Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The increase in seats may be true, but it's not enough to offset the thousands of applications schools are getting each year. Many schools continue to report historic levels of applications. Look for example at JMU's application numbers after joining the Common App in 2022 - from JMU's Feb 2023 press release - JMU received a total of 24,156 applicants this year, setting a 30% increase in Early Action applicants within the last academic year and an 83% increase within the last two years. This is in comparison to the 2021 pool of 18,533 applicants and the 2020 pool of 13,190 applicants.

Yeah, that doesn't really work out. JMU's acceptance rate in 1987 was only 36%. JMU's acceptance rate today is 74%.

Apr 30, 1987 — Last year, 11,080 high school seniors applied to JMU, and 4,018 were accepted, resulting in a 36 percent acceptance rate.

JMU Admitted Freshmen (2022-23)
Applications: 37,055
Applicants accepted: 27,238 (73.5%)
SAT mid-50% range*:1190-1350
ACT mid-50% range*: 25-30

$’

JMU has about 5000 students per year in the undergrad. So they have to admit more than 27000 to yield 5000? This is part of the problem with the arms race of people applying to so many schools. on the admission side, it’s a crapshoot for the students. then on the yield side it’s a crapshoot for the colleges. No wonder ED is becoming more and more popular.

Correct, yields are abysmal at many, many schools. Look at Case Western...sub-20% yield. Clemson, 60,000 applied, 22,879 accepted and 4,494 enrolled. 19.6% yield.

It is like this at nearly every school outside of the tippy-top.

Because they become "safeties"/"targets" for the tippy-top students. Go visit Case western---80% of those attending applied to several T25 schools and didn't get in. They "settled" for Case--Case is not the top choice of most who matriculate. Case is a great school, my kid almost attended. But it is definately filled with T25 wannabes who did have the resume for it. My kid is at another school that is similar. Every single one of their friends (10+, including my kid) applied to several T25s, all were WL and/or Fall Sophomore year start at at least 1 in the T25---all have the resume for T25 but didn't win the lottery. Instead they won their own lottery by where they landed.

I get that with Case...but what is the logic on Clemson? SC residents that really want Top 25, but they all apply to Clemson as in-state?

University of South Carolina honors is more appealing to some instate residents and college of Charleston for kids who prefer urban. OOS, Clemson is in a giant pile with other large southern public schools

That doesn't really explain anything. University of South Carolina yield is 23% and College of Charleston yield is 15.9%.

Are you going to claim their yield rates are so low because kids are picking Clemson? Wait...we are now in a circular logic clusterf**k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fear and demographics are the mix.

Demographics mean more students chasing similar seat totals at the top 100 or so. Add TO and DEI into the mix and that is a big reason.

Fear is bigger though. Fear is what makes families buy into the top 30, top 50 BS - which in turn makes them push for higher grades/scores, more tutors, more everything - especially more applications.

One of the greatest cons in society is that a certain type or tier of college is needed to “make it”. It’s simply not true as studies have shown.

100% Just take a look at your co-workers, and the executives/uppermanagement at your company. Odds are 75%+ did NOT attend an "elite" university. Odds are you work side by side with some who attended an elite U and yet they are in the same position as you with approximately similar years of experience.
Fact is those who are striving for a T25 and have the resume most likely also have the drive and determination and will achieve high success at State U ranked 150 just as much as if they attend a T25. It's the person and the work they put in, not the university for 99% of it.

I'm a Fed GS-14 with undergrad and masters from a VA public university. My entering co-worker class (back in 1995) were all 10 years older than me and most were PhDs from Ivies and private universities. We are all in the same place. Actually, I'm ahead because I started my Fed career at 25 (now 54) and they started later and have longer until retirement.

I don't understand your point. This would imply that you were the lone standout, but you had a much higher chance of getting the position if you came from an Ivy or top private.

No, (DP) it would indicate that they entered the workforce with only a Master's degree from a Public U (not T25) and got the same job as Ivy grads with PHDs---govt so they all started with same pay. So at 10 years younger, the PP started the same job with the same pay as people with 10 years more experience and a T25 degree. It exactly proves the point that it doesn't matter where you got your degree. Their elite/T25 degree did not get them anything more than the person "with a lowly degree from a public state U" (sarcasm folks). And that's the case for the majority of people. Outside of investment banking and private equity jobs, it largely does not matter where you got your degree. Even in Tech, FAANG companies hire from more than elite/T25 universities, people from GMU get hired as well (not even a T100 school). So even for getting that first job, where you attend does not matter that much. Smart people with drive make connections and build networks at state schools and use their networks wherever they are. Upper management is not filled with people from T25 schools. There are plenty of highly successful people from no-name universities. My partner is an executive---on their team of 15 only 1 has a degree from an elite university. Most have a degree from schools ranked BELOW 150, some really obscure no-names included. Yet somehow they made it to the E-suite. They are all mulit-millionaires due to their hard work. There are even 2 who actually do NOT even have a completed college degree, yet they have worked their asses off and proven themselves and moved up (known one for 20+ years and had no clue until recently they hadn't completed college).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fear and demographics are the mix.

Demographics mean more students chasing similar seat totals at the top 100 or so. Add TO and DEI into the mix and that is a big reason.

Fear is bigger though. Fear is what makes families buy into the top 30, top 50 BS - which in turn makes them push for higher grades/scores, more tutors, more everything - especially more applications.

One of the greatest cons in society is that a certain type or tier of college is needed to “make it”. It’s simply not true as studies have shown.

