I am confused by the numbers myself. Basically, you have roughly similar number of applicants for roughly similar numbers of spots (I understand that there are more foreign students these days, but that is still a relatively small number that at least partially balanced by the number of American students going abroad.

Anyway, I understand that (1) kids are apply to more schools on average, so the admissions rates are lower. However, this seems to be more of numerical issue (the same kid should get into the same schools, but is applying to and getting rejected from more schools then in the past).

I do think that kids/schools are preparing applications in view of previously admitted students (basically there are benchmarks to follow). It seems to create more pressure on the kids to keep up with the benchmarks, and additional pressures on the really smart kids to push up the benchmarks to try to distinguish themselves.

No, silly, of course everything was harder back in our day!

Here are the schools that get the most applications:

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2013/01/08/10-colleges-that-get-the-most-applications

Anonymous wrote:A lot of schools that people see as "second rate" have gotten much more competitive. Non-flagship state campus, for example, or lesser known liberal arts colleges. People who see NYU and GW as solely commuter schools don't realize that the reputations are far better than they were in the '80s and '90s and they now draw kids from all over the country.

While it may be harder to go to Harvard, or for that matter Middlebury or Amherst, there are any number of schools that offer excellent educations in this country.

SLACs have low admit rates because they are small schools that have a reasonable level of interest - Middlebury, for example, had fewer than 9,000 applications which would be quite low for a National University. SLAC's tend to be niche schools that appeal to a comparatively small number of students.

A lot of schools that people see as "second rate" have gotten much more competitive. Non-flagship state campus, for example, or lesser known liberal arts colleges. People who see NYU and GW as solely commuter schools don't realize that the reputations are far better than they were in the '80s and '90s and they now draw kids from all over the country.

While it may be harder to go to Harvard, or for that matter Middlebury or Amherst, there are any number of schools that offer excellent educations in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just harder to get into a decent college now a days or have certain colleges improved? Mostly the former, but as colleges become more selective and have more qualified applicants and enrollees the latter is also true.

Has the demand of college made everything more expensive and harder to get into? Yes, I think so. One caveat is that we're talking about maybe the top 50 colleges. Lesser-known colleges in some cases are still quite easy to attend.

It seems like everyone needs to put your kid through a bunch of programs like AP/IB high GPA etc... to just get into a decent college where in the past those gifted or special programs were only a small fraction of students. Supply and demand.

In the end are we going to short change our children if we don't do those programs or go to a subpar high school system like DCPS?

I worry about this. My HS senior was quite stressed by the college application race. I think it took up too much of his energy and time over the past year that could have been spent more productively on other things. It is concerning to me.

You are right to be concerned, as should high schools and colleges. The problem is not just the senior year, but huge emphasis on extra-curricular activities for 4 years. While there are some kids who love and can do it all, talk to many new admits at top schools and they will tell you quite of few of them did a number of things specifically because it would look good for college. This leads to over scheduling. The colleges emphasis on taking the most rigorous classes, results in some kids taking classes they are less interested in than others because they are AP or otherwise weighted to raise a GPA and not "look" like they are skirting by with easy classes. A study from UNC (or NC State) a year or two ago showed that college performance was positively correlated with taking up to something like 4 AP classes in HS (might have been 3 or 5, not certain), but that beyond that number there was no evidence of improved college performance. It isn't easy to fix the system -- it's complicated -- but sometimes I think going back to grades and test scores and ignoring everything else wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing and could let kids have more free time in high school.

I'd say "no" to a "decent" college - it's actually easier to get into a decent college since everyone is reaching for the "best" college they can get into = leaving the reps of a lot of "decent" colleges pretty lonely at college fairs.

College is more expensive, but there is aid if you set your sights a little lower.

Yes, to most or all your questions I'm afraid.

Yes, to most of your questions (not sure I understand all of them).

It depends on how you're defining "decent." Let's assume you mean a SLAC, a 2nd-tier SLAC, or a good public university.

It's true that the standards for most colleges have risen since our day. All colleges are very clear that they prefer the kids who have challenged themselves, and done well, in the toughest classes available in their high schools. Given that most high schools today offer APs or IB, this means your kid should be taking AP or IB or magnet if s/he wants to get into what I presume you mean is a SLAC. (It's true that back when I graduated in 1983, my high school didn't offer a single AP and honors classes were the ticket. But this has definitely changed.)

As a result, most of the kids applying to highly selective colleges (Ivies, SLACs, MIT, Stanford, you get the picture) have checked off the boxes of SATs>=2200 and unweighted GPA>=3.9 in the toughest classes available at their high schools. A few apply anyway, but usually they understand they have little chance.

The result? Lots of spillover of highly-qualified kids to 2nd-tier SLACS and the best publics, which are often now "safeties" or even "matches" for the kids with GPAs of 3.9 (I actually know some of these kids). Also, the kids who do get into the highly selective schools need something additional (national-level achiechievement, a great story, athletic recruitment) besides checking the SATs and GPA boxes. This is something the poster who keeps starting threads about anti-Asian discrimination keeps failing to understand: working hard for a 3.9 unfortunately buys you a cup of coffee these days, when your application is in a pile with 10,000 other 3.9s and the admissions folks are looking desperately for ways to whittle down the pile with kids who stand out in additional ways.

Now you could choose to step away from this rat race, and that might be a very reasonable choice depending on your kid and family circumstances. But that's a different discussion

Where have you been OP? Of course it is harder with many more people applying to college than ever before.

Anonymous wrote:Is it just harder to get into a decent college now a days or have certain colleges improved? Mostly the former, but as colleges become more selective and have more qualified applicants and enrollees the latter is also true.

Has the demand of college made everything more expensive and harder to get into? Yes, I think so. One caveat is that we're talking about maybe the top 50 colleges. Lesser-known colleges in some cases are still quite easy to attend.

It seems like everyone needs to put your kid through a bunch of programs like AP/IB high GPA etc... to just get into a decent college where in the past those gifted or special programs were only a small fraction of students. Supply and demand.

In the end are we going to short change our children if we don't do those programs or go to a subpar high school system like DCPS?

I worry about this. My HS senior was quite stressed by the college application race. I think it took up too much of his energy and time over the past year that could have been spent more productively on other things. It is concerning to me.

Anonymous wrote:Is it just harder to get into a decent college now a days or have certain colleges improved?

Has the demand of college made everything more expensive and harder to get into?

It seems like everyone needs to put your kid through a bunch of programs like AP/IB high GPA etc... to just get into a decent college where in the past those gifted or special programs were only a small fraction of students.

In the end are we going to short change our children if we don't do those programs or go to a subpar high school system like DCPS?

It depends on the HS one attended. AP was HUGE in my HS and I graduated in 1982. My neighbor ran an SAT review class. Things haven't really changed from my experience.

Is it just harder to get into a decent college now a days or have certain colleges improved?

Has the demand of college made everything more expensive and harder to get into?

It seems like everyone needs to put your kid through a bunch of programs like AP/IB high GPA etc... to just get into a decent college where in the past those gifted or special programs were only a small fraction of students.

In the end are we going to short change our children if we don't do those programs or go to a subpar high school system like DCPS?