I note sadly that the number of schools with a sub-10% accept rate has grown about 100% in just 6 years. In 2011, the number of sub-10% schools was just EIGHT (Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Brown, MIT, and Dartmouth).
Here are my estimates on the sub-10% crew for 2017:
Stanford
Harvard
Columbia
Yale
Chicago
Princeton
MIT
Caltech
Brown
Pennsylvania
Pomona
Claremont McKenna
Duke
Dartmouth
Vanderbilt
Northwestern
(Possibly Johns Hopkins as well)
It looks like, in an era where real differences between schools exist, schools seem to be trying to make themselves look as homogeneous as possible. It’s harder to discern differences between schools when they look so similar across so many different metrics (accept rate, graduation rate, SAT scores, cost, etc. etc.)
This is unfortunate, and not happening by chance. Schools are grinding very hard (and using early decision very aggressively) to generate these sorts of numbers.
Hmm, a race to the bottom? Bragging rights to the sub-5% list won’t be far behind. While the high stat kids will always apply to super selectives, there may come a time when those who are not in the tippy-top schools’ 25% quartile start to ignore the relentless mailings from these schools, and stop applying to them altogether as the odds become ever more daunting. When that happens, the holistic model argument falls apart.
I actually don’t think this is a big deal. It means students can stop saying “well i love Brown but Stanford is more selective…” “Selectivity,” as defined by admissions data, obviously breeds prestige and that’s something that high school students aspire to when they’ve worked their tails off to achieve what they’ve accomplished. But if all of these schools are equally “selective” according to their admissions data then students can take the acceptance rate blinders off and matriculate at the schools that fit them best.
This is one reason why other colleges now have a sub 20% or a sub 30% acceptance rate. Since the sub 10 club is not expanding enrolment the selectivity level is increasing down the rankings list.
With all the marketing enticing people to submit applications whether or not they are serious contenders coupled with the common app making far reach schools easy to apply to (if you can deal with the essays), it’s not a surprise that the rates are lowered - they are receiving many more applications. It also seems like there was a baby boom 18 years ago. My guess is that the actual number of applications where kids make it pass the first couple of admission reviews remains pretty steady. Statistics are easily manipulated.
Just as alarming as @TomSrOfBoston alluded to is the trickle down effect. Here in California the UC’s are very difficult to get into and this affects the Cal State schools as well. Very tough for the kids nowadays.
I tend to be suspicious of “easy” solutions, but in this case I have to wonder if there might be one. Right now you can apply to a maximum of 20 schools via the Common App. What if that number was lowered to, say, 8 or 9 ?
In the UK, college applicants are limited to 5 schools. Furthermore, only one of those applications can be to Oxford or Cambridge (you can’t apply to both).
A large part of this change actually reflects something good, not something bad.
Decades ago, the elite colleges had much higher acceