NACAC 2012 College Admissions Trends

[creekland]

I know many of us like to keep up on what is trending in college admissions. Here's some data:

 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/11/29/study-documents-admissions-trends-over-last-10-years#ixzz2ECMYCoyY

 

Absolutely none of it surprises me, but it still amazes me that more and more students are applying to oodles of colleges - then get surprised when they get accepted at most of them (making those yields go down).

 

I wonder how admissions offices will respond to that trend.

 

And class rank mattering less and less just came up in another thread...

[snowbeltmom]

 

Absolutely none of it surprises me, but it still amazes me that more and more students are applying to oodles of colleges - then get surprised when they get accepted at most of them (making those yields go down).

 

I wonder how admissions offices will respond to that trend.

 

 

I wonder if more colleges that now offer early action will move to single choice early action?

[Barbara H]

Early action is way up, early decision is holding steady.

 

As long as college is incredibly expensive and scholarship and financial aid packages are so variable, students will continue to apply to a lot of colleges.

[creekland]

I wonder if more colleges that now offer early action will move to single choice early action?

 

I don't know if they will do that or if they will just start accepting more via early decision as many seem to have started doing.

 

Early action is way up, early decision is holding steady. As long as college is incredibly expensive and scholarship and financial aid packages are so variable, students will continue to apply to a lot of colleges.

 

This is probably a decent percentage, but I know at our school kids just appear to be applying to more simply because they can. In the older days (from when I went to college to not all that long ago - early '00s) kids seemed to have a safety, then pick 2 or 3 more schools they'd see if they could get into that they would also like. Now it seems like some are picking 8 - 10+ schools - and not necessarily picking them based upon thoughts of money (or even checking to see if they offer money), but just "because." They don't seem to want to narrow down the choices sooner. That's the part that baffles me. I also think the Common App makes it a little too easy to apply to multiple schools, but I'm not advocating getting rid of it. When they asked counselors their thoughts, I did vote toward limiting applications somewhat (not drastically).

[Barbara H]

Yes, I agree some students apply to too many schools and for some there is too much temptation to apply just to see what will happen. Often though the impulse toward excess gets curbed at least to some extent when there are many supplemental essays.

 

Sure, I think it is crazy we've evolved a system where so many kids apply to eight or nine schools and it isn't how I would have set it up. But, given the system as it stands, there are many individual situations where it makes sense to put in that higher number of applications. Students who want highly selective schools are working against more difficult odds. Also, some students can't do a lot of visiting before they put in applications. For students with financial need it is important to make sure you are going to have a range of offers to choose from - yes, we can try to stack the deck, but there is still can be surprises.

I also think the Common App makes it a little too easy to apply to multiple schools.

 

Totally agree with the above. I wonder if this was an unintended consequence?

 

Also, from last year's report (which is free):

On average, the ratio of applications to admission officers at colleges and universities in the US was 527:1 in 2010. The average ratio at public institutions was 981:1, compared to 402:1 at private institutions.

 

So, if there's three months from application to decision, and each adcom at a public school gets to look at 981 applications, and spends an equal amount of time on each, for 40 hours a week for 12 weeks, that's 30 minutes per application.

[Barbara H]

Reading applications is just part of the job though. 30 minutes of staff time is more than will be spent at most private schools and publics will spend much less. Really 30 minutes is a huge amount of time and much more than is needed in most cases. Of course our complicated homeschoolers no doubt often take longer than average to consider.

[creekland]

 

So, if there's three months from application to decision, and each adcom at a public school gets to look at 981 applications, and spends an equal amount of time on each, for 40 hours a week for 12 weeks, that's 30 minutes per application.

 

 

There were a couple of schools that reminded us they spent about 15 minutes per app looking at them - so to be concise when making them and to be certain an essay captured the attention to be read in its entirety. We definitely kept this in mind when submitting ours and made the most important info (test scores, awards, etc) stand out easily. Then it was up to my guys for their essays.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Reading applications is just part of the job though. 30 minutes of staff time is more than will be spent at most private schools and publics will spend much less. Really 30 minutes is a huge amount of time and much more than is needed in most cases. Of course our complicated homeschoolers no doubt often take longer than average to consider.

 

 

I just finished reading The Gatekeepers. Depressing on so many levels (including the number of kids profiled who thought that only an Ivy or hyper selective school would make them happy in life). It gave a detailed look at how little time admissions officers can spend with each package. And also spent a lot of time on how much is dependent on the backstory that comes with the application.

 

This book was about the admissions department at a select school. In some ways I think the flagship publics may be worse for not having the staff to really consider out of the norm applications (like homeschoolers).

 

And the little glimpse I have of the system by being a service academy admissions information officer is that there are a lot of students applying to Navy without putting the time into researching if the school is a good fit for them. I don't think this is unique to the service academies. I was chatting with other swim moms over the weekend. One commented that her daughter would only apply to a school if she liked it's school colors; another mom countered that her daughter only applied to schools with owls as mascots - because she liked owls. (Though this is no less concerning than picking a school based on football prowess or March Madness success.)

[snowbeltmom]

 

I just finished reading The Gatekeepers. .... And also spent a lot of time on how much is dependent on the backstory that comes with the application.

Sebastion, if you have time, could you elaborate on the bolded. I have not heard of Gatekeepers...off to see if my library has it.

[Barbara H]

 

another mom countered that her daughter only applied to schools with owls as mascots - because she liked owls. (Though this is no less concerning than picking a school based on football prowess or March Madness success.)

 

 

That's hilarious about the owls!

 

I recently read that winning March Madness is usually good for about a 10% bump in applications. I'm not a sports fan, but I having worked with enough kids who were really excited going to schools with top Div I sports teams, I acknowledge it is an important part of the college experience for a lot of kids.

[snowbeltmom]

I recently read that winning March Madness is usually good for about a 10% bump in applications. I'm not a sports fan, but I having worked with enough kids who were really excited going to schools with top Div I sports teams, I acknowledge it is an important part of the college experience for a lot of kids.

My H is a huge sports fan and chose Michigan over an Ivy for undergrad and U of M sports was the tipping point. The sports mania didn't end with college...I had to wait until Michigan released its upcoming football schedule before we could set a wedding date 20+ years ago...H didn't want to be nervous on his wedding day so we got married the day U of M played Northwestern.

[Nan in Mass]

Something I haven't seen mentioned is the expense of applying to college. With fees of $50 or $75 each, plus the expense of taking all the different standardized tests each college requests, plus the expense of sending those scores to the extra colleges, applying to the typical 3 reach, 3 middle, and 3 safety can cost over $1000.

 

Nan

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Sebastion, if you have time, could you elaborate on the bolded. I have not heard of Gatekeepers...off to see if my library has it.

 

Both The Gatekeepers (from the admissions office point of view) and Acceptance (from a high school counselor's perspective) had this as a thread running through the book. It didn't seem to be enough that a student had high grades, high scores and good outside activities. They needed to have a hook or a back story too. The students profiled in Gatekeepers were the black-hispanic student with high scores and grades and excellent drama/dance background who was a first generation American; or the boy with the high scores who was best friends with the kid in a wheelchair; or the girl who had cancer junior year or the kid who would be the first Native American student at the school.

 

I would tend to chalk it up to just a journalistic tendency to want to wrap concepts around vibrant stories, except that Acceptance portrayed the guidance counselor spending a fair amount of time helping his students to craft applications and essays that similarly depicted the students as "the kid who . . ."

 

I think that a certain amount of this is a natural consequence of the application process. If your office is going through thousands of applications, you tend to attach labels to the students just to try to categorize them. But it comes across as if a student who has a great set of scores, grades and activities; but who did not capture the imagination of the adcon will be dismissed in favor of the individual who "overcame."

 

I think that it is somewhat similar to how a decade ago, students were starting clubs and non-profits in order to have them on their applications. Even though more effective public good might have come from being a reliable and consistent volunteer with an existing organization.

 

There is a tremendous amount of packaging and gamesmanship involved. At least at the rarified levels of the Ivies and select schools. (NB: to a certain extent, this does include service academies, if only because about 20 apply for every slot. Even if you only look at those who are triple qualified, there are enough students to fill the class 2-3 times over.)

 

My consolation is that my experience with graduates from many institutions shows that it isn't necessarily the Ivy League grad who is happiest. One of our dear friends attends a college in the Pacific Northwest. Her facebook posts are filled with the joy of the experience. Not only playing campus wide zombie tag, but untangling linguistic puzzles and spending a semester abroad. She is so taking advantage of her time in college. Another young friend is in a cadet corps on the East Coast. He is easily learning leadership skills on par with his academy peers. It isn't always about the label.

 

The best book to get me out of the doldrums about college applications has been Debt Free U. I don't agree with every point. But I think he does make a compelling argument that the value of the education depends on the ways that the student grabs hold of the opportunities at school. You can be a slacker at a prestige school and you can be a dedicated student at a state school. (Of course you could also mix those up the other way.)

[Jane in NC]

Something I haven't seen mentioned is the expense of applying to college. With fees of $50 or $75 each, plus the expense of taking all the different standardized tests each college requests, plus the expense of sending those scores to the extra colleges, applying to the typical 3 reach, 3 middle, and 3 safety can cost over $1000. Nan

 

Another issue is also travel. Many families spend part of summer vacation after sophomore and junior years visiting colleges, but for a kid like mine who was applying across the country, visiting every school before application time was prohibitively expensive. He flew to three different geographic locations during his senior year for college visits.

 

Both The Gatekeepers(from the admissions office point of view) and Acceptance(from a high school counselor's perspective) had this as a thread running through the book. It didn't seem to be enough that a student had high grades, high scores and good outside activities. They needed to have a hook or a back story too.

 

The Gatekeepers does focus on admission at Wesleyan, a top liberal arts college that actively recruits "interesting" (for lack of better term) students. Wesleyan is not alone. Smart kids with lots of APs or fascinating travel experiences are a dime a dozen at elite schools.

 

What intrigued me about the book was how admissions counselors cultivated relationships with potential students from around the country. Counselors have targeted high schools that produce high achieving students who push the envelope.

 

But I agree that there are probably better books for parents to read.

[Nan in Mass]

But it comes across as if a student who has a great set of scores, grades and activities; but who did not capture the imagination of the adcon will be dismissed in favor of the individual who "overcame."

 

 

..."captured the imagination"... that sounds about right for a situation where one has to choose between many perfectly good options...

 

If so many students really have intriguing travel experience AND many APs AND are sports stars AND have started their own business, how is it that students have changed so much in a generation? And if so, what has been lost to achieve this? Reading this sort of book always makes it sound as if students now-a-days are getting a fantastic global-oriented, real-life-oriented, education on top of a better academic one (all those APs), but elsewhere, when one gets away from the subject of college admissions, one hears almost nothing but complaints about modern students and how they are less educated than they were a generation or two ago. How can this be? Is it a matter of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and information about admissions focusing on the rich and more general information about education focusing on the poor? If so, all writers seem to be wearing very large blinders.

 

There is a tremendous amount of packaging and gamesmanship involved. At least at the rarified levels of the Ivies and select schools.

 

Counselors have targeted high schools that produce high achieving students who push the envelope.

 

 

I believe this. This has been the experience of friends in good private schools. One tiny, tiny, tiny private school we know sends 3 or 4 kids to Harvard every year as well as just about every other student to other ivies or top STEM schools. And why wouldn't Harvard, etc. want them? They are groomed heavily to be just the student that Harvard, etc., wants. Equal opportunity for all this is not. But that isn't the ivies' top priority. And to be fair, these are highly qualified students, ones who come highly recommended from highly reliable sources. One can see why the ivies feel justified in taking advantage of that. I think this is a matter of buyer beware: if you are applying from the "outside", the odds are lower than advertised. Fortunately, the ivies aren't the be all and end all of tertiary education. And that is a situation continues to improve with all the open sourceware and other options available today.

 

My consolation is that my experience with graduates from many institutions shows that it isn't necessarily the Ivy League grad who is happiest. One of our dear friends attends a college in the Pacific Northwest. Her facebook posts are filled with the joy of the experience. Not only playing campus wide zombie tag, but untangling linguistic puzzles and spending a semester abroad. She is so taking advantage of her time in college. Another young friend is in a cadet corps on the East Coast. He is easily learning leadership skills on par with his academy peers. It isn't always about the label.

 

 

I always worry about this. There are good solid reasons for having a student apply to a number of top colleges and go to the best one that he gets into. On the other hand, there is this. If the student is spending all his time trying to keep up with challenging classes, he won't have time to take advantage of all those extras. Which leaves the student trying to find exactly the right level, academically. Which is very tricky. Especially for homeschoolers, who don't have a lot of experience with comparing themselves to other students. Which leaves one asking exactly how one is supposed to do this... No wonder some people cling so hard to flawed-but-quantifiable measures like the SATs.

 

Nan

[Sebastian (a lady)]

..."captured the imagination"... that sounds about right for a situation where one has to choose between many perfectly good options...

 

If so many students really have intriguing travel experience AND many APs AND are sports stars AND have started their own business, how is it that students have changed so much in a generation? And if so, what has been lost to achieve this? Reading this sort of book always makes it sound as if students now-a-days are getting a fantastic global-oriented, real-life-oriented, education on top of a better academic one (all those APs), but elsewhere, when one gets away from the subject of college admissions, one hears almost nothing but complaints about modern students and how they are less educated than they were a generation or two ago. How can this be? Is it a matter of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and information about admissions focusing on the rich and more general information about education focusing on the poor? If so, all writers seem to be wearing very large blinders.

 

 

Nan

 

 

I also try to keep in mind that these window-to-the-world of admissions books are also trying to tell a story and capture the imagination of the reader. The author saw decisions made about at least a thousand students. He only chose to profile about six. Were there many others who were good all around applicants, who were also accepted? Hard to tell from the book, which focused almost exclusively on students with an interesting story attached to them.

 

And of the four students profiled who were accepted, three chose to attend. Two of these dropped out or took a break from the school because they were struggling with the demands.

 

I don't think that the bulk of students are superstars in every category (though some are). But there are many who are standouts in one or two areas. And I do think that a lot of what is taught, studied, and tested runs to the shallow. I also think that there are many schools that aren't even doing a good job at achieving shallow. That aren't teaching students how to read and be competent at math. Or to understand a science article (and see the flaws) or a political column (and see the flaws). But that doesn't mean that no students and no schools are achieving these high standards.

[creekland]

 

If so many students really have intriguing travel experience AND many APs AND are sports stars AND have started their own business, how is it that students have changed so much in a generation? And if so, what has been lost to achieve this? Reading this sort of book always makes it sound as if students now-a-days are getting a fantastic global-oriented, real-life-oriented, education on top of a better academic one (all those APs), but elsewhere, when one gets away from the subject of college admissions, one hears almost nothing but complaints about modern students and how they are less educated than they were a generation or two ago. How can this be? Is it a matter of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and information about admissions focusing on the rich and more general information about education focusing on the poor? If so, all writers seem to be wearing very large blinders.

 

Nan

 

 

In general, the wealthy have always been well-educated and their learning comes not just from books, but also from their plethora of experiences. Many of those experiences provide far more value than the books IMO.

 

The average and poor student (economically, not ability) are at a disadvantage and a ton will depend upon their family and school options. Does the family spend what little they have on opportunities or something else? Does the school (or homeschool) offer a good foundation or not? Do either value a high education? It's the rare student who can overcome family issues, and even more rare for them to succeed from a place without a good foundation. It can happen and has in history, but it's certainly not the norm. The norm I see is that the kids often adopt similar educational values as their parents.

 

In our society, we want to find those students who have tried to overcome, so colleges look for them via stats of any sort. Some do, indeed, succeed. Others, not so much. Those who succeed often make great adults as they have the education to be aware of the world and the life experience to deal with it. Some of those who come from the more wealthy areas really miss the life experience in areas. Some end up without a work ethic and have a tough time in life - just as those in other economic groups - but these usually have a family to provide a safety net. The others aren't so lucky. The family may want to provide a safety net, but can't - or the family might not care.

 

In my own school district the difference between kids who have traveled (more than just to the beach or cabin) and have parents who care about education (beyond the books) and those who are restricted to the internet or TV for their spare time is amazing - and sad - pending which way you look at it. I often wonder how some kids would do if they had had a "switched at birth" situation. Genetics definitely plays a role in the niche one aims for. Whether one can attain their "best" in that niche (or even "good") depends on a bit more.

 

IMO colleges do a bit to try to find those who will be successful and need to mix the wealthy (full pay) with the economically challenged. No system is perfect, but I admire them for trying. With limited space, they can't just try them all for the first year to see who fits in well and who doesn't.

[Brenda in MA]

Another issue is also travel. Many families spend part of summer vacation after sophomore and junior years visiting colleges, but for a kid like mine who was applying across the country, visiting every school before application time was prohibitively expensive. He flew to three different geographic locations during his senior year for college visits.

