If you graduated college in the 90s/00s which schools shocked you with their change in status/competiveness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

^ the test was very different. The dumbed parts of it down over time.

Not as many test preppers. We were middle class, at a good HS and my parents just bought a Barron's guide for me to self study--which even that was 'a lot' compared to most (early mid80s)

[Anonymous]

UMCP
UMBC
Elon
Northeastern
Villanova
Va Tech
Rutgers

[Anonymous]

Northwestern and Washington U and Michigan used to be backup or 2nd choice schools for Midwestern Ivy aspirants back then

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeastern
Vanderbilt
Any of the SEC schools for OOS kids
NYU
USC (when I took the SATs they were doing the stuff Chicago does now- sending the biggest and most mailings of anyone and generally acting desperate)

Nope. Vanderbilt has been competitive and difficult to get into for a long time.

+1 There's considerable ignorance (and prejudice) showing up in this thread. No surprise, given it's DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

^ the test was very different. The dumbed parts of it down over time.

Not as many test preppers. We were middle class, at a good HS and my parents just bought a Barron's guide for me to self study--which even that was 'a lot' compared to most (early mid80s)

Oh yes, I remember the Big Fat SAT Book. That was all the SAT prep I did. Not even sure I did all the tests in the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

^ the test was very different. The dumbed parts of it down over time.

+1 Reportedly, they made it easier to get a high score to be more inclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I graduated college in the 90s. USNWR rankings existed but I don't know anyone who was really aware of them. This was pre-internet so you would need to buy the magazine or go to the library. Pretty much everybody went to a public college except one who went to West Point and one to Princeton.

https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/10/09/vanderbilts-criticism-us-news-tone-deaf-opinion

"Vanderbilt is in some ways a victim of its own success. It is among a group of nouveau riche institutions that have become dramatically more selective over the past 30 years. In the 1990s, Vanderbilt admitted 65 percent of its applicants (per, ironically, the 1993 edition of the U.S. News ranking), whereas today that number is under 10 percent. Is Vanderbilt that much better today? Probably not. Has that success led to institutional hubris? Perhaps."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Northeastern for sure. I graduated in ‘93 and SATs were about 1000 and GPA was in 3.0 range. No one ever heard of the school and confused it with Northwestern. Everyone got in.

I think they were really helped by location. They wouldn't be where they are if they were in Worcester. Same with NYU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

1200+ was a very good score back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

^ the test was very different. The dumbed parts of it down over time.

+1 Reportedly, they made it easier to get a high score to be more inclusive.

My kid took the recent digital SAT

No you aren't correct. It did have fewer questions than the paper one.

But he said he had to think deeper to answer some of the questions at the end.

[Anonymous]

Less information available to a lot of people pre-internet and big cities were seen as more dangerous back then. Some parents thought twice before letting their kids attend certain schools in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeastern
Vanderbilt
Any of the SEC schools for OOS kids
NYU
USC (when I took the SATs they were doing the stuff Chicago does now- sending the biggest and most mailings of anyone and generally acting desperate)

Nope. Vanderbilt has been competitive and difficult to get into for a long time.

+1 There's considerable ignorance (and prejudice) showing up in this thread. No surprise, given it's DCUM.

Yes, but in the 90s it was not nearly as competitive or difficult to get into as it is now.

Back then, Vandy was a full step down from Duke - a likely/target for high stat kids who were reaching for Duke.

Now, that gap is much narrower. My understanding is that no one can consider Vandy a likely/target at this point.

Which is disappointing. The two schools are similar in many ways (midsized + highly academic/research schools + high-profile D1 sports + work hard/play hard vibe) and there are few likelies/targets that fit that exact profile, even for kids with 4.0/12 APs/1500+/strong ECs

[Anonymous]

It doesn't really matter if they shock us or not. It's a whole different ballgame these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I graduated college in the 90s. USNWR rankings existed but I don't know anyone who was really aware of them. This was pre-internet so you would need to buy the magazine or go to the library. Pretty much everybody went to a public college except one who went to West Point and one to Princeton.

https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/10/09/vanderbilts-criticism-us-news-tone-deaf-opinion

"Vanderbilt is in some ways a victim of its own success. It is among a group of nouveau riche institutions that have become dramatically more selective over the past 30 years. In the 1990s, Vanderbilt admitted 65 percent of its applicants (per, ironically, the 1993 edition of the U.S. News ranking), whereas today that number is under 10 percent. Is Vanderbilt that much better today? Probably not. Has that success led to institutional hubris? Perhaps."

Disagree. Btw the RD acceptance rate is under 5%. They have poured investment into every corner - literally transformed the campus with new academic buildings and housing, hired world class professors, new stadium. It is a marvelous place offering a great education. Parent of Vanderbilt student

[Anonymous]

To PP above - correct - Vandy not a target likely for anyone, regardless of stats