Change in acceptance rates between 2006 and 2012......more difficult acceptances is not an illusion

[8filltheheart]

 

 

 

Here is a link to the 2006 data. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm

(FWIW, I read this on CC and didn't compile the data!! http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1635978-things-have-changed-p3.html)

[regentrude]

U Chicago is a very unique case. Their decline in acceptance rate can be attributed to the fact that until very recently they had virtually no advertising; people found the school through word of mouth. The caliber of students at the school was similar to today, but far fewer students applied because the school did not have "prestige" and did not rank among the top universities, even though it did have the same quality education.

Since (idiotically) the prestige and rank of a school directly depends on its selectivity, the way to increase ratings is to increase the number of applicants and reject more of them. So, a few years ago U Chicago began an aggressive promotion and advertising campaign to put their school on the radar. This increased the number of applicants tremendously and caused the sharp drop in acceptance rates.

[readwithem]

When did the Common App make its appearance?  I have to think having the convenience of doing all the apps in one place made it easier (though more expensive!) to apply to multiple schools.  A student applying to a dozen or more schools was uncommon 30 years ago.  

 

 

 

[Pawz4me]

I'm a little surprised Wake Forest's acceptance rate has changed that much.  Of all the schools DS seriously looked at, they seemed to be playing the rankings game the least.  And they don't use the common app, so the theory that that makes it easy to apply to multiple schools (which is certainly true) doesn't apply to them.

 

In the 2006 USA Today article, it states that UNC had 17,591 applications.  For the past two years (probably more) they've had over 30,000 applications.  That seems to me to be a huge difference in a relatively short period of time, and of course the acceptance rate would decrease accordingly.  I'm not aware that they've been promoting themselves any more than ever, but that's from an in state perspective (where presumably they don't need to market themselves much).

[alef]

I'm curious to know if the caliber of students applying has changed. If a school used to admit 10% of applicants and now admits 5%, are the same basic group of applicants being admitted (that is, most of the increase in applicants is accounted for by less qualified candidates) or are only half as many of the tippy top applicants being admitted? In other words, of the Freshman class of, say, 2001, would only half have been admitted if applying today?

 

I imagine it is some of each, but that the number of tippy top candidates has not doubled at most of these schools. But I don't know. Have the average stats changed for applicant groups? For admits?

[8filltheheart]

 I wonder more about the influence of the internet in general.   When I started homeschooling 20 yrs ago, we didn't have internet.   By 2000, I was using the internet, but nothing like now.   I would think it would take a while for guidance depts and high school communities to start expanding their horizons really broadly.  So what was once being discussed in closer circles in the early 2000s has now become pretty much common place conversation???   Just some random thoughts.

 

ETA:   Here is data comparing 2001 to 2012 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArlRBr9Qvz0mdEdLNzNsRnBKT3Z1dDZ5QTFCQVV1NkE&output=html 

There are drops just across the single yr.

 

International students are also having a slight effect.  http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2013/2013-11-11-Open-Doors-Data

 

There are now 40 percent more international students studying at U.S. colleges and universities than a decade ago, and the rate of increase has risen steadily for the past three years. International students make up slightly under four percent of total student enrollment at the graduate and undergraduate level combined.

[Janice in NJ]

Harvard Gazette past issue (Spring 2006)

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/legacy-gazette/

 

A total of 2,109 (9.3 percent) students were admitted from an applicant pool of 22,753 (just shy of last year's record of 22,796). Students were notified on Thursday (March 30) - 93 percent by e-mail along with the traditional letter. Admitted students have until May 1 to reply for September matriculation.

 

Harvard Gazette (Spring 2014)

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/college-admits-class-of-18/

 

Harvard College sent admission notifications today to 2,023 students, 5.9 percent of the applicant pool of 34,295.  Included are record numbers of African-American and Latino students, who constitute 11.9 and 13 percent of the admitted class, respectively.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Caroline]

Am I reading this wrong? In 2006, Harvard admitted 2,109 students. In 2014, Harvard admitted 2,023 students. That means harvard admitted more in 2006 than 2014. Or am I misunderstanding your data?

 

 

Harvard Gazette past issue (Spring 2006)

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/legacy-gazette/

 

A total of 2,109 (9.3 percent) students were admitted from an applicant pool of 22,753 (just shy of last year's record of 22,796). Students were notified on Thursday (March 30) - 93 percent by e-mail along with the traditional letter. Admitted students have until May 1 to reply for September matriculation.