100% Just take a look at your co-workers, and the executives/uppermanagement at your company. Odds are 75%+ did NOT attend an "elite" university. Odds are you work side by side with some who attended an elite U and yet they are in the same position as you with approximately similar years of experience.
Fact is those who are striving for a T25 and have the resume most likely also have the drive and determination and will achieve high success at State U ranked 150 just as much as if they attend a T25. It's the person and the work they put in, not the university for 99% of it.

I'm a Fed GS-14 with undergrad and masters from a VA public university. My entering co-worker class (back in 1995) were all 10 years older than me and most were PhDs from Ivies and private universities. We are all in the same place. Actually, I'm ahead because I started my Fed career at 25 (now 54) and they started later and have longer until retirement.

I don't understand your point. This would imply that you were the lone standout, but you had a much higher chance of getting the position if you came from an Ivy or top private.

No, (DP) it would indicate that they entered the workforce with only a Master's degree from a Public U (not T25) and got the same job as Ivy grads with PHDs---govt so they all started with same pay. So at 10 years younger, the PP started the same job with the same pay as people with 10 years more experience and a T25 degree. It exactly proves the point that it doesn't matter where you got your degree. Their elite/T25 degree did not get them anything more than the person "with a lowly degree from a public state U" (sarcasm folks). And that's the case for the majority of people. Outside of investment banking and private equity jobs, it largely does not matter where you got your degree. Even in Tech, FAANG companies hire from more than elite/T25 universities, people from GMU get hired as well (not even a T100 school). So even for getting that first job, where you attend does not matter that much. Smart people with drive make connections and build networks at state schools and use their networks wherever they are. Upper management is not filled with people from T25 schools. There are plenty of highly successful people from no-name universities. My partner is an executive---on their team of 15 only 1 has a degree from an elite university. Most have a degree from schools ranked BELOW 150, some really obscure no-names included. Yet somehow they made it to the E-suite. They are all mulit-millionaires due to their hard work. There are even 2 who actually do NOT even have a completed college degree, yet they have worked their asses off and proven themselves and moved up (known one for 20+ years and had no clue until recently they hadn't completed college).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fear and demographics are the mix.

Demographics mean more students chasing similar seat totals at the top 100 or so. Add TO and DEI into the mix and that is a big reason.

Fear is bigger though. Fear is what makes families buy into the top 30, top 50 BS - which in turn makes them push for higher grades/scores, more tutors, more everything - especially more applications.

One of the greatest cons in society is that a certain type or tier of college is needed to “make it”. It’s simply not true as studies have shown.

100% Just take a look at your co-workers, and the executives/uppermanagement at your company. Odds are 75%+ did NOT attend an "elite" university. Odds are you work side by side with some who attended an elite U and yet they are in the same position as you with approximately similar years of experience.
Fact is those who are striving for a T25 and have the resume most likely also have the drive and determination and will achieve high success at State U ranked 150 just as much as if they attend a T25. It's the person and the work they put in, not the university for 99% of it.

I'm a Fed GS-14 with undergrad and masters from a VA public university. My entering co-worker class (back in 1995) were all 10 years older than me and most were PhDs from Ivies and private universities. We are all in the same place. Actually, I'm ahead because I started my Fed career at 25 (now 54) and they started later and have longer until retirement.

I don't understand your point. This would imply that you were the lone standout, but you had a much higher chance of getting the position if you came from an Ivy or top private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The increase in seats may be true, but it's not enough to offset the thousands of applications schools are getting each year. Many schools continue to report historic levels of applications. Look for example at JMU's application numbers after joining the Common App in 2022 - from JMU's Feb 2023 press release - JMU received a total of 24,156 applicants this year, setting a 30% increase in Early Action applicants within the last academic year and an 83% increase within the last two years. This is in comparison to the 2021 pool of 18,533 applicants and the 2020 pool of 13,190 applicants.

Yeah, that doesn't really work out. JMU's acceptance rate in 1987 was only 36%. JMU's acceptance rate today is 74%.

Apr 30, 1987 — Last year, 11,080 high school seniors applied to JMU, and 4,018 were accepted, resulting in a 36 percent acceptance rate.

JMU Admitted Freshmen (2022-23)
Applications: 37,055
Applicants accepted: 27,238 (73.5%)
SAT mid-50% range*:1190-1350
ACT mid-50% range*: 25-30

$’

JMU has about 5000 students per year in the undergrad. So they have to admit more than 27000 to yield 5000? This is part of the problem with the arms race of people applying to so many schools. on the admission side, it’s a crapshoot for the students. then on the yield side it’s a crapshoot for the colleges. No wonder ED is becoming more and more popular.

Correct, yields are abysmal at many, many schools. Look at Case Western...sub-20% yield. Clemson, 60,000 applied, 22,879 accepted and 4,494 enrolled. 19.6% yield.

It is like this at nearly every school outside of the tippy-top.

Because they become "safeties"/"targets" for the tippy-top students. Go visit Case western---80% of those attending applied to several T25 schools and didn't get in. They "settled" for Case--Case is not the top choice of most who matriculate. Case is a great school, my kid almost attended. But it is definately filled with T25 wannabes who did have the resume for it. My kid is at another school that is similar. Every single one of their friends (10+, including my kid) applied to several T25s, all were WL and/or Fall Sophomore year start at at least 1 in the T25---all have the resume for T25 but didn't win the lottery. Instead they won their own lottery by where they landed.

I get that with Case...but what is the logic on Clemson? SC residents that really want Top 25, but they all apply to Clemson as in-state?