<p>The National Association of College Admissions Counselors (NACAC) has updated their annual report on college admissions. This is fascinating reading for anyone interested in college admissions or just trying to find out what colleges really want from applicants. Among the findings:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>78% of college admissions officers said that grades in college prep classes were of "considerable importance" in admissions. 61% said test scores were of "considerable importance" and 54% said grades in ALL classes were.
Colleges in the northeast assigned much higher value to "tip factors" beyond grades and test scores. (see below)</p></li>
<li><p>Tip factors mentioned as being of considerable importance included class rank (33% said of considerable importance), essays (23%), and recommendations (18%). Only 7% of colleges defined "extracurriculars" as "of considerable importance." Interestingly, extracurriculars were neck and neck with demonstrated interest in terms of being "of considerable importance" (see below for more on demonstrated interest). EC's were mentioned as being "moderately important" more than demonstrated interest, however.</p></li>
<li><p>More colleges now pay greater attention to test scores and essays. Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of colleges saying Test scores and essays were of considerable importance rose significantly. All other factors either remained the same or dipped slightly in importance.</p></li>
<li><p>30% of all schools said "demonstrated interest" was either considerably important or moderately important in admissions. Demonstrated interested was most important in schools in New England and the Mid-atlantic. 44% of all colleges count a "visit to campus" as a plus factor in the admissions decision. 59% of PRIVATE schools consider a visit a plus and 60% of schools with less than 3,000 students do.</p></li>
<li><p>43% of private schools spend more than $1500 per accepted student on recruiting costs.</p></li>
<li><p>Many schools now outsource at least part of the admissions process, including processing applications once they are received.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I must admit to being VERY suprised that extracurriculars and demonstrated interest were both rated as being of considerable importance by admissions offices at the same rate - 7%. In fact, for PRIVATE colleges, demonstrated interest actually tops extracurriculars in terms of those who said they were of "considerable importance."</p>
<p>Yes, the ED information was also fascinating. Apparently, for the 1st time since 2000, the number of schools reporting a DROP in ED applications was 24%. And, Mini would probably appreciate this fact from the survey: private school students are the most likely to apply ED.</p>
<p>Thanks, Carolyn
maybe tramping through all those New England campuses in the rain will be worth it! The class rank (and the fact that more private prep schools don't) is very interesting.</p>
<p>"In fact, for PRIVATE colleges, demonstrated interest actually tops extracurriculars in terms of those who said they were of "considerable importance."</p>
<p>This has got to be due to the yield factor from USNWR.</p>
<p>I don't think it's due to trying to boost yield just for USNWR. Many colleges and universities aren't ranked highly enough for that to make a big difference. Colleges do like a nice healthy yield, but I wouldn't assign USNWR such a large role in that. </p>
<p>I know from my time in admissions at a small private institution that I was much more willing to go to bat for a student whom I knew loved the school and who considered it a dream come true to enroll. If you have two applicants and room for only one, which will you admit? The one who has done nothing but send in the application, or the one who came the holiday reception, called to be sure the recommendations got in, and told the counselor it's his first choice? That would still be true even if USNWR rankings disappeared in a puff of smoke.</p>
<p>The survey also broke down schools by their yield and selectivity. Here are the numbers for percentage ranking "demonstrated interest" as of considerable importance</p>
<p>Selectivity
Accept less than 50 percent 26%
50-70 percent 6%
71-85% 7
more than 85% 5</p>
<p>Yield
Enroll less than 30% of admitted students 5%
30 to 40% 4
46 to 60% 8
More than 60% 23%</p>
<p>So, the numbers show a few things: the more selective a college is, the more important showing interest is --- I'd say the "prestige" colleges are probably the ones that fall into the yield of 60% or more, so that goes hand in hand with that. Or, one could argue that visiting boosts yield, I suppose.</p>
<p>And, just for comparison sake, the same numbers for extracurriculars.</p>
<p>Selectivity
Accept less than 50 percent 16%
50-70 percent 7%
71-85% 4
more than 85% 3</p>
<p>Yield
Enroll less than 30% of admitted students 3%
30 to 40% 9%
46 to 60% 6%
More than 60% 9%</p>
<p>I think these numbers show something very interesting: EC's don't matter as much at less selective colleges --- and to a certain extent they are less important at the most selective colleges than demonstrated interest.</p>
<p>Not a great surprise! Before spending too much time dissecting the findings of the NACAC reports, someone ought to see who fills the surveys and check the "qualifications" of the members of NACAC. </p>
<p>How does this information compare with the collective wisdom of the College Confidential forum? Does anyone who has spent time reading about the results of 2003 and 2004 admissions truly believe that showing interest is as important as EC's. Does anyone truly believe that class rank is a mere TIP factor? Does anyone really believe that GC really KNOW what is happening in the college admission world, or at least in the world of selective schools. </p>
