Reply to Let’s just talk VA public colleges

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Let’s just talk VA public colleges "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]And the other issue is that top students are applying to more colleges now than they did in 2013, and 2003, and 1993...So you are competing with the top .1% at elite schools over and over.[/quote]
No. Every student can attend only one college. The top schools don't lose out because they competed for the same top students. Only lower ranked schools lose out. The top slots fill up, and it's the same (or a higher number) for a declining number of applicants, so from an applicant's perspective the required relative standing has become lower.  Seems counterintuitive (especially given the impression that absolute standards have risen), but is undoubtedly true.

The number of applications sent out also has nothing to do with it, for the same reason that a student can attend only one school.
[/quote]

Yes, students can only go to one college.  But when the top .1% caliber students are applying to all of the top 20 colleges instead of 1, it's a lot harder for a top 1-5% caliber student to get in.  There's less likelihood of error where the top .1% student won't get in to one of them.

[/quote]
No. Students applying to more colleges has in fact the opposite effect. In fact, if all students applied to all colleges (as I think you assume for the "top .1% caliber" students), and if all colleges meet their enrollment goals, there's no risk of anomalies at all.  All top-20 slots would be filled with top .1% caliber students.

The important effect is that the number of "top .1% caliber" students has decreased by 11%, but the number of slots available for them has not. Therefore, even and especially if all students apply to all schools, now the top .11% caliber of students go to top-20 schools. So there are some top .11% caliber, but not quite 0.1% caliber students who didn't get to a top 20 school but who do now.

If, on the other hand, each student applied to only one school, then there could be a large number of students who didn't get their top pick (since each school admits only a limited number) and who would now be enrolling at a school much lower than what their relative peer ranking would imply. The more schools students on average apply to, the less likely such anomalies are to happen. When each student applies to all schools, these anomalies cannot happen at all (assuming all top-20 schools meet their enrollment targets, which so far has been the case).

Here's another attempt at explaining the math. Imagine you have 100 kids who want lollipops.  There are 10 lollipops.  So 10 out of 100 kids get lollipops.  The next year, there are only 90 kids and still 10 lollipops. Now 10 out of 90 kids get lollipops.  Which group would you rather be in, the previous year where 100 kids fought for the lollipops or the group where only 90 did?
[/quote]

I get the math. I'm just arguing that when there are more high level applications to the same 20 schools in 2018 than 2013, it's harder to get into those 20 schools regardless of total number of students in the overall application pool nationally.  Before plenty of top .1% wouldn't get into one of the top 20 and went to their state school second choice instead which is several tiers below leaving a slot open for a candidate who might only be in the top 2% of caliber. Now, if those with .1% qualifications  apply to all 20 there's less error in the system.  And if that happens, the most selective schools get better at finding that top .1% making it less likely for anyone without .1% qualifications. And if you're competing with the top .1% internationally,  that's why the schools have stronger and stronger admissions profiles and lower admissions percentages.

Lower ranked schools, sure, fewer absolute numbers make a difference.   But the number of slots in the top schools is so small relative to the population of overall students that the lower error in top 20 admissions and the caliber of the top .1% matters a whole lot more than sheer number of total applicants in the college system when determining difficulty.  When there's less error, there's more pressure to meet those standards hence making it "harder" to get in.

But this is a distraction to the point of this thread.  So, yes, I get the basic math that if all applications were independent and there were no other distorting changes in the system, fewer total people applying to colleges due to demographics means it's easier to get in.  That's obvious. I just don't think that matters at all when discussing top 20 schools as other factors are more at play.  If each country that used to rarely send any student to a top 20 school starts regularly doing so, applicants are competing with perhaps the best student in the whole country's cohort of possible students.  Likewise in states that used to just send top students to their flagship--aid policies and decreasing state support change where top students want to apply now--they may get a better deal at an Ivy than at their flagship.  This wasn't always the case even 5 years ago.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics