Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be an enrollment cliff soon. It won’t impact the top schools, but I’ve seen schools such as Bucknell, W&M, Brandeis, Ithaca College, Franklin & Marshall, Occidental and Sarah Lawrence exhibit great concern over it.

The enrollment cliff happened in 2010 and hasn't recovered since. see: https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

But what is happening now is the number of graduating seniors is about to fall. Seniors today were born in 2005 at the height of the housing bubble. With the financial crisis, births declined sharply

Not much of a cliff in 2005, see:https://www.statista.com/statistics/195908/number-of-births-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

More rapid decline in the last five years.

Peaks in 2007 then declines 5-10 percent in the following 5-10 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There HAS to be some sort of quantitative measure - An amazing GPA is not it (they are overinflated and basically useless). Standardized tests may not be perfect but they are by definition, standardized. ANYONE, if they care enough, can prepare for them (and prepare very well) for free and with resources available at public libraries. Each kid should try their hardest to get the best score they possibly can. A high score shows schools a few things; either the kid is bright and/or the kid cares enough to take the material seriously and buckle down and prep and take the test knowing that it is the only standard measure a school can look at. These kids will have to prep and study for college exams correct? And possibly professional exams as well.... they should show that they care enough to study and try their absolute best and not blow it off or cry "poor test taker", "no opportunities for prep"...

I feel that some of the brightest and best students will (and have) start to infiltrate the 20-50ish ranked schools and those schools will be the secret source of amazing talent in the workforce. The T20 are becoming so infatuated with creating cultures of equality and inclusion. Life is not equal. There are winners and losers. There are alpha dogs and pack followers... It is nature.

All this holistic admissions crap is over the top.. how can you claim the standardized tests are unfair and biased when you know damn well the elite and those with resources are not just gaming the system with essay coaching, private application counselors....

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all suggests that top 30 SLACS are really on their way to having really strong student profiles. All the kids who would otherwise attend an Ivy like large research university or a state flagship but got rejected despite high test scores will have more interest in LACs so they can get a high quality education. Otherwise they are bound for mediocre universities or second tier state schools.

Most high stat kids I know, including my own, don’t want a small remote school. They prefer a large research institution with good sports.

Right but they will end up at Michigan state instead of Michigan. Or BU instead of Wash U.

And the problem with that is??????

Nothing per se. But it was in the context of kids getting squeezed down to less prestigious large schools. At some point you recognize the education you receive as an undergrad at these schools is inferior to what you could obtain at a LAC that might accept you. I know some might say ok but a LAC isn’t fun but to that I say… ok so just go to UNLV.

[Anonymous]

I've yet to see grads at lower ranked schools invent novel products or companies.

Oh you’re the “Rolodex” keeper of all grads in the history of grads who invented novel products or companies. Ignorance abounds in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all suggests that top 30 SLACS are really on their way to having really strong student profiles. All the kids who would otherwise attend an Ivy like large research university or a state flagship but got rejected despite high test scores will have more interest in LACs so they can get a high quality education. Otherwise they are bound for mediocre universities or second tier state schools.

Most high stat kids I know, including my own, don’t want a small remote school. They prefer a large research institution with good sports.

Right but they will end up at Michigan state instead of Michigan. Or BU instead of Wash U.

And the problem with that is??????

Nothing per se. But it was in the context of kids getting squeezed down to less prestigious large schools. At some point you recognize the education you receive as an undergrad at these schools is inferior to what you could obtain at a LAC that might accept you. I know some might say ok but a LAC isn’t fun but to that I say… ok so just go to UNLV.

Such a false statement.

[Anonymous]

Too many people from other countries.

[Anonymous]

All this holistic admissions crap is over the top.. how can you claim the standardized tests are unfair and biased when you know damn well the elite and those with resources are not just gaming the system with essay coaching, private application counselors....

This is an uninformed opinion held by someone who doesn't have a kid in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many people from other countries.

If you do not value attending school with international students, why are you trying to attend universities that do value having international students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all suggests that top 30 SLACS are really on their way to having really strong student profiles. All the kids who would otherwise attend an Ivy like large research university or a state flagship but got rejected despite high test scores will have more interest in LACs so they can get a high quality education. Otherwise they are bound for mediocre universities or second tier state schools.

Most high stat kids I know, including my own, don’t want a small remote school. They prefer a large research institution with good sports.

Right but they will end up at Michigan state instead of Michigan. Or BU instead of Wash U.

And the problem with that is??????

Nothing per se. But it was in the context of kids getting squeezed down to less prestigious large schools. At some point you recognize the education you receive as an undergrad at these schools is inferior to what you could obtain at a LAC that might accept you. I know some might say ok but a LAC isn’t fun but to that I say… ok so just go to UNLV.

Such a false statement.

So second tier state schools are the pinnacle of teaching excellence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There HAS to be some sort of quantitative measure - An amazing GPA is not it (they are overinflated and basically useless). Standardized tests may not be perfect but they are by definition, standardized. ANYONE, if they care enough, can prepare for them (and prepare very well) for free and with resources available at public libraries. Each kid should try their hardest to get the best score they possibly can. A high score shows schools a few things; either the kid is bright and/or the kid cares enough to take the material seriously and buckle down and prep and take the test knowing that it is the only standard measure a school can look at. These kids will have to prep and study for college exams correct? And possibly professional exams as well.... they should show that they care enough to study and try their absolute best and not blow it off or cry "poor test taker", "no opportunities for prep"...