<p>This report is yet another proof that the chasm between the knowledge of GC's and the requirements of selective colleges is growing larger by the day.</p>
<p>This report might have some validity for the transition from Bubba High School to Podunk University, but does not seem to offer much help or relevance for the type of schools discussed at College Confidential.</p>
<p>you get another view of the class rank factor. Since most private prep schools don't rank, the published class rank info for colleges is, I'm guessing, going to be skewed upward, especially for the elites, where a large percentage of the population is from prep schools. </p>
<p>BTW, the NACAC report is a good link to send to our kid's GC's - I just did.</p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi. While I can't quantify my D's "demonstrated interest" relative to her ultimate acceptance there, she visited the place exactly once, folks. (How many times can you make yourself a pest on a college campus? --Dont answer that question, LOL.) So visiting a college once (Duh! Most people would if they gave a you-know-what, or were curious) is more important than nat'l awards, & more important than a decade of accomplishment? And you believe that? She mentioned casually in her app. that she had visited, when answering, "Why this college?" She did not make repeated phone calls, letters, e-mails, nor did I. They did send her an app, unsolicited, but we all know that this is routine for many selective institutions, often prompted by a student's record, such as standardized tests.</p>
<p>Either there are some huge pieces of missing info here, or CC students are an anomaly & have ec's more impressive than their test scores -- ec's which appear to have been pivotal in their early acceptances.</p>
<p>Epiphany... I was talking about the "demonstrated interest" with a parent recently. One of the schools my son applied to is really into that. It was a big turn off to be expected to slobber and scratch at the door for admission. He inquired about debate programs and they sent a form letter with "you should apply ED" on the bottom. If not applying ED means you didn't show enough demonstrated interest then so be it. It's not his clear first choice. He ordered the video visit, he inquired about the debate program, and returned their cards. We aren't in the position to visit all the schools ahead of time, he'll visit the top contenders when he learns which schools have accepted him. I can't stand watching kids beat themselves up "showing interest" to please these adcoms.</p>
<p>Carolyn, I certainly believe that demonstrated interest is very important to many of the schools, particularly the private ones, but I do not believe that it matters a whit to HPY &Co. Their yield is high simply because it is only in rare cases that they lose students to anything except among themselves. The colleges that are most keen on the demonstrated interest are the smaller, private schools. Franklin & Marshall, Union, Muhleberg, all say that except for very special cases, a visit is essential. I don't think the Harvard adcoms even track your visits and contacts and if you cannot get an alumni interview, they assure you in writing that it will not be a detriment to you.</p>
<p>texas...mom, You bring up another imp. about the groveling factor being a turnoff. (Again, there should be a reality check agst. the colleges, which I mentioned elsewhere the other day on CC; students are valuable, essential commodities to colleges -- Seller's Market or no. It seems that there's a one-way skew which is not really reflective of the mutual importance of institution + student body.) Second good point is the lack of equal opportunity for everybody to visit every college, particularly if you live across the country from that college. But I'm still back on the Truth in Acceptances topic. I promise you that my D's test scores, while respectable, were not that impressive versus many others rejected or deferred from Ivies. However, her academic record (quality/volume/reach), her recommendations, & her e.c.'s, were exceptional. She happens to have outstanding personal qualities; I cannot say whether those were figured in as well; they were probably mentioned in her rec's. But it does not compute that a single college visit would be more important than any of the above. And maybe some of those accepted, deferred, or rejected in the early round visited more than once? Inquired more than once? Wrote multiple letters, etc.? Why would my D rate?</p>
<p>A former adcomm from one of our local, private top 20 Universities (per USNews) made it very clear that they definitely track the number of contacts you have with their school. I think there is a difference between showing interest and being a pest. Signing in at college fairs, local meetings with visiting adcomms etc. is one way, visiting, doing the tour/info session bit, setting up an interview, meeting with department head or faculty member, or even just spending time with the secretary in the office of the department you plan to major in can be noted as well. Not hard to figure that number of contacts generally implies higher level of interest, which leads to higher likelihood of attendance, keeping those all-important yield #'s up.</p>
<p>Several things: First, Xiggi has a point, this survey is based on just under 600 college admissions officer responses - obviously, like most surveys, it doesn't pretend to survey every college. We don't know if HYP participated because a list of respondents is not included. </p>
<p>Second, I agree that HYP don't pay any attention to demonstrated interest - why do they have to when they have so many applicants and such high yield in the first place?
