder to get accepted than it used to be.

There was an SAT score reset, so 1500+ scores are more common. What was once a 1380 is probably a 1500 now? Not sure of the exact conversion, there are charts you can find.

Test optional means median scores at schools are getting pushed upwards — if a kid isn’t a high scorer, they are unlikely to submit, which drives up average test scores, which makes even fewer kids likely to submit (this may be changing at some schools, so read what the school says carefully).

ED has become a way for schools to drive up “yield,” which not only helps them manage their class, but also helps with rankings.

Rankings in general have become much more important to schools, so there’s a bit of game theory involved in applying (“will this decision of mine help the college’s rankings?”)

Athletic recruiting seems to be a much bigger thing than it used to be. Athletes are recruited ED and get pre-reads so be skeptical of ED admit rates, particularly at small schools with high percentages of recruited athletes.

College has gotten so expensive that fewer families can pay full-price, so “full-pay” is a hook at most schools.

The expense has made merit aid a very important factor for many families. Some merit aid rewards real merit, as a way to draw high-stats kids. Some merit aid is a form of tuition discounting and is offered more widely. Merit aid can sometimes bring a private school cost below that of a public.

Most elite schools don’t offer merit aid (and if they do it’s probably bc they aren’t in an ideal location).

The increased expense of college forces a lot of families to think hard about ROI. This is exacerbated by anxieties related to socioeconomic conditions in the US —vast wealth disparity and a disappearing middle class. You will see a lot more families urging their kids toward CS and engineering majors. Their anxieties can sometimes manifest as judgement toward people on other paths, but that is what anxiety does.

Most state flagships have become much harder to get into.

Many have said that top schools don’t seem as interested in “well rounded” kids — it’s more about being “pointy.”

Top schools are able to fill their classes with high-achieving 4.0+ 1500+ kids, so some people believe the experience of being on campus — not merely applying — is more stressful than it used to be.

Elite schools are a little more able to offer financial aid for those families who aren’t poor, but for whom 85k/annual still hurts.

There’s more data available — find the common data set for schools of interest, and get to know the data they provide.

I’m sure I’ve missed things. But those are some of my observations.

Well done?

[Anonymous]

Meant “well done *!*”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the population increase---and also with that more kids who would not consider college in the 80s are now applying to 4-year colleges.

And, common app has made it very easy to apply to a large number of schools. As, pp stated, we used to have to individually apply to each separate school with their own very different forms and essays. It was a chore...and, yes, on a typewriter... and physically mail them in. This was late 80s/early 90s.

Now throw in Test Optional everywhere and HS grade inflation (there were not so many 4.0-4.0++ GPAs back in the day--they were very few and hard to get).

And, now schools are really gonna scramble because population lull.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meant “well done *!*”

lol, the question mark was probably just as appropriate, but thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are far more kids applying to college, and accordingly far more top kids. But the number of slots to fill hasn’t changed (much), so it’s much harder to get accepted than it used to be.

There was an SAT score reset, so 1500+ scores are more common. What was once a 1380 is probably a 1500 now? Not sure of the exact conversion, there are charts you can find.

Test optional means median scores at schools are getting pushed upwards — if a kid isn’t a high scorer, they are unlikely to submit, which drives up average test scores, which makes even fewer kids likely to submit (this may be changing at some schools, so read what the school says carefully).

ED has become a way for schools to drive up “yield,” which not only helps them manage their class, but also helps with rankings.

Rankings in general have become much more important to schools, so there’s a bit of game theory involved in applying (“will this decision of mine help the college’s rankings?”)

Athletic recruiting seems to be a much bigger thing than it used to be. Athletes are recruited ED and get pre-reads so be skeptical of ED admit rates, particularly at small schools with high percentages of recruited athletes.

College has gotten so expensive that fewer families can pay full-price, so “full-pay” is a hook at most schools.

The expense has made merit aid a very important factor for many families. Some merit aid rewards real merit, as a way to draw high-stats kids. Some merit aid is a form of tuition discounting and is offered more widely. Merit aid can sometimes bring a private school cost below that of a public.

Most elite schools don’t offer merit aid (and if they do it’s probably bc they aren’t in an ideal location).

The increased expense of college forces a lot of families to think hard about ROI. This is exacerbated by anxieties related to socioeconomic conditions in the US —vast wealth disparity and a disappearing middle class. You will see a lot more families urging their kids toward CS and engineering majors. Their anxieties can sometimes manifest as judgement toward people on other paths, but that is what anxiety does.

Most state flagships have become much harder to get into.

Many have said that top schools don’t seem as interested in “well rounded” kids — it’s more about being “pointy.”

Top schools are able to fill their classes with high-achieving 4.0+ 1500+ kids, so some people believe the experience of being on campus — not merely applying — is more stressful than it used to be.

Elite schools are a little more able to offer financial aid for those families who aren’t poor, but for whom 85k/annual still hurts.

There’s more data available — find the common data set for schools of interest, and get to know the data they provide.

I’m sure I’ve missed things. But those are some of my observations.

Your analysis is pretty accurate...but only for like the top 150 schools in the country.

Outside of that group, acceptance rates are actually way up and enrollment way down. Look at WVU, tons of regional PA colleges (like Shippensburg or IUP), many rural, small LACs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the population increase---and also with that more kids who would not consider college in the 80s are now applying to 4-year colleges.

And, common app has made it very easy to apply to a large number of schools. As, pp stated, we used to have to individually apply to each separate school with their own very different forms and essays. It was a chore...and, yes, on a typewriter... and physically mail them in. This was late 80s/early 90s.

