Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions changed so much since past generations applied to U.S. colleges. What changed?

Another thread recently had this posted, which caught my attention:

Except those 1500 SATs would’ve been more like 1380s 25 years ago. And GPAs? Please.

Exactly. I think people sell themselves short. Plus back in the day, kids were not micromanaged like hot house flowers by their parents.

You’re quoting me. My point is that these “high stats” kids are not as unbelievable as it would seem compared to the same stats a generation or 2 ago.

The SAT has been recalibrated twice since the mid 90s. The WaPo did an article a few years ago about how these high end scores would have been 100-130 points lower under prior scales.

Public schools have had rampant grade inflation (as have the so-called elite colleges). The ivies are the worst transgressors of this practice, BTW.

TO plus USNWR rankings metrics (rankings are empty as far as I’m concerned) have distorted incentives about submitting test scores, so only incredibly high scores get submitted and counted in the schools averages. This distorts how selective they really are.

Common app means people applying to 12-15 colleges or more. I applied to 4: one reach, one target, and two safeties.

None of these, btw, indicate anything about the colleges themselves have actually improved, either absolutely or relative to other colleges. This is why college rankings are pointless and the over reliance on them is vapid.

Private wealthy schools are also inflating grades. Grade inflation is highest at suburban public schools and wealthy independent schools. There is plenty of research on this dating back to 2016. https://lamag.com/news/prep-schools-grades

It's not just recalibration. It's priorities shifting and kids taking the test more seriously.

In 1998 you need X to get into a certain uni. In 2023 you need a Y to get in (and a host of other things). Market forces. People act accordingly.

I'm firmly in the test required camp because I think most people can perform well on the exam if it is a priority for them.

Wow, lots of good points. Back in the day, my parents required us to stay in-state for the sake of an extra grant. I doubt it was even very big, but back then, every little bit helped. (And there were plenty of good schools in my state, so why not?)

"There was an SAT score reset, so 1500+ scores are more common. What was once a 1380 is probably a 1500 now? Not sure of the exact conversion, there are charts you can find."

My 1260 in 1984 was 95th percentlle, which today is a 1410/1420.

Anonymous wrote:Parents are also willing to send their kid anywhere in the country and pay the airfare. My father would never have paid for me or my siblings to attend Wisconsin (no offense Wisconsin).

I know someone from there who went to high school here who is in their 50's who went to Wisconsin.

Population has grown and the number of seats at both good privates and state flagships has remained relatively stagnent. In previous generations high stat kids knew they had their state flag ship as a very affordable fall back. UVA has an instate cost of attendance near 40k and is reach for the same kind of kids who used to view it as a safety.

Anonymous wrote:Admissions changed so much since past generations applied to U.S. colleges. What changed?

Another thread recently had this posted, which caught my attention:

Except those 1500 SATs would’ve been more like 1380s 25 years ago. And GPAs? Please.

Exactly. I think people sell themselves short. Plus back in the day, kids were not micromanaged like hot house flowers by their parents.

You’re quoting me. My point is that these “high stats” kids are not as unbelievable as it would seem compared to the same stats a generation or 2 ago.

The SAT has been recalibrated twice since the mid 90s. The WaPo did an article a few years ago about how these high end scores would have been 100-130 points lower under prior scales.

Public schools have had rampant grade inflation (as have the so-called elite colleges). The ivies are the worst transgressors of this practice, BTW.

TO plus USNWR rankings metrics (rankings are empty as far as I’m concerned) have distorted incentives about submitting test scores, so only incredibly high scores get submitted and counted in the schools averages. This distorts how selective they really are.

Common app means people applying to 12-15 colleges or more. I applied to 4: one reach, one target, and two safeties.

None of these, btw, indicate anything about the colleges themselves have actually improved, either absolutely or relative to other colleges. This is why college rankings are pointless and the over reliance on them is vapid.

I think the population increase---and also with that more kids who would not consider college in the 80s are now applying to 4-year colleges.