 

Harvard Gazette (Spring 2014)

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/college-admits-class-of-18/

 

Harvard College sent admission notifications today to 2,023 students, 5.9 percent of the applicant pool of 34,295.  Included are record numbers of African-American and Latino students, who constitute 11.9 and 13 percent of the admitted class, respectively.

 

Actually, Harvard admitted more students in 2014 than in 2006.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

 

[wapiti]

Here's another article that a friend posted on FB this morning:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us/led-by-stanfords-5-top-colleges-acceptance-rates-hit-new-lows.html?smid=fb-share

 

I think a combination of factors are at work here.  One is the rise in the number of applications each student submits, which is both a result of the common app and of the ease of electronic filing generally.  I remember the days of buying colored white-out for those thick, colored-paper applications that I typed on a typewriter.

 

Another is a result of simply more info being available thanks to the internet - more info both on the colleges and on what it takes to get admitted, fueling a race.  (Eta, I just saw 8's post wondering the same thing about the internet.  I can only imagine how bewildering the process would have been if we had had the internet back in the 80s, but wow how awesome would all that info have been.)  I also think the total population has gone up, no?  So there will be a greater number of people in the top percentile(s) while the number of accepted students at the top schools has stayed relatively constant in comparison?

 

Yesterday I was reading through threads on College Confidential about my alma mater and it does seem like scores of admitted students have gone up, though it's also true that the SAT is a different test now.  I think it would be more interesting to compare percentile scores rather than actual scores.

 

Eta, while it's a little depressing to think about the chances for admission to tippy-top schools, even with great applications, I'm encouraged that there are still plenty of very good schools to choose from with acceptance rates that indicate more realistic chances for a student with a good application.  At the same time, however, when I think about the chances if my dd were to apply even to my alma mater, I get nervous.  Eta again, the 2006 admissions percent is almost the same as the current admissions percent for this particular school - not sure what that says.

[Teachin'Mine]

I wouldn't be surprised if the yield has increased, so they're admitting even fewer now.

[Catherine]

U Chicago is a very unique case. Their decline in acceptance rate can be attributed to the fact that until very recently they had virtually no advertising; people found the school through word of mouth. The caliber of students at the school was similar to today, but far fewer students applied because the school did not have "prestige" and did not rank among the top universities, even though it did have the same quality education.

Since (idiotically) the prestige and rank of a school directly depends on its selectivity, the way to increase ratings is to increase the number of applicants and reject more of them. So, a few years ago U Chicago began an aggressive promotion and advertising campaign to put their school on the radar. This increased the number of applicants tremendously and caused the sharp drop in acceptance rates.

Yes to the observation about U Chicago. My HS junior, who is no way shape or form would be admitted there, has gotten more than a dozen snail mailings and dozens of email contacts. He confirms he's never contacted them once.

Given that the number of applications per student has gone way up, the schools have to carefully manage their admissions process to get the right yield.  In additional to the total number of applications for all schools, it would be interesting to know the total number of applicants, and how that's changed over the years.

 

So, I'm curious about how the wait list process has changed.  Consider the student who was accepted to all 8 ivies.  Assuming that he is going to attend only one of them, that opens up spaces for applicants at seven other schools.  Will those admissions come from a wait list, or have the other ivies appropriately "overbooked" their admissions enough to compensate?

[In The Great White North]

 

 

 Will those admissions come from a wait list, or have the other ivies appropriately "overbooked" their admissions enough to compensate?

 

Overbooked.  Dartmouth (a Harvard "safety") has had a 50 % yield for years.

 

from 2000-2009:  http://www.dartmouth.edu/~oir/pdfs/Admissions.pdf

this year:  http://now.dartmouth.edu/2014/03/2220-students-offered-acceptance-to-the-class-of-2018/

[creekland]

Note that many (but not all) on the list tend to be really good with need based aid.  Vandy, and some others, also do it without loans.

 

I suspect in the recent economy, that has driven at least a few of the applications.

 

Then too, in a tight job market, the belief that "name counts" can drive more. 

 

In reality, sometimes the name counts and sometimes it doesn't.  One needs to know if it counts for a particular goal, and if it does, which names matter.  That might include those on the list or it might not be pending major, location, and similar details.

 

But in general, apps are going up at many schools.  I don't know this year's stats, but last year's had apps going up and the acceptance rate going down at all 3 of the schools my guys have or will be attending.

[FaithManor]

At U of MI, MSU, and MTU the number of applicants has risen dramatically, but the number of freshman slots remains the same. Thus lower acceptance rates. I think that is just true everywhere. More kids today are going to college than previous generations. In Michigan at least, we are not seeing the addition of faculty and classroom space to accommodate significantly larger freshman class populations. It naturally means more selectivity.