Now throw in Test Optional everywhere and HS grade inflation (there were not so many 4.0-4.0++ GPAs back in the day--they were very few and hard to get).

And, now schools are really gonna scramble because population lull.

Some currently marginal schools may fail, but the kid who doing really well, but not great isn't going to be able to safely assume they will get into UMDCP or UVA like they could a generation ago
The lull is not going to change things with flagships or top privates.

[Anonymous]

Population growth and technology improvement means it's harder to be "the best".

Chinese already learned this 20 years ago (4x population of USA) and came over to US and brought what they earned here.

[Anonymous]

US cut back on subsidized college education, while colleges grew to become luxury country clubs, making fights for scholarship money intense.

[Anonymous]

AA, DEI, war on merit. All of these make it harder and harder for the non-hooked students. And you’re all fueling this disastrous failure our education system.

[Anonymous]

AA, DEI, war on merit. All of these make it harder and harder for the non-hooked students. And you’re all fueling this disastrous failure our education system.

Nope. You can beat that drum as much as you want, but it still won't be true. As has been discussed many, many times on this board, AA & DEI have nothing to do deferrals, wait lists and rejections at schools like Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, SC and TN. In just two classes, Ole Miss and KY are the only SEC safeties. More schools are using ED and the Common App, which has made it easy for kids to apply to the same 40-50 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I graduated high school in 1998. I grew up in a small town out west where around 60% of graduating seniors went to college, and the vast, vast majority went to state schools, with a significant number going to community college. Getting into and attending the state flagship meant you were smart and middle or upper middle class, because you could afford to travel across the state to attend instead of living at home.

While I was in high school, I remember two transfers who moved to our town from out of state, one from California and one from Texas, both from big cities. Both had been attending "top" suburban schools before they moved (my town had only one high school and no private options beyond MS, plus the private schools were very religiously focused).

I became friends with both of these students, in part because we were similar -- all honors classes, very academically minded, definitely going to college, all had plans for grad school as well. Their approach to college was incredibly foreign. They'd both already taken the PSAT multiple times in order to maximize their SAT score. Both took formal test prep classes. Both engaged in resume-building -- selecting extra-curriculars and elective classes specifically to brand themselves for college and to balance their resume. Both sets of parents hired professional editors to help prepare their college essays. One wound up at Stanford (where she was a legacy) the other at a Seven Sisters school where she was very unhappy but graduated and went onto med school.

I did none of that stuff (and had parents who would never have paid for it or understood what even was the point). I attended this state flagship on a scholarship and went on to a top law school.

I think these approaches have been around a long time, they've just spread. Those big, wealthy suburban high schools have been playing this game for decades, and of course elite private schools basically invented the game. But there are more people and the intensity has gone up. I think for people like me from more rural/isolated backgrounds, if you didn't have an experience like mine where you encountered kids from those schools in high school, you might think "everything changed." But you were just sheltered from it.

In my home town, it's pretty similar to the way it was when I was there. Plenty of kids don't go to college at all -- they go work on family ranches or go to vocational school and start working. Plenty of people still attend community college or small, non-competitive (and inexpensive) state schools. The "smart" kids still go to the state flagship with a small number heading out of state. A lot of this still comes down to your socioeconomic status and your parents' education levels. It honestly has not changed much, even if the exact test scores and GPAs have shifted and there's stuff like test optional and kids applying to more schools. It's really amazingly consistent almost 30 years later.

From Midwest Great Lakes flyover country, I agree. It's still like that here because this is a true MC suburban metro town, especially true of parents of school kids. Not UMC. Avg HHI is about 87K. The UMC live in a few bigfooted infill houses or have gone stealth.

The practices mentioned are definitely in effect in the UMC and "good school district" neighborhoods around my district. Our county is on a national level more like a Montgomery County than an average county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

AA, DEI, war on merit. All of these make it harder and harder for the non-hooked students. And you’re all fueling this disastrous failure our education system.

Nope. You can beat that drum as much as you want, but it still won't be true. As has been discussed many, many times on this board, AA & DEI have nothing to do deferrals, wait lists and rejections at schools like Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, SC and TN. In just two classes, Ole Miss and KY are the only SEC safeties. More schools are using ED and the Common App, which has made it easy for kids to apply to the same 40-50 schools.

Oh yes it does. It’s the ripple effect. When there are a lot of uncertainties at the top, ppl will apply to more schools, increasing the competitiveness at lower tier schools.

[Anonymous]

More kids and parents are aware that the best schools will help them afford the best education without a ton of loans.

More kids and parents understand how to play the highly selective school admissions game.

All this means that more kids than ever are submitting quality applications to the best schools.

TO and the Common App have turbocharged these trends, but lots of extra essays at the very best schools still deter some students.

Aside from these domestic trends, more international kids also want to attend American colleges, and American colleges want their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admissions changed so much since past generations applied to U.S. colleges. What changed?

Another thread recently had this posted, which caught my attention:

Except those 1500 SATs would’ve been more like 1380s 25 years ago. And GPAs? Please.

Exactly. I think people sell themselves short. Plus back in the day, kids were not micromanaged like hot house flowers by their parents.

The institutions have generally not grown in size, so there is roughly the same number of "seats" today as there were 30 or 60 years ago. With that in mind:

1) Higher US population so more kids applying in general
2) more international students
3) grade inflation means many more applicants believe they are qualified for the available seats
4) changes in standardized tests means generally higher scores. See #3.
5) higher relative costs for college means people really want value for the money they will spend, that magnifies focus on "T20" or "T50" or whatever schools