And, common app has made it very easy to apply to a large number of schools. As, pp stated, we used to have to individually apply to each separate school with their own very different forms and essays. It was a chore...and, yes, on a typewriter... and physically mail them in. This was late 80s/early 90s.

Now throw in Test Optional everywhere and HS grade inflation (there were not so many 4.0-4.0++ GPAs back in the day--they were very few and hard to get).

There are far more kids applying to college, and accordingly far more top kids. But the number of slots to fill hasn’t changed (much), so it’s much harder to get accepted than it used to be.

There was an SAT score reset, so 1500+ scores are more common. What was once a 1380 is probably a 1500 now? Not sure of the exact conversion, there are charts you can find.

Test optional means median scores at schools are getting pushed upwards — if a kid isn’t a high scorer, they are unlikely to submit, which drives up average test scores, which makes even fewer kids likely to submit (this may be changing at some schools, so read what the school says carefully).

ED has become a way for schools to drive up “yield,” which not only helps them manage their class, but also helps with rankings.

Rankings in general have become much more important to schools, so there’s a bit of game theory involved in applying (“will this decision of mine help the college’s rankings?”)

Athletic recruiting seems to be a much bigger thing than it used to be. Athletes are recruited ED and get pre-reads so be skeptical of ED admit rates, particularly at small schools with high percentages of recruited athletes.

College has gotten so expensive that fewer families can pay full-price, so “full-pay” is a hook at most schools.

The expense has made merit aid a very important factor for many families. Some merit aid rewards real merit, as a way to draw high-stats kids. Some merit aid is a form of tuition discounting and is offered more widely. Merit aid can sometimes bring a private school cost below that of a public.

Most elite schools don’t offer merit aid (and if they do it’s probably bc they aren’t in an ideal location).

The increased expense of college forces a lot of families to think hard about ROI. This is exacerbated by anxieties related to socioeconomic conditions in the US —vast wealth disparity and a disappearing middle class. You will see a lot more families urging their kids toward CS and engineering majors. Their anxieties can sometimes manifest as judgement toward people on other paths, but that is what anxiety does.

Most state flagships have become much harder to get into.

Many have said that top schools don’t seem as interested in “well rounded” kids — it’s more about being “pointy.”

Top schools are able to fill their classes with high-achieving 4.0+ 1500+ kids, so some people believe the experience of being on campus — not merely applying — is more stressful than it used to be.

Elite schools are a little more able to offer financial aid for those families who aren’t poor, but for whom 85k/annual still hurts.

There’s more data available — find the common data set for schools of interest, and get to know the data they provide.

I’m sure I’ve missed things. But those are some of my observations.

The common application makes life so much simpler. I had to pull out the old typewriter to fill out my application. Try applying to 20 schools under the old method.

SATs were created to find that kid in the middle of nowhere who could go to Harvard.

Test prep turned SATs into a money making machine and they have stoked fear in everyone to believe they need a T 30 school or they will be digging ditches and you all fell for it.

Anonymous wrote:Parents are also willing to send their kid anywhere in the country and pay the airfare. My father would never have paid for me or my siblings to attend Wisconsin (no offense Wisconsin).

I agree with this. Even in the 90s, most people in my UMC NYC suburb went to schools within an couple hours of home (granted, we had easy access to Boston, DC, and Phili). There were a couple people who went to school further away (I was one), but everyone was in the northeast or mid-Atlantic. People look much further afield these days.

Generally, I think people are more people are brand conscious now in many areas of their lives, too.

Parents are also willing to send their kid anywhere in the country and pay the airfare. My father would never have paid for me or my siblings to attend Wisconsin (no offense Wisconsin).

Hardworking middle class is keep fighting the cartel.

Admissions changed so much since past generations applied to U.S. colleges. What changed?

Another thread recently had this posted, which caught my attention:

Except those 1500 SATs would’ve been more like 1380s 25 years ago. And GPAs? Please.

Exactly. I think people sell themselves short. Plus back in the day, kids were not micromanaged like hot house flowers by their parents.