However, I think once you get below HYP, it is clear that demonstrated interest does matter at MANY schools (but obviously not all).</p>
<p>Xiggi asked in another thread why demonstrated interest doesn't show up as a factor in the US News info --- here's what I suspect: US News, Princeton Review, etc. use common data set information to prepare their reports. Common data set info. is standardized by the federal government and does not include "demonstrated interest" as a factor in admissions. Therefore, it makes sense that it is not included in those sources that rely on common data set. The survey does discuss some of the things that indicate demonstrated interest, but visiting was only one of these - read the survey and you'll see that demonstrated interest can be shown in a variety of ways.</p>
<p>Finally, if you look at the number of adcoms that said demonstrated interest and EC's were of "considerable" or "moderate" importance, EC;s did still come out ahead BUT they were ranked equally in terms of their consideration as being of "considerable" importance. Since only 7% of all schools said they were each of "considerable" importance, it's clear that neither is as important as other factors adcoms were asked to rank in importance in the survey, such as grades, test scores, etc. </p>
<p>I think the value of this survey is that if it is read carefully, it does give you a decent snapshot of the overall thinking that goes into admissions. But, again, remember, it does not pretend to tell you about an individual school - only trends in admissions overall at schools of various levels of selectivity, size, and location.</p>
<p>Carolyn, please understand that I do not consider the report to lack value or integrity. My main problem with it is that it lacks relevance to the colleges that are consistently discussed in these forums. </p>
<p>Allow me to add that the report is not solely based on the input of 600 college adcoms but also on the input of 800 high school professionals. It takes a leap of faith to assume that the high school counselors know WHY their students were admitted and WHAT was important, especially among applicants that are evaluated through a holistic process. I know for a fact that my former GC, while knowing the results of my applications, would not be able to have a single valid opinion about the decisions. An opinion would amount to nothing more than blind guessing. Do students really go back to their high schools and provide FULL details to their GC? I do not doubt that some colleges freely share information with a group of GC's. I simply do not believe that many of those colleges and many of those GC are included in the NACAC report. </p>
<p>As I said I am not surprised that the study concluded that EC's are to be ranked on a equal footing to "demonstrated interest". I believe that we have gained a pretty good understanding of the level of schools that value EC's and the level of schools that pay little attention to them. </p>
<p>This leads me to think that a report, in which 93% of the participants consider EC's to lack considerable importance, shows more about the relevance of the population polled than the relevance of the answers. </p>
<p>I am not sure if any references are made in the report about the number of schools that have admission rates of below 30 or 40%. In my opinion, the number of schools where a single statistic means admission must represent the bulk of the colleges polled. To be clear, I define a single statistic as a single GPA or a single SAT score. Again, this is hardly representative of the group of schools that cause anxiety and debates on CC.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I must have read things differently than you - I understood that the high school guidance counselors were mainly surveyed about their specific schools in terms of ranking, sat test taking, etc. They did not answer the questions about what is important in admissions - only the actual college admissions people did.</p>
<p>I agree - it may be that this doesn't include many of the schools discussed here, but for people like my daughter looking at second tier and bottom first tier schools, I'm pretty confident it's a good snapshot.</p>
<p>So, we're not talking about high school counselors talking about what colleges want, just what the trends are in their school in terms of college counseling. Only the college admissions reps answered the questions about what is important in selection criteria from the colleges perspective.</p>