I feel that some of the brightest and best students will (and have) start to infiltrate the 20-50ish ranked schools and those schools will be the secret source of amazing talent in the workforce. The T20 are becoming so infatuated with creating cultures of equality and inclusion. Life is not equal. There are winners and losers. There are alpha dogs and pack followers... It is nature.

All this holistic admissions crap is over the top.. how can you claim the standardized tests are unfair and biased when you know damn well the elite and those with resources are not just gaming the system with essay coaching, private application counselors....

You want to spin this story, but its just a blend of fiction and hyperbole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All this holistic admissions crap is over the top.. how can you claim the standardized tests are unfair and biased when you know damn well the elite and those with resources are not just gaming the system with essay coaching, private application counselors....

This is an uninformed opinion held by someone who doesn't have a kid in HS.

Not poster but two kids in HS and I have witnessed with my own eyes some ridiculous “packaging” as well as long term investment in musical/artistic talents that completely panned out with positive EDs to top 20 schools in 3 cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

has nothing to do with race science. I will stipulate that there are no variations in intelligence across races. I am simply arguing that SATs are a reliable measure of intellectual ability (not perfect and yes prep can improve one's score). If there are differences from a racial perspective on outcomes, some of this could be related to prep but it is also related to the intellectual development of 16 year old kids across races. Culture, financial resources, family structure-- these all play into how "smart" a kid is by the time he or she is 16. The SAT catches how "smart" a kid is in ways that grades (which vary wildly by school, teacher etc) do not. It is a good tool. Not perfect but good. yes, a kid from a disadvantaged background should be given some leeway for weak SATs to adjust for the prep aspect of it.

DP. And, for the millionth time, your argument is incorrect. They are not a "reliable measure of intellect." That is a fallacy. The A in SAT used to stand for aptitude, but they had to change it to assessment because ot did not measure aptitude.

You are spending a lot of time here posting the same nonsense again and again. About to report a troll. This is getting silly.

[Anonymous]

you know damn well the elite and those with resources are not just gaming the system

Not poster but two kids in HS and I have witnessed with my own eyes some ridiculous “packaging” as well as long term investment in musical/artistic talents that completely panned out with positive EDs to top 20 schools in 3 cases.

This is totally gaming the system too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

has nothing to do with race science. I will stipulate that there are no variations in intelligence across races. I am simply arguing that SATs are a reliable measure of intellectual ability (not perfect and yes prep can improve one's score). If there are differences from a racial perspective on outcomes, some of this could be related to prep but it is also related to the intellectual development of 16 year old kids across races. Culture, financial resources, family structure-- these all play into how "smart" a kid is by the time he or she is 16. The SAT catches how "smart" a kid is in ways that grades (which vary wildly by school, teacher etc) do not. It is a good tool. Not perfect but good. yes, a kid from a disadvantaged background should be given some leeway for weak SATs to adjust for the prep aspect of it.

DP. And, for the millionth time, your argument is incorrect. They are not a "reliable measure of intellect." That is a fallacy. The A in SAT used to stand for aptitude, but they had to change it to assessment because ot did not measure aptitude.

You are spending a lot of time here posting the same nonsense again and again. About to report a troll. This is getting silly.

I like how seeing validity in the SAT/ACT which until a few years ago was almost universally required, and remains a major admissions factor almost everywhere, and is still required by many top schools, is reportable hate speech. We have a disagreement about a somewhat complicated subject. It’s okay. This is what people do in free countries. They share different perspectives on important issues. When someone disagrees with your beliefs, they are not “incorrect”- they hold a different opinion.

I use “intellect” in a general sense - but obviously these tests are measuring intellectual capacity in one form or another. This is why they give them- to determine how “smart” a kid is for lack of a better word, which may indicate how much they will benefit from a college education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

has nothing to do with race science. I will stipulate that there are no variations in intelligence across races. I am simply arguing that SATs are a reliable measure of intellectual ability (not perfect and yes prep can improve one's score). If there are differences from a racial perspective on outcomes, some of this could be related to prep but it is also related to the intellectual development of 16 year old kids across races. Culture, financial resources, family structure-- these all play into how "smart" a kid is by the time he or she is 16. The SAT catches how "smart" a kid is in ways that grades (which vary wildly by school, teacher etc) do not. It is a good tool. Not perfect but good. yes, a kid from a disadvantaged background should be given some leeway for weak SATs to adjust for the prep aspect of it.

DP. And, for the millionth time, your argument is incorrect. They are not a "reliable measure of intellect." That is a fallacy. The A in SAT used to stand for aptitude, but they had to change it to assessment because ot did not measure aptitude.

You are spending a lot of time here posting the same nonsense again and again. About to report a troll. This is getting silly.

I like how seeing validity in the SAT/ACT which until a few years ago was almost universally required, and remains a major admissions factor almost everywhere, and is still required by many top schools, is reportable hate speech. We have a disagreement about a somewhat complicated subject. It’s okay. This is what people do in free countries. They share different perspectives on important issues. When someone disagrees with your beliefs, they are not “incorrect”- they hold a different opinion.

I use “intellect” in a general sense - but obviously these tests are measuring intellectual capacity in one form or another. This is why they give them- to determine how “smart” a kid is for lack of a better word, which may indicate how much they will benefit from a college education.

Again, with hyperbole and misinformation. Ugh.