Things are not harder - it’s the same as it always was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My public HS class in the early 80s (250 in graduating class, Long Island): 2 to Brown, 1 to Harvard, 1 to Columbia, 1 or 2 to Cornell, 4 to RPI (the most to any one school, with the exception of community college).

I was accepted to Syracuse College of Engineering with an 86 average an an 1110 SAT score (I didn't attend there)

Lately from that same HS, maybe one or two Ivy Leaguers per class, most often none. The graduating class size is now over 350.

Schools are diversifying. It’s long overdue.

In my eyes they should be prioritized geographic and economic diversity over other kinds of diversity though, especially over the kinds of diversity that rely on apparently mutable characteristics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My public HS class in the early 80s (250 in graduating class, Long Island): 2 to Brown, 1 to Harvard, 1 to Columbia, 1 or 2 to Cornell, 4 to RPI (the most to any one school, with the exception of community college).

I was accepted to Syracuse College of Engineering with an 86 average an an 1110 SAT score (I didn't attend there)

Lately from that same HS, maybe one or two Ivy Leaguers per class, most often none. The graduating class size is now over 350.

Long island and the NY metro suburbs still sends a large number of students to top colleges from its strong publics.. But these districts compete against each other. There is a public HS arms race on LI which the accompanying very high taxes and very good schools.

I imagine these ivies and their level still accept many students ts from NY metro schools but the actual schools may change over time. All the NY metor public kids compete against one another for these spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree with OP.

At our school, the high performing kids are getting shut out at Ivys, NESCAC and other top tier private schools. They are lucky to get into flagships and "second tier" SLACs.

That is pushing the next rung of kids "down" and so on.

There are simply too many top GPA, top SAT/ACT high EC kids applying to the same 50-75 schools.

The numbers bare this out. 14,000 kids applying to Amherst for the same 400 seats. 85,000 kids applying to Michigan for the same 8000 seats. If you are out of state wanting to go to Michigan, the percentage is about the same as many of the very elite schools.

10 years ago, Michigan was a 30% school OOS. 25 years ago, it was a 50% school OOS.

Same. The increasing app numbers don't lie. To add anecdotally, lots of rejection among the super-high stat kids at my kid's nationally recognized magnet. Not sure how OP can draw this conclusion. She is just a pot stirrer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My public HS class in the early 80s (250 in graduating class, Long Island): 2 to Brown, 1 to Harvard, 1 to Columbia, 1 or 2 to Cornell, 4 to RPI (the most to any one school, with the exception of community college).

I was accepted to Syracuse College of Engineering with an 86 average an an 1110 SAT score (I didn't attend there)

Lately from that same HS, maybe one or two Ivy Leaguers per class, most often none. The graduating class size is now over 350.

Acceptances or matriculation? Because I bet there are a lot of NY’ers going to Bing & Stony Brook who would’ve ended up at Ivies back in the day. Ivies are expensive today for the upper middle class, at least by DCUM standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree with OP.

At our school, the high performing kids are getting shut out at Ivys, NESCAC and other top tier private schools. They are lucky to get into flagships and "second tier" SLACs.

That is pushing the next rung of kids "down" and so on.

There are simply too many top GPA, top SAT/ACT high EC kids applying to the same 50-75 schools.

The numbers bare this out. 14,000 kids applying to Amherst for the same 400 seats. 85,000 kids applying to Michigan for the same 8000 seats. If you are out of state wanting to go to Michigan, the percentage is about the same as many of the very elite schools.

10 years ago, Michigan was a 30% school OOS. 25 years ago, it was a 50% school OOS.

Same. The increasing app numbers don't lie. To add anecdotally, lots of rejection among the super-high stat kids at my kid's nationally recognized magnet. Not sure how OP can draw this conclusion. She is just a pot stirrer.

To get away from anecdotes, where are the top 3,4,5 percent actually going to school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree with OP.

At our school, the high performing kids are getting shut out at Ivys, NESCAC and other top tier private schools. They are lucky to get into flagships and "second tier" SLACs.

That is pushing the next rung of kids "down" and so on.

There are simply too many top GPA, top SAT/ACT high EC kids applying to the same 50-75 schools.

The numbers bare this out. 14,000 kids applying to Amherst for the same 400 seats. 85,000 kids applying to Michigan for the same 8000 seats. If you are out of state wanting to go to Michigan, the percentage is about the same as many of the very elite schools.

10 years ago, Michigan was a 30% school OOS. 25 years ago, it was a 50% school OOS.

Same. The increasing app numbers don't lie. To add anecdotally, lots of rejection among the super-high stat kids at my kid's nationally recognized magnet. Not sure how OP can draw this conclusion. She is just a pot stirrer.

To get away from anecdotes, where are the top 3,4,5 percent actually going to school?

Not the top 10 percent...just the very few most competitive kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mid tier MCPS graduating class in late 80’s sent 4 to Brown, 2 UPenn, one each to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, Cornell and 5 to Georgetown (including myself). No way does that happen today.

Help me understand please.

So it is "harder" for kids who went to your HS in the 80s.

Care to explain why that is?

Please also explain why that matters.

And lastly, please explain how if those colleges admit the same number of students, and there is a similar number of students in the whole college cohort, equates "harder" overall.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

DP

If in the 80’s a college received 15000 applications for 5000 spots and today it receives 50000 applications for the same number of spots, how could that not be harder to get in? Even if those numbers don’t represent all competitive students, there’s still going to be a rise in the number of competitive students.

It’s math. 1/3 chance vs 1/10.

Here's why that's wrong, and why the OP's headline is right.

Same number of kids applying for the same number of seats means it is, overall, exactly the same as before.

If you are arguing that certain and specific colleges have lower admit rates than they were in the past - which is what your post did - fine, but know that HAS to be offset by other colleges being easier to enroll in. It is NOT harder overall.

It is a zero sum game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mid tier MCPS graduating class in late 80’s sent 4 to Brown, 2 UPenn, one each to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, Cornell and 5 to Georgetown (including myself). No way does that happen today.

Help me understand please.

So it is "harder" for kids who went to your HS in the 80s.

Care to explain why that is?

Please also explain why that matters.

And lastly, please explain how if those colleges admit the same number of students, and there is a similar number of students in the whole college cohort, equates "harder" overall.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

DP

If in the 80’s a college received 15000 applications for 5000 spots and today it receives 50000 applications for the same number of spots, how could that not be harder to get in? Even if those numbers don’t represent all competitive students, there’s still going to be a rise in the number of competitive students.

It’s math. 1/3 chance vs 1/10.

Here's why that's wrong, and why the OP's headline is right.

Same number of kids applying for the same number of seats means it is, overall, exactly the same as before.

If you are arguing that certain and specific colleges have lower admit rates than they were in the past - which is what your post did - fine, but know that HAS to be offset by other colleges being easier to enroll in. It is NOT harder overall.

It is a zero sum game.

Oh come on. We all know this discussion is about admissions to the T50 schools. Yes perhaps it is now easier to get into colleges that have no ranking or national following.

But it’s also true that in 1980 there were 12.1 million college students and today there are 19.6. That means more competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mid tier MCPS graduating class in late 80’s sent 4 to Brown, 2 UPenn, one each to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, Cornell and 5 to Georgetown (including myself). No way does that happen today.

Help me understand please.

So it is "harder" for kids who went to your HS in the 80s.

Care to explain why that is?

Please also explain why that matters.

And lastly, please explain how if those colleges admit the same number of students, and there is a similar number of students in the whole college cohort, equates "harder" overall.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

DP

If in the 80’s a college received 15000 applications for 5000 spots and today it receives 50000 applications for the same number of spots, how could that not be harder to get in? Even if those numbers don’t represent all competitive students, there’s still going to be a rise in the number of competitive students.

It’s math. 1/3 chance vs 1/10.

Here's why that's wrong, and why the OP's headline is right.

Same number of kids applying for the same number of seats means it is, overall, exactly the same as before.

If you are arguing that certain and specific colleges have lower admit rates than they were in the past - which is what your post did - fine, but know that HAS to be offset by other colleges being easier to enroll in. It is NOT harder overall.

It is a zero sum game.

Oh come on. We all know this discussion is about admissions to the T50 schools. Yes perhaps it is now easier to get into colleges that have no ranking or national following.

But it’s also true that in 1980 there were 12.1 million college students and today there are 19.6. That means more competition.

