Anonymous wrote: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.

Ok, your argument is that because all students are now applying to all schools, the case where a school admitted an otherwise too low ranked students is less likely to occur, so the chance of long shot admissions has gone down. Or could have - in reality, however, top-20 schools have had low admissions rates that make this unlikely for a long time and besides, it doesn't seem rational to hope to get in because too few students apply or your competition applies elsewhere.

That leaves you with the international theory, for which there's little evidence. For instance, at Yale, the number of domestic admits has not declined since 2004 as additional international applicants do not account for total enrollment growth. Nationwide, the number of international applicants is down.

Lastly, what evidence do we have that state flagships no longer attract top students. In the spirit of picking facts as they suit one's argument I will throw in the fact that VT has had 42% more full pay admits this year than last. Maybe they're all wealthy underachievers. In any event, more applicants at top schools just means the chance to (undeservedly) win the anomaly lottery has decreased, as you yourself acknowledged.

Anonymous wrote:There could be two things simultaneously happening. First, the number of kids applying to college overall is going down. Second, the number of kids with exceptional credentials could be going up (albeit only slightly). There could be a number of reasons for the second point, if true.

That's the question, isn't it. We know that the quality of college applicants on average has declined. For instance, average SAT scores are down while grade inflation is rampant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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?

There could be two things simultaneously happening. First, the number of kids applying to college overall is going down. Second, the number of kids with exceptional credentials could be going up (albeit only slightly). There could be a number of reasons for the second point, if true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

Have you looked at the admissions stats? And being in Nova doesn't help, despite what their admissions people say about there not being any quotas.

In plain English, who is getting in, then?

I don’t know, but my DC with a 3.8 gpa (lots of rigor/APs), a 34 ACT & 1500 SAT, and great extracurriculars did not get into UVA last year (and did get into arguably “better” schools than UVA out of state). DC’s friend with similar stats from same HS was also rejected by UVA . ????

That's because in addition to being an excellent school, UVA is also a cult, at least among a certain set of VA parents and students.

It's pretty clearcut looking at our FCPS HS who gets into UVA- 95% of the accepted students had a weighted GPA over 4.3. Their SATs were far more variable--they ranged from 1250-1600. GPA + rigor in the context of your HS matters far more to UVA than anything else. So take a solid handful of rigorous APs/IBs and get As in nearly everything and don't bomb the SATs and do good enough in ECs/essay.

W&M is usually a balance of SATs and GPA and other factors. A kid with a 1250 SAT and a 4.5 GPA might not get in, but a kid with a 4.1 weighted GPA and a 1500 SAT might.

W&M also considers interest whereas UVA does not. So if a student does an official visit to W&M and does an interview, it will help. My DS got into W&M with lower stats, no hook but he did an interview. I firmly believe the interview got him in.

UVA marks Interview and Level of Interest as "Not Considered". W&M marks them as "Considered", which is the lowest level if considered (after "Very Important" and "Important"). W&M also marks Volunteer/Work Experience "Very Important" while UVA marks them as "Considered". UVA marks Standardized Test Scores and Essay as "Important", while W&M marks them as "Very Important". It seems like the schools do follow the way they mark factors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

I don't think that is true. What is your source?

According to the Roanoke Times A Hokie horde will stretch Blacksburg in the fall:

Virginia — like the nation — is facing a demographics challenge and as of this spring, Tech and the University of Virginia were the only schools in the state that initially met and exceeded their enrollment goals for fall 2019, according to Tech enrollment officials.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

Have you looked at the admissions stats? And being in Nova doesn't help, despite what their admissions people say about there not being any quotas.

In plain English, who is getting in, then?

I don’t know, but my DC with a 3.8 gpa (lots of rigor/APs), a 34 ACT & 1500 SAT, and great extracurriculars did not get into UVA last year (and did get into arguably “better” schools than UVA out of state). DC’s friend with similar stats from same HS was also rejected by UVA . ????

That's because in addition to being an excellent school, UVA is also a cult, at least among a certain set of VA parents and students.

It's pretty clearcut looking at our FCPS HS who gets into UVA- 95% of the accepted students had a weighted GPA over 4.3. Their SATs were far more variable--they ranged from 1250-1600. GPA + rigor in the context of your HS matters far more to UVA than anything else. So take a solid handful of rigorous APs/IBs and get As in nearly everything and don't bomb the SATs and do good enough in ECs/essay.

W&M is usually a balance of SATs and GPA and other factors. A kid with a 1250 SAT and a 4.5 GPA might not get in, but a kid with a 4.1 weighted GPA and a 1500 SAT might.

W&M also considers interest whereas UVA does not. So if a student does an official visit to W&M and does an interview, it will help. My DS got into W&M with lower stats, no hook but he did an interview. I firmly believe the interview got him in.