[G5052]

This isn't a generalization, but several very selective state schools that I know of (one of them is on that list) have reduced the size of their freshman class. They decided that being more selective and having a smaller class still worked for them financially because the students that did get in tended to be more likely to graduate.

 

At the community college where I teach, enrollment actually went flat this year for the first time, but the word in the faculty lounge is that they're also not doing as well. I'll be curious to see the stats after the May graduation. In the past, less than 25% graduated within five years.

 

I agree that more people than ever are trying to go to college. I constantly deal with students that I can tell are overly optimistic about their academic abilities and depth of commitment.  A number of my "F" students this semester started out telling me about their plans for selective 4-year school admission, and I could tell that they really didn't grasp what that means in terms of being able to handle their courses and come out with "A" grades.  It is sometimes almost as if they think that saying it makes it so.

[Teachin'Mine]

Yes, there can be a lot of magical thinking and this often comes from those who didn't really apply themselves in high school and now expect this dramatic transformation into an A student, but have no idea about the amount of dedication, persistence and plain old hard work that has to go into making that a reality.  I don't know if this issue is addressed in the study skills/college readiness type of class or not, but it should be discussed there.  IMO advisors are even more important at the beginning of community college than at the end.  This is their chance to try to help the students see reality and work from there.  They need to be motivated and to own that motivation, but then they also need a very realistic plan which is based on where they are and helping them to achieve small successes so they can build on that.  I think too many start out gung ho without giving consideration to the reality of what the course work will involve in both time and effort on their part.  The colleges have the resources to help them but, unlike high school, no one is handing them a slip directing them to report for help.  They have to take some initiative themselves.

[Teachin'Mine]

As for so many students applying to so many of the top colleges, dd was accepted to 2 and waitlisted to 2 on the list, but looking at the acceptance rates, we could not possibly have predicted which those would be.  It was necessary to cast a wide net in order to have some choice.  I'm sure many applicants were in a similar position.

[regentrude]

This isn't a generalization, but several very selective state schools that I know of (one of them is on that list) have reduced the size of their freshman class. They decided that being more selective and having a smaller class still worked for them financially because the students that did get in tended to be more likely to graduate.

At the community college where I teach, enrollment actually went flat this year for the first time,

 

What we have been told is that enrollment is down at many colleges due to demographics (just not as many high school graduates). At our university, we see a rare case of increasing enrollment (which presents its own challenges). The predictions are that enrollment will continue to increase, just the rate at which it has been increasing will be slowing down (we increased by 50% over the last decade).

 

 

[Janice in NJ]

Am I reading this wrong? In 2006, Harvard admitted 2,109 students. In 2014, Harvard admitted 2,023 students. That means harvard admitted more in 2006 than 2014. Or am I misunderstanding your data?

Hi Caroline,

 

No, you're correct.  That's what I get for doing too many things at once.  :-)  I fixed the post.  

 

Have a nice morning,

Janice

[Laura in CA]

School 2006 2013 Change

 

Berkeley 23.90 20.83 3.07

CMU 41.60 27.77 13.83

UCLA 23.50 20.10 3.4

 

I don't know about UCLA, but Berkeley reported today that their acceptance rate this year is quite a bit lower than last year's -- 17% overall, with 9% for their College of Engineering. (Even when I was in high school, in the *cough* 70s/80s, it took a 4.0 to be accepted to Berkeley's engineering school ... and tuition was less than $700 -- a year ...) Part of the lower rate is due to more applications, and part of it is an attempt to better manage the size of their incoming class. (I know several current freshmen at Cal Poly who are living in triples that were built as doubles, b/c something like 500 more kids than expected accepted their offer of admission.)

 

UC Berkeley officials made fewer admissions offers this year, having moved to an enrollment management process that involves placing more students on a waiting list. This will allow the campus to come closer to reaching enrollment targets, a critical part of ensuring that the university provides sufficient housing, classes and advising services to students.

 

 

Actually, Harvard admitted more students in 2014 than in 2006.

 

Stanford, despite (like, I believe, Princeton) increasing their class size slightly (from 1500 to 1700, in Stanford's case) is admitting fewer students (in absolute numbers) now than 25 years ago ... Their yield has gone from something like 60% 25 years ago to approaching 80%, I think. (And the tiny admittance rate comes, of course, from higher number of applications.) I received a letter (yes, on paper!) from the Stanford Admissions Office which included these facts: 

 

Fifty years ago just over 6,400 students applied, and 30.7% were admitted. Twenty-five years ago nearly 16,000 applied, and 15.9% were admitted. This year our office received over 42,000 freshman applications ... We anticipate an admission rate of approximately 5.5% ...

 

Doing the math, I get almost 2,544 acceptances for 1989, whereas they admitted several hundred fewer -- 2,138 this year -- despite increasing the freshman class size. Crazy!

 

I"m curious about the number of international vs domestic applicants. That part has been a lot of fun. Ds's bud has a Tanzanian national roommate; they're quizzing him about traveling to see Kilimanjaro on a student budget.

 

I'm very excited about the opportunities my son will have to meet foreign students when he starts college this fall. Wow, Tanzania! There definitely are many more international applicants (due, in some part, no doubt, to cheaper international air fare and phone calls and Skype) than ever, driven by countries such as China, Korea, and India.

[Crimson Wife]

Stanford, despite (like, I believe, Princeton) increasing their class size slightly (from 1500 to 1700, in Stanford's case) is admitting fewer students (in absolute numbers) now than 25 years ago ... Their yield has gone from something like 60% 25 years ago to approaching 80%, I think. (And the tiny admittance rate comes, of course, from higher number of applications.) I received a letter (yes, on paper!) from the Stanford Admissions Office which included these facts: 

 

Fifty years ago just over 6,400 students applied, and 30.7% were admitted. Twenty-five years ago nearly 16,000 applied, and 15.9% were admitted. This year our office received over 42,000 freshman applications ... We anticipate an admission rate of approximately 5.5% ...

 

Doing the math, I get almost 2,544 acceptances for 1989, and they admitted 2,138 this year -- despite increasing the freshman class size. Crazy!

I got into both Harvard and Stanford in the mid-90's and knew a bunch of other kids who got into both around the same time frame (+/- a few years). Some chose Harvard and others (like me) chose Stanford. I don't think there is remotely as much overlap in admittees these days. So I would expect that both schools' yields have gone up.

[Laura in CA]

I got into both Harvard and Stanford in the mid-90's and knew a bunch of other kids who got into both around the same time frame (+/- a few years). Some chose Harvard and others (like me) chose Stanford. I don't think there is remotely as much overlap in admittees these days. So I would expect that both schools' yields have gone up.

In the early 1980s, they told us at the time, a full third of the 40% of students who turned down Stanford enrolled in one of 3 schools -- Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Soon after, Stanford became even more popular with students from outside the state. I can't help thinking that many forces were at play, including cheaper air travel, even cheaper long-distance telephone calls, etc. I was at Princeton in the mid- to late 1980s when they started fretting about losing more and more admits to Stanford -- that upstart on the other coast, haha. (The impression I had was that they were accustomed to losing cross-admits to H & Y.) Stanford's legendary and much-loved Dean Fred moved to Princeton & helped them institute many changes, which resulted, among other things, in higher numbers of women enrolling at P'ton.

[Crimson Wife]

Tiger Woods was in my DH's class, and Chelsea Clinton was 2 classes after me. Between the two of those celebrities attending, I started hearing a lot fewer: "Stanford University? Is that in Connecticut?" from people.

[Laura in CA]

Oh, I'd forgotten about that! Yes, that was funny. I used to get a lot of blank stares, or people thinking it was in CT. Even my high-school soccer coach (in the Bay Area, no less!) said, "Stanford?!? Isn't that a law school??" I guess those days are probably over.

 

People still confuse Caltech and Cal Poly, though, and probably always will ...

[hepatica]

This is such a small list of schools. I wonder if the same is true for the thousands of other colleges and universities out there? The vast, vast majority of college students are not going to attend a highly selective institution. I am looking at the 2006 list linked above, and there are tons of good schools with acceptance rates of 70%+. Have acceptance rates at these schools dropped comparatively??

[Crimson Wife]

My grandfather went to Northeastern, and at the time that I was looking at colleges, it accepted pretty much everyone. Way less competitive than Tufts, BC, or BU. Well, I was shocked to see that it is now around 30%, more selective than BU (36%) and BC (32%), and closing in on Tufts (21%). BC and Tufts were my "safeties" and Norheastern was considered only a little better than CC.

[wimseycat]

This is such a small list of schools. I wonder if the same is true for the thousands of other colleges and universities out there? The vast, vast majority of college students are not going to attend a highly selective institution. I am looking at the 2006 list linked above, and there are tons of good schools with acceptance rates of 70%+. Have acceptance rates at these schools dropped comparatively??

I wonder about the trickle down effect of the acceptance rates being so low with the top tier schools. All the tippy top kids who didn't get into or were waitlisted at the Ivies and other Top 20 schools have to go somewhere. Right now we are in that position. My S has an acceptance from a highly selective Top 20 with a nice FA package but it is still a bit of a stretch for us. We have two more kids behind him to see through high school. On the other hand he has a free-ride (tuition/room & board/book stipend) at our local somewhat selective (60% admits?) state college. If we choose that he will be taking a spot that would have gone to someone else. His case is not as extreme, but I can imagine kids who are apply to schools that have a 30-50% admit rate may not get in if these same schools are taking the tippy tops who chose them as their safety.

[regentrude]

I wonder about the trickle down effect of the acceptance rates being so low with the top tier schools. All the tippy top kids who didn't get into or were waitlisted at the Ivies and other Top 20 schools have to go somewhere. Right now we are in that position. My S has an acceptance from a highly selective Top 20 with a nice FA package but it is still a bit of a stretch for us. We have two more kids behind him to see through high school. On the other hand he has a free-ride (tuition/room & board/book stipend) at our local somewhat selective (60% admits?) state college. If we choose that he will be taking a spot that would have gone to someone else. His case is not as extreme, but I can imagine kids who are apply to schools that have a 30-50% admit rate may not get in if these same schools are taking the tippy tops who chose them as their safety.

 

I do not see that issue, because the dramatic decline is not in actual enrollment numbers, but in percentage. It's not as if the highly selective schools would have accepted all those tippy top kids a decade ago - there were just fewer applicants to those schools.

So, many of those kids did go to the state university already. 

 

There are public colleges who will simply increase the number of students they teach. Many colleges are reporting declining applications, mainly due to the demographic effect of fewer high school age students. The university where I each seems to be an anomaly and has growing enrollment, although we are expecting the enrollment increase to slow down over the next few years. So, yes, more students. You can look up the enrollment data for the college you are concerned about.

[Teachin'Mine]

I agree that there likely is some "trickling down" affecting other top colleges and more selective ones.  But the ones with 70% admission shouldn't be that different.  Most contact from colleges has ended, except from the ones who haven't received enough applications.  They're still looking for applicants to either fill their seats or to raise their stats.   It would be interesting to see a comparison chart and see where the percent admitted stops falling.

 

Annika, I hope your son has an amazing experience at his full-ride college!  Congratulations to him!

[wimseycat]

Thanks! I don't know what choice we are going to make yet, but I do know it will be hard to turn down either offer and we can't put it off much longer! :)

[Elisabet1]

Am I reading this wrong? In 2006, Harvard admitted 2,109 students. In 2014, Harvard admitted 2,023 students. That means harvard admitted more in 2006 than 2014. Or am I misunderstanding your data?

A lot more admitted ED so their yield is higher.

[flyingiguana]

Enrollment is up at the college I'm at.  Applications are also up.

 

In our area, there was a big demographic hump that came through a few years back.  We've been watching it go through the school system.  It'll be declining over the next few years, so it will be interesting to see if the admission rates at the selective colleges go up along with that decline in college age population.

 

However, another thing that's going on is that more and more immigrant and non-Caucasian kids are entering our college.  A number of these are kids who might not have thought about college 10 or so years ago.  So the pool of applicants is also increasing because of that effect.  I wonder if it's an indication that the not so great schools in our area are finally getting their act together and graduating more kids who can handle college.

 

And, yes, kids these days apply to an amazing number of schools.  The kids I talk to can't even tell me all of them.  They've lost track.  One girl told me 10 schools she applied to -- and ended with, well, there were more, but I can't remember them all.  As it turns out, she's GOING to one of the ones she couldn't remember.  And it was by no means a safety school -- she's not just going there because everything else fell through.  This one probably was her first choice.  But she couldn't remember it when she was telling me which ones she was applying to.

 

But maybe the most important explanation of all is that colleges are learning to play the selectivity game:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/washington-and-lee-counts-incomplete-applications-amid-debate-over-college-data/2013/09/16/17fa0a88-1714-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html

The college in this article has started counting incomplete applications as denied applications, which really increases their selectivity rating.

 

I don't doubt that colleges interested in being "selective" have a lot of other tricks to make themselves look more selective than they really are.  And since the publicized push for selectivity has been more intense in recent years, it's not surprising that the selective schools are looking even more selective now.  It may have nothing to do with demographics and who's applying where.  It may only be the colleges changing the look of those stats by what they count and what they don't count.