<p>Looking over the posting of stats, it seems that an inordinate number of students with very impressive stats have been either rejected or waitlisted at top schools. I read recently that the years between 1989 and 1991 had the highest numbers of recorded births since the Baby Boom days, a sort of "Baby Boom Bubble." These kids are now of the age to apply to college.</p>
<p>Any correlation between this demographic and admissions???</p>
<p>Sure. Of course, there's a correlation. The last time college admission rates were this low was during the original baby boom in the 1960s.</p>
<p>One of the reasons that colleges all went co-ed around 1970s is that they saw a sustained period of declining numbers of applicants and figured that it was better to accept women than have empty seats.</p>
<p>Opening up elite college admissions to a second half of the population masked the dramatic decline in selectivity that would have occurred throught he 70s and 80s.</p>
<p>The other factor to consider today is the ease of the on-line common app. Applying to an extra six colleges takes basically no effort. So students are applying to 12 colleges instead of 6.</p>
<p>Thank you kindly for the reply, intreresteddad!</p>
<p>In fact, my mom was one of these women first admitted to an all-male bastion in the 70's.</p>
<p>We're all scratching our heads today after seeing results from my suburban public high school's admissions. Looks like a lot of intelligent and talented students will be raising the bar at the schools they were using as safeties.</p>
<p>If my school was any indication, (insert your favorite top 50 LAC's here) are the new HYP!</p>
<p>Anyone know how many years this 'bubble' is supposed to last?</p>
<p>Depending on which demographer you believe, the "baby boom echo" (not bubble) as measured by graduating high school seniors peaks sometime in 2008-2010. Iow, it is upon us.</p>
<p>Let's hear it for the top 50 LAC's.</p>
<p>On behalf of our younger son, "Rats!"</p>
<p>As I have said before in threads asking this question, it's probably very soon that the age cohort of high school seniors each year in the United States starts shrinking below "echo baby boom" levels, but it is still unclear </p>
<p>a) how much longer the "flight to quality" (applying more to top schools) will continue, </p>
<p>or </p>
<p>b) how much increasing numbers of international applications will boost selectivity at colleges that provide full need-based financial aid to international students. </p>
<p>I don't figure that college admission will be easier for my youngest child than for my oldest, although I think it is my oldest who is (of my four children) in the largest United States birth cohort.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how much increasing numbers of international applications will boost selectivity at colleges that provide full need-based financial aid to international students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The international apps drive down acceptance rates, for sure.</p>
<p>However, I'm not really convinced that lower acceptance rates really mean increased selectivity. My sense is that the same people who got accepted 30 years ago are still getting accepted today. It's just the number of rejections that is going up.</p>
<p>The big exception to that is increased diversity. Obviously, these schools are no longer reserved exclusively for white folk, so some slots have been redistributed. That's a double whammy for white males who have "lost" slots to diversity and to women.</p>
<p>There are some other demographic trends on the horizon. For one thing, the US population is becoming significantly more Latino/Hispanic and the population is shifting away from the Northeast to the South and Southwest. These shifts are driving some of the marketing/admissions strategies of colleges.</p>
<p>"However, I'm not really convinced that lower acceptance rates really mean increased selectivity."</p>
<p>I'm pretty convinced it means the opposite, for all but Harvard and maybe a couple of the techie places. It means it becomes increasingly unlikely that any one school will get the candidate who will most benefit from what that particular institution has to offer, or that the candidate will actually be able to make the best possible choice. Both schools and applicants are the losers, as "selectivity" -- the ability to select among applicants for those who fit the institutional mission best and then actually have them attend -- actually declines.</p>
<p>There is a "baby boom", of course, but it is way overshadowed by the increase in the number of applicants per place, especially at the "prestige" schools. The number of folks who believe they can afford these places without aid has increased substantially, virtually all of these schools are less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago, and costs of attendance have not kept pace with increases in income/assets of the full-freighters. They are more competitively priced than ever, and are a better bargain than they've been in decades (for those who can pay the freight.)</p>
<p>In other words, it is about demographics - but including the increasing rift between wealthy and non-wealthy folks in the country.</p>
<p>aka The baby boom-boom, marking the period when up to 4 million children were born in the US.</p>
<p>I think that it is also colored not just by increase of students applying to more schools, but to colleges becoming what high school for my generation was.