 

 

Another issue that we've run into involves scheduling college visits, too. We've been able to make a few visits this past summer. These visits have been helpful, but sometimes in the summer the campus is pretty quiet and the profs your child wanted to meet with are on vacation. Ideally, I really would like my child to visit campuses during the school year. However, with homeschooling and outsourcing quite a few high school classes, scheduling visits during the school year has been either difficult or impossible. It's tough to make a long trip when the dc has homework due that week for an AP class, or he will miss a day or two of a local class due to travel time. In our experience, some CC profs count attendance towards the grade. Some are understanding about missing class for a college trip, others are not flexible at all.

 

Most kids who attend a regular school have at least one week off in the spring that they can use for these visits. However, several of my son's outside classes are with different providers, so while they all have at least a one week break in the spring, none of the breaks are in the same week! Ugh....still not sure how we are going to make this work....

 

Brenda

[Jane in NC]

If so many students really have intriguing travel experience AND many APs AND are sports stars AND have started their own business, how is it that students have changed so much in a generation? And if so, what has been lost to achieve this? Reading this sort of book always makes it sound as if students now-a-days are getting a fantastic global-oriented, real-life-oriented, education on top of a better academic one (all those APs), but elsewhere, when one gets away from the subject of college admissions, one hears almost nothing but complaints about modern students and how they are less educated than they were a generation or two ago. How can this be? Is it a matter of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and information about admissions focusing on the rich and more general information about education focusing on the poor? If so, all writers seem to be wearing very large blinders.

 

I am not confident that students today are getting a real-life oriented education. Some certainly learn to build great resumes. As my brother-in-law, retired professor from a competitive LAC once remarked a decade or so ago when reading a stack of applications to his college, "If all of these kids did all of the work at soup kitchens that they claim they did, there would be no hunger in this country."

 

Kids from affluent or upper middle class homes often purchase certain experiences. They sound great but how much decision making happens. For example, we know a girl who did a European tour with a well known company that programs these things for kids. She was only with Americans. The kids were herded on the tour bus and shuttled from museum to event to hotel to bus and the next country the next day. She had a great time but did she have to figure out a subway system or train time tables or how to order off a menu that she couldn't completely understand? There is a lot of hand holding that goes on in the global education modern students receive. The same is probably true for the hefty academics that some kids see. Yes, AP can be (sort of) equivalent to a college class but most college students do not have a month with a review book to prepare for an exam.

[Jane in NC]

Another thought: I am perpetually astounded at how some schools and parents limit teens by not helping them see beyond the obvious.

 

In my state, the obvious is to attend one of the state universities--but the entire list of schools is rarely considered. Top students are encouraged to apply to UNC-CH or NCSU--depending on interests--or the state uni that is closest to home. How many kids from the beach consider going to the mountains or even Charlotte or vice-versa? So many kids don't even know that the opportunities for interesting camps or classes even exist! Parents find travel opportunities for sports. Do they have the same enthusiasm for Duke TIP or summer classes for teens at colleges or museums?

 

This is where I see a key difference between teens in my part of the world and teens we know in New England/New York/DC. Some of the kids from the Atlantic corridor are subjected to great stress to compete for placement in top colleges. They really have to do something interesting to distinguish themselves from peers. Some parents seem more aware of helping kids cultivate their passions for whatever reason i.e. for the happiness of the kid or to make the kid a more competitive applicant to college.

 

I am rambling...

 

I guess my point is that parents do fit into this equation. They can encourage or cajole their kids or limit them by not even pointing out the doors that might open to them.

[Kareni]

 

I guess my point is that parents do fit into this equation. They can encourage or cajole their kids or limit them by not even pointing out the doors that might open to them.

 

 

I think that this is very true, and often it is due to ignorance on the parents' part. I think back to when I applied to college. My parents were supportive; however, they had not attended college in their own countries of origin and were all but unaware of the diversity of colleges that existed in the US. (Then there was the added fact that they were out of the country most of my senior year, and I lived with another family). I took the SAT on recommendation from the school counselor and applied to one college (the college that my host family had attended). My own daughter applied to a variety of colleges because I was much better informed than my parents had been and, therefore, so was she.

 

Regards,

Kareni