There have been more than 19 million college students since 2008.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lived in this area a long time and am a UVA grad. I have been harping on this awhile. The top unis simply have not expanded to keep pace with the skyrocketing population. Also, there is more of a concerted effort to recruit minority applicants (as there should be). There is a mentality of UVA or bust. Meanwhile, we get inundated with mail from hundreds of perfectly good unis who would love to have our children, even giving them scholarships. Stop being such snobs. Also, kudos to VT for building a campus in Northern Virginia.

DCUM does seem to have a UVA or bust, but I've always thought UVA, VT Engineering, W&M, and art at VCU are all top tier options, and the number of top tier spots compared to the state population are actually pretty good compared to other states.

agreed except for VCU

You don't know art. VCU is no. 4 in the country in fine arts overall and no. 1 in sculpture. There is also a huge international art community in the city driven by the VCU program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lived in this area a long time and am a UVA grad. I have been harping on this awhile. The top unis simply have not expanded to keep pace with the skyrocketing population. Also, there is more of a concerted effort to recruit minority applicants (as there should be). There is a mentality of UVA or bust. Meanwhile, we get inundated with mail from hundreds of perfectly good unis who would love to have our children, even giving them scholarships. Stop being such snobs. Also, kudos to VT for building a campus in Northern Virginia.

DCUM does seem to have a UVA or bust, but I've always thought UVA, VT Engineering, W&M, and art at VCU are all top tier options, and the number of top tier spots compared to the state population are actually pretty good compared to other states.

Add the guaranteed BS/MD program at VCU, but the admission rate is around 3%.

[Anonymous]

“Things are not harder - it’s the same as it always was” is only true if you additive word relative to others. Kids generally do less then. These days, kids are so busy doing more that most of the graduating seniors in DMV area do not even know how to drive! So, compare the kids who go into any school to the kids who are getting in today, you will see a huge difference!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Things are not harder - it’s the same as it always was” is only true if you additive word relative to others. Kids generally do less then. These days, kids are so busy doing more that most of the graduating seniors in DMV area do not even know how to drive! So, compare the kids who go into any school to the kids who are getting in today, you will see a huge difference!

Kids in rat-race areas are, that is. For better or for worse, most of American teen experiences are no different from those of an 80s teen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mid tier MCPS graduating class in late 80’s sent 4 to Brown, 2 UPenn, one each to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, Cornell and 5 to Georgetown (including myself). No way does that happen today.

Help me understand please.

So it is "harder" for kids who went to your HS in the 80s.

Care to explain why that is?

Please also explain why that matters.

And lastly, please explain how if those colleges admit the same number of students, and there is a similar number of students in the whole college cohort, equates "harder" overall.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

DP

If in the 80’s a college received 15000 applications for 5000 spots and today it receives 50000 applications for the same number of spots, how could that not be harder to get in? Even if those numbers don’t represent all competitive students, there’s still going to be a rise in the number of competitive students.

It’s math. 1/3 chance vs 1/10.

Here's why that's wrong, and why the OP's headline is right.

Same number of kids applying for the same number of seats means it is, overall, exactly the same as before.

If you are arguing that certain and specific colleges have lower admit rates than they were in the past - which is what your post did - fine, but know that HAS to be offset by other colleges being easier to enroll in. It is NOT harder overall.

It is a zero sum game.

Oh come on. We all know this discussion is about admissions to the T50 schools. Yes perhaps it is now easier to get into colleges that have no ranking or national following.

But it’s also true that in 1980 there were 12.1 million college students and today there are 19.6. That means more competition.

Sorry, but words matter, as does data and math. Same number of kids, same number of seats, same difficulty overall, just with other variables changed. End period, not debatable. You point is essentially that some colleges are now more popular, and others less. Fine.

As for you going back 42 years, hell why stop there. Back in 1791 the acceptance rate to Harvard was 100% if you could pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Things are not harder - it’s the same as it always was” is only true if you additive word relative to others. Kids generally do less then. These days, kids are so busy doing more that most of the graduating seniors in DMV area do not even know how to drive! So, compare the kids who go into any school to the kids who are getting in today, you will see a huge difference!

Who can afford a car and gas? Besides, cars are terrible for the environment.