Which was the necessary step to a decent job.
Neither I nor my H attended college and the nieces and nephews on his side havent either, but I bet we have a higher percentage of first gen college students today than 30 -40 years ago.
so whats the stats Mini ? :)</p>
<p>The USNWR rankings also seem to tie into all this. By ranking schools strongly by selectivity, a school can gain prestige simply by telling a lot of people the news they don't want to hear. The Internet and the baby boom echo works out in schools' favor as they attempt to raise their rankings; there are more potential candidates in terms of sheer numbers out there, and the common app makes it convenient for students to send applications to more schools. Marketing efforts have also increased - I've received a boatload of emails and mailings from one of the "usual suspects!" These factors have resulted in many schools receiving record numbers of applications, placing them in a favorable position to increase their ranking.</p>
<p>The peak of the bubble in HS graduates comes with the graduating classes of 2009 or 2010, but there's a huge catch 22: projections for students entering 4-year colleges are supposed to continue to rise dramatically well beyond that:</p>
<p>I've seen projections beyond 2014 that show an even sharper upturn begining in the teens than we saw in the past decade, particularly in the Midwest, South, and West. It doesn't look like the college admissions scene is going to get any less intense any time soon.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've seen projections beyond 2014 that show an even sharper upturn begining in the teens than we saw in the past decade, particularly in the Midwest, South, and West. It doesn't look like the college admissions scene is going to get any less intense any time soon.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but it's more complicated than that.</p>
<p>College rankings and prestige today are almost entirely driven by the preferences (over the last 100 years) of affluent, white students from the northeast. Colleges are prestigious today because that's where students from suburban Boston and Westchester County went to college. This Northeast bias is why, for example, decidedly average schools like Boston University and NYU are now hot as pistols.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the population of Northeast is declining relative to the South and West. Plus, the rise in college applicants going forward is fueled by rapid increases in Latino and Asian American students, who may express different preferences. Additionally, the northeast is the only region that has historically had significant percentages of private prep school students. So, with the shifting demographics, we will also see colleges marketing more towards public schools.</p>
<p>We are already seeing the impact of these demographic shifts with the huge numbers of applicants at the University of California schools, Texas universities, etc.</p>
<p>TD, LOL.<br>
Actually let's hear it for community college. That looks just SO safe & trauma-free right now.:) Hell, maybe we'll go that route & spare the pain.</p>
<p>That's a very encouraging prediction, interesteddad!</p>
<p>If I'm interpreting your posting correctly, this is good news for equity in higher education. There have been a series of college fairs at my public high school, but the majority of schools in attendance are state schools and private colleges that draw heavily from the local student base. Although many of the country's top colleges are located conveniently close to my school, they tend not to send representatives. Many of these same schools feature a percentage of public vs. private school graduates out of step with the demographic balance. I realize this has to do with economics and legacies, but there is a lot of talent in the public schools that some colleges may be overlooking.</p>
<p>begak:</p>
<p>Why do you think "diversity" and "socio-economic diversity" are such hot button priorities at elite colleges? Part of it is because it's the right thing to do. But, these are admissions professionals. They can read the demographic trends. </p>
<p>If your customer base three decades from now is projected to include much higher percentages of Latinos, Asian Americans, and public school kids from somewhere south or west of Scarsdale, you better start becoming an attractive option for those customers now.</p>
<p>interesteddad,</p>
<p>It's great when the right thing to do happens, even though the motives behind it may not be the purest. Maybe form will follow function eventually, with private colleges fully realizing the value of public schools!!</p>