Just visiting/doing an interview has very little impact at W&M. Your son may have been impressive in an interview which might have helped and there's also an advantage to being male in-state. Did he apply early decision? That's why they say interest is considered--early decision is an expression of interest and if there's any advantage conferred on ED then colleges list interest as considered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP who said consider that kids will usually change majors, but something like this in no order:

Prelaw: W&M and UVA
Art and Design: VCU
Business: UVA, W&M, JMU (remember you have to get accepted)
Pre-Med: VCU if you can get accepted to guaranteed program and are OK with VCU, W&M and UVA
Engineering: VT generally, UVA if it is one of its strong areas (e.g. biomedical engineering), GMU
Science (non-engineering): W&M, UVA, VT
Need some discipline to get you going?: VMI, VT Corps
Want an urban experience: VCU, ODU
Want a big sports experience?: VT and UVA
Want to be an academic? W&M, UVA
Best Food: VT and JMU
Big Party: VT, JMU, Radford, UVA
Need to stay close to home for one reason or another? Any obviously, but will be GMU, VCU, ODU for most.
Like somewhat smaller schools? Longwood, MWU, CNU, MWU, W&M, Radford

Funny you didn't mention various types of IT, comp sci, data science. Seems like ALOT of kids are and will be looking for those types of degrees given the future of our economy.

VT and GMU

VT and GMU are investing, but pretty much all Virginia schools are. Many schools have added data science majors and UVA is in the process of creating a School of Data Science.

PP a lot of kids will be looking for degrees like computer science in the future. I'd perhaps say they should be since employment prospects are good, but enrollment has been strangely inelastic. Demand continues to grow, but the number of graduates from U.S. schools doesn't follow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

Have you looked at the admissions stats? And being in Nova doesn't help, despite what their admissions people say about there not being any quotas.

In plain English, who is getting in, then?

I don’t know, but my DC with a 3.8 gpa (lots of rigor/APs), a 34 ACT & 1500 SAT, and great extracurriculars did not get into UVA last year (and did get into arguably “better” schools than UVA out of state). DC’s friend with similar stats from same HS was also rejected by UVA . ????

That's because in addition to being an excellent school, UVA is also a cult, at least among a certain set of VA parents and students.

It's pretty clearcut looking at our FCPS HS who gets into UVA- 95% of the accepted students had a weighted GPA over 4.3. Their SATs were far more variable--they ranged from 1250-1600. GPA + rigor in the context of your HS matters far more to UVA than anything else. So take a solid handful of rigorous APs/IBs and get As in nearly everything and don't bomb the SATs and do good enough in ECs/essay.

W&M is usually a balance of SATs and GPA and other factors. A kid with a 1250 SAT and a 4.5 GPA might not get in, but a kid with a 4.1 weighted GPA and a 1500 SAT might.

W&M also considers interest whereas UVA does not. So if a student does an official visit to W&M and does an interview, it will help. My DS got into W&M with lower stats, no hook but he did an interview. I firmly believe the interview got him in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

I don't think that is true. What is your source?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

Have you looked at the admissions stats? And being in Nova doesn't help, despite what their admissions people say about there not being any quotas.

In plain English, who is getting in, then?

I don’t know, but my DC with a 3.8 gpa (lots of rigor/APs), a 34 ACT & 1500 SAT, and great extracurriculars did not get into UVA last year (and did get into arguably “better” schools than UVA out of state). DC’s friend with similar stats from same HS was also rejected by UVA . ????

That's because in addition to being an excellent school, UVA is also a cult, at least among a certain set of VA parents and students.

It's pretty clearcut looking at our FCPS HS who gets into UVA- 95% of the accepted students had a weighted GPA over 4.3. Their SATs were far more variable--they ranged from 1250-1600. GPA + rigor in the context of your HS matters far more to UVA than anything else. So take a solid handful of rigorous APs/IBs and get As in nearly everything and don't bomb the SATs and do good enough in ECs/essay.

W&M is usually a balance of SATs and GPA and other factors. A kid with a 1250 SAT and a 4.5 GPA might not get in, but a kid with a 4.1 weighted GPA and a 1500 SAT might.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

Define "top school." I call BS on this.

You don't need to define "top school."

In 2011, there were 20.4 million students enrolled. In 2017, it was 18 million students, mostly due to declining birthrates. Source. Read this 2018 report about how colleges can't fill their slots, and international enrollment didn't help.

Now let's assume that there a X slot at top schools. Let's assume (pessimistically) that X didn't change between 2011 and 2017 (whatever the top schools are, they didn't decrease capacity). Let's assume, completely naively, that the top schools admit the best applicants (ok, this is getting a bit too theoretical, but stick with me.)

So in 2011, you needed to be in the top (1 - X/20.4M) * 100 percentile to get one of these slots. In 2017, it sufficed to be in the (1 - X/18M) * 100 percentile. In other words, the number of students with whom you compete for slots at "top schools" - however you define them - decreased by 11%. This means that a fair number of students who based on their relative standing to their peers weren't admitted to top schools in 2011 were admitted in 2017. In reality, X has increased since "top schools" - by whatever definition have seen positive capacity growth, exacerbating this effect.

What are the "top schools"? Your post is meaningless unless you answer this question, which you completely ducked.

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. Yes, lower colleges are having a harder time filling the slots, but like many things the effects are very stratified. It used to be a top student applied to a couple T20 schools, a safety and their state school. Now they apply to 10+ T20 schools. This pushes up the criteria of competition. So just looking at number of students vs. total slots doesn't tell you much meaningful about difficulty.