Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The institutions have generally not grown in size, so there is roughly the same number of "seats" today as there were 30 or 60 years ago. With that in mind:

1) Higher US population so more kids applying in general
2) more international students
3) grade inflation means many more applicants believe they are qualified for the available seats
4) changes in standardized tests means generally higher scores. See #3.
5) higher relative costs for college means people really want value for the money they will spend, that magnifies focus on "T20" or "T50" or whatever schools

I don't understand why people keep saying that institutions have not grown in size...since when are you referring? Here are some examples below:

JMU: 9600 undergrads in 1990 vs. 20,346 today
UC Berkeley: 21,453 undergrads in 1990 vs. 32,831 today
UCLA: 24,200 undergrads in 1990 vs. 34,243 today
WVU: 15,042 in 1995 vs. 19,059 today
University of Alabama: 17,500 in 1990 vs. 32,458 today

The list goes on-and-on.

There are actually 1 MM fewer college students in total today vs. 2013.

DP: they are referring to private colleges and universities. Historically, the majority of the top 20-30 schools are private.

OK. Look at this list:

Emory: 4,282 in 1990 to 7,101 today
Wash U: 5,040 in 1990 to 8,132 today

I mean, these are relatively small schools, but still Emory increased 66%, Wash U 61%. This idea that schools are really "not much larger" today vs. 30 or 60 years ago is just not correct.

Yes, but the number of seats at these schools hasn't increased in proportion to the population today. The number of college-age kids and the proportion of kids that go to college greatly increased from the 1990s. The last few years have decreased because of the pandemic, and most of the loss of students is concentrated in the regional publics, community colleges, and 3rd tier privates.

Over the past 30 years or so, the number of high school graduates has increased by about 44%. During that span, according to Harvard scholar Peter Blair, enrollment at non-elite colleges expanded by 60%.

By comparison, Blair notes, private colleges ranked among the top 2% — the most selective universities — grew by only 7% on average.

In fact, Blair's research paper on the subject, co-authored with Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, reveals that the "share of aggregate college enrollments captured by elite colleges" actually dropped by 40% between 1990 and 2015.

"Elite colleges, therefore, are serving a smaller and smaller share of total college-bound students, becoming more exclusive over time," the report concludes.

See: https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/elite-colleges-increase-enrollment/

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The institutions have generally not grown in size, so there is roughly the same number of "seats" today as there were 30 or 60 years ago. With that in mind:

1) Higher US population so more kids applying in general
2) more international students
3) grade inflation means many more applicants believe they are qualified for the available seats
4) changes in standardized tests means generally higher scores. See #3.
5) higher relative costs for college means people really want value for the money they will spend, that magnifies focus on "T20" or "T50" or whatever schools

I don't understand why people keep saying that institutions have not grown in size...since when are you referring? Here are some examples below:

JMU: 9600 undergrads in 1990 vs. 20,346 today
UC Berkeley: 21,453 undergrads in 1990 vs. 32,831 today
UCLA: 24,200 undergrads in 1990 vs. 34,243 today
WVU: 15,042 in 1995 vs. 19,059 today
University of Alabama: 17,500 in 1990 vs. 32,458 today

The list goes on-and-on.

There are actually 1 MM fewer college students in total today vs. 2013.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The institutions have generally not grown in size, so there is roughly the same number of "seats" today as there were 30 or 60 years ago. With that in mind:

1) Higher US population so more kids applying in general
2) more international students
3) grade inflation means many more applicants believe they are qualified for the available seats
4) changes in standardized tests means generally higher scores. See #3.
5) higher relative costs for college means people really want value for the money they will spend, that magnifies focus on "T20" or "T50" or whatever schools

I don't understand why people keep saying that institutions have not grown in size...since when are you referring? Here are some examples below:

JMU: 9600 undergrads in 1990 vs. 20,346 today
UC Berkeley: 21,453 undergrads in 1990 vs. 32,831 today
UCLA: 24,200 undergrads in 1990 vs. 34,243 today
WVU: 15,042 in 1995 vs. 19,059 today
University of Alabama: 17,500 in 1990 vs. 32,458 today

The list goes on-and-on.

There are actually 1 MM fewer college students in total today vs. 2013.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The institutions have generally not grown in size, so there is roughly the same number of "seats" today as there were 30 or 60 years ago. With that in mind:

1) Higher US population so more kids applying in general
2) more international students
3) grade inflation means many more applicants believe they are qualified for the available seats
4) changes in standardized tests means generally higher scores. See #3.
5) higher relative costs for college means people really want value for the money they will spend, that magnifies focus on "T20" or "T50" or whatever schools

I don't understand why people keep saying that institutions have not grown in size...since when are you referring? Here are some examples below:

JMU: 9600 undergrads in 1990 vs. 20,346 today
UC Berkeley: 21,453 undergrads in 1990 vs. 32,831 today
UCLA: 24,200 undergrads in 1990 vs. 34,243 today
WVU: 15,042 in 1995 vs. 19,059 today
University of Alabama: 17,500 in 1990 vs. 32,458 today

The list goes on-and-on.

There are actually 1 MM fewer college students in total today vs. 2013.

DP: they are referring to private colleges and universities. Historically, the majority of the top 20-30 schools are private.

OK. Look at this list:

Emory: 4,282 in 1990 to 7,101 today
Wash U: 5,040 in 1990 to 8,132 today

I mean, these are relatively small schools, but still Emory increased 66%, Wash U 61%. This idea that schools are really "not much larger" today vs. 30 or 60 years ago is just not correct.

Over the past 30 years or so, the number of high school graduates has increased by about 44%. During that span, according to Harvard scholar Peter Blair, enrollment at non-elite colleges expanded by 60%.

By comparison, Blair notes, private colleges ranked among the top 2% — the most selective universities — grew by only 7% on average.

In fact, Blair's research paper on the subject, co-authored with Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, reveals that the "share of aggregate college enrollments captured by elite colleges" actually dropped by 40% between 1990 and 2015.

"Elite colleges, therefore, are serving a smaller and smaller share of total college-bound students, becoming more exclusive over time," the report concludes.

Anonymous wrote:AA, DEI, war on merit. All of these make it harder and harder for the non-hooked students. And you’re all fueling this disastrous failure our education system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The institutions have generally not grown in size, so there is roughly the same number of "seats" today as there were 30 or 60 years ago. With that in mind:

1) Higher US population so more kids applying in general
2) more international students
3) grade inflation means many more applicants believe they are qualified for the available seats
4) changes in standardized tests means generally higher scores. See #3.
5) higher relative costs for college means people really want value for the money they will spend, that magnifies focus on "T20" or "T50" or whatever schools

I don't understand why people keep saying that institutions have not grown in size...since when are you referring? Here are some examples below:

JMU: 9600 undergrads in 1990 vs. 20,346 today
UC Berkeley: 21,453 undergrads in 1990 vs. 32,831 today
UCLA: 24,200 undergrads in 1990 vs. 34,243 today
WVU: 15,042 in 1995 vs. 19,059 today
University of Alabama: 17,500 in 1990 vs. 32,458 today

The list goes on-and-on.

There are actually 1 MM fewer college students in total today vs. 2013.

DP: they are referring to private colleges and universities. Historically, the majority of the top 20-30 schools are private.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The institutions have generally not grown in size, so there is roughly the same number of "seats" today as there were 30 or 60 years ago. With that in mind:

1) Higher US population so more kids applying in general
2) more international students
3) grade inflation means many more applicants believe they are qualified for the available seats
4) changes in standardized tests means generally higher scores. See #3.
5) higher relative costs for college means people really want value for the money they will spend, that magnifies focus on "T20" or "T50" or whatever schools

I don't understand why people keep saying that institutions have not grown in size...since when are you referring? Here are some examples below:

JMU: 9600 undergrads in 1990 vs. 20,346 today
UC Berkeley: 21,453 undergrads in 1990 vs. 32,831 today
UCLA: 24,200 undergrads in 1990 vs. 34,243 today
WVU: 15,042 in 1995 vs. 19,059 today
University of Alabama: 17,500 in 1990 vs. 32,458 today

The list goes on-and-on.

There are actually 1 MM fewer college students in total today vs. 2013.

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.

The institutions have generally not grown in size, so there is roughly the same number of "seats" today as there were 30 or 60 years ago. With that in mind:

1) Higher US population so more kids applying in general
2) more international students
3) grade inflation means many more applicants believe they are qualified for the available seats
4) changes in standardized tests means generally higher scores. See #3.
5) higher relative costs for college means people really want value for the money they will spend, that magnifies focus on "T20" or "T50" or whatever schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AA, DEI, war on merit. All of these make it harder and harder for the non-hooked students. And you’re all fueling this disastrous failure our education system.

Nope. You can beat that drum as much as you want, but it still won't be true. As has been discussed many, many times on this board, AA & DEI have nothing to do deferrals, wait lists and rejections at schools like Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, SC and TN. In just two classes, Ole Miss and KY are the only SEC safeties. More schools are using ED and the Common App, which has made it easy for kids to apply to the same 40-50 schools.

Oh yes it does. It’s the ripple effect. When there are a lot of uncertainties at the top, ppl will apply to more schools, increasing the competitiveness at lower tier schools.

DP...but the competition "at the top" is from a wide variety of factors such as foreign applicants but mostly the common app, where kids can hit a button and score an application, whereas 25 years ago, one had to actually type up an application...much higher bar.

But sure, blame the black people.

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).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AA, DEI, war on merit. All of these make it harder and harder for the non-hooked students. And you’re all fueling this disastrous failure our education system.

Nope. You can beat that drum as much as you want, but it still won't be true. As has been discussed many, many times on this board, AA & DEI have nothing to do deferrals, wait lists and rejections at schools like Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, SC and TN. In just two classes, Ole Miss and KY are the only SEC safeties. More schools are using ED and the Common App, which has made it easy for kids to apply to the same 40-50 schools.

Oh yes it does. It’s the ripple effect. When there are a lot of uncertainties at the top, ppl will apply to more schools, increasing the competitiveness at lower tier schools.

Oh yes it does. It’s the ripple effect. When there are a lot of uncertainties at the top, ppl will apply to more schools, increasing the competitiveness at lower tier schools.

Anonymous wrote:

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.