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

[Anonymous]

Is this yet another one of those threads where people here are geniuses who can tell every worthy kid from an unworthy kid, but the professionals who do acceptances at colleges for a living are idiots who can’t tell the difference?

Cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The number of HS grads is projected to start going down in 4 years.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_219.10.asp

[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.

Not in a way that provides meaningful data for a school. A 1500 doesn’t mean you are smarter than a 1450 or dumber than a 1550. Also, schools dont know anything about amount of prep or the number of times it was taken. Your faith in the powers of the SAT are misplaced.

So what are we going to use to evaluate academic ability and intellectual potential? GPA? In my kid’s school two sections of the same class can have wildly different grading standards. We have seen example after example of kids from good private schools getting low grades while kids from so called good publics breeze through with As. Grade inflation is rampant nationwide and will continue to be as grades become the end all be all. If we ignore tests and rely only on grades we will have no standards at all. Nitpick the SAT all you want, but your alternative is worse. At least with the SAT any kid can buckle down, get a book out of the library and try to get a high score to prove their potential. Without relying on some teacher who may play favorites, have an agenda etc

Here’s a thought you look at whatever a student chooses to submit, do the best you can and don’t subscribe to the fallacy that it’s skimming the cream off the top. Thousands of kids have the goods and every college makes it owns choices. That’s why a kid can get rejected at one school and accepted at another. Thinking that you can arrive at some “right” answer is just a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

CEOs of Starbucks, Patagonia, Under Armour = not top tier schools. The list goes on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

This! It is happening. I am hiring farther down the list. The labor shortage is real.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this yet another one of those threads where people here are geniuses who can tell every worthy kid from an unworthy kid, but the professionals who do acceptances at colleges for a living are idiots who can’t tell the difference?

Cool.

Not idiots, simply people with an agenda different from actual academic merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this yet another one of those threads where people here are geniuses who can tell every worthy kid from an unworthy kid, but the professionals who do acceptances at colleges for a living are idiots who can’t tell the difference?

Cool.

Not idiots, simply people with an agenda different from actual academic merit.

Oh boy...

[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.

The SAT and ACT used to correlate with IQ tests as much as different IQ tests did with each other. The changes to the SAT has removed some of the more G loaded questions and made the test more amenable to prep, but it still measures intelligence to some degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this yet another one of those threads where people here are geniuses who can tell every worthy kid from an unworthy kid, but the professionals who do acceptances at colleges for a living are idiots who can’t tell the difference?

Cool.

Not idiots, simply people with an agenda different from actual academic merit.

Look at the expert who knows how to define academic merit. Last year I’m sure they were the expert on viral transmission and mask efficacy.

[Anonymous]

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

This. The population of 18 year olds drops sharply beginning in 2025 & 2026. Birthrates declined during the financial crisis of 2008 and never resumed to pre- recession levels. Unless immigration makes up the gap, which is doubtful, lower tiered schools like regional state schools and less selective LACs will close. They have already started

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure about if really harder than 5 years ago, but definitely different than 30 years ago when parents applied to college. One factor is supply and demand. In 1990, there were 2.5 million HS graduates in US vs 3.7 million now (and higher percentage applying to college). On the other hand, the most sought after schools have not expanded the size of their incoming classes accordingly (while setting aside 10% or more for international students).

Exactly! Way more applicants and same number of spots

[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

This. The population of 18 year olds drops sharply beginning in 2025 & 2026. Birthrates declined during the financial crisis of 2008 and never resumed to pre- recession levels. Unless immigration makes up the gap, which is doubtful, lower tiered schools like regional state schools and less selective LACs will close. They have already started

O wouldn't be so sure about that. Price matters a lot. And for a lot of families those lower tiered schools have been "family friends" for many generations. The world is so much bigger than the T100.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. No, they are not basic tests of intellectual ability. You do not understand these tests and are shaping a narrative that suits you. By what criteria do yoi assert that one race is "smarter?" Sure, there were a lot if Asian kids in our magnet. The vast majority of them also had an incredible amount of outside enrichment in addition to test specific prep for every magnet entrance exam (es, ms, hs). The tests only correlate to the ability to do well on the test. Intelligence may be one potential factor, but preparedness is far more influential on standardized test performance.

Give me a break. They are asking you to read paragraphs and make correct inferences. They are asking you to solve math problems. This is how you measure intelligence. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows if your life depended on picking which kid is "smarter" you would pick the kid with 1500 over 1180 every single time. I know it's uncomfortable that Asians do really well and it violates our contemporary sense that everyone is exactly equal and if there is any slight difference it can only be because of systemic racism. But everyone knows even if they don't say it aloud.

When's the last time you actually read an SAT test? What's an example of a difficult question? IMO, there aren't any. Now getting through a long exam with zero mistakes is tricky, but that's why the tests can be defeated by over prepping. But no one is learning much in that process. Rather than training to do something that's too easy really, really well, why not move on to something more stimulating?

I wouldn’t say they are measures of extreme genius but yes they are measures of intellectual ability. A person with brain damage for example might struggle to get 1580. I had this conversation with my son- he felt among his classmates how kids scored on the SATs really matched his subjective sense of how smart they were. The top performing students at his school all seem to have sky high SATs. Smart kids get the answers right! We don’t need to make this more complicated than it is.

Sure, so they sort out the brain damaged and the woefully underprepared. Beyond that most people do have the aptitude to finish college, even an elite college, which is all the tests are designed to indicate. To the extent that schools are interested in IDing geniuses, they are going to expect something more unique than a standardized test score. The score is a nice to have. It's neither necessary nor sufficient, and this has always been the case.

[Anonymous]

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.

This. Schools know they need to drop their academic standards to maintain enrollment because of the demographic cliff. The trick was always going to be dropping standards without being called out on it or losing ground on the USNWR rankings. Along came COVID and an excuse to go test optional and they all ran with it. The bridge classes (after COVID and before the 2008 babies) are getting squeezed.

This implies it has become more difficult for high stat kids to get in because they are sort of arbitrarily giving seats to no stat kids.

Yes, this is exactly what's happening. With the usual woke/equity/you're more than your grades garbage.

You are ignoring all of the medicore white people from suburban areas with "participation trophy" grade inflation. You hate towards people of color on this front is just astounding.

Look at the actual data from some of the most elite and/or competitive schools in the US: Harvard (lawsuit), UNC (lawsuit) UCLA and Berkeley (intermal investigation of entire UC system).

The same two applicant groups consistently DO have lower grades and lower test scores. Statistically significant, lower numbers, year after year. BIPOC, if you will.

Can we extrapolate from this massive trove of data that every school would report the same? Of course not. But you need to explain then how you just know that the Yale data is certainly different than the Harvard admissions data that came to light in discovery. Or how Michigan must be very different than UCLA admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

Your limited and narrow view is funny to see!

My husband works at Goldman and there are plenty of Kenyon, Michigan, Emory, and even schools you haven’t heard of if you’re not from there. Your friend may be speaking about a tiny subset at Goldman, say the IBD freshman class, but certainly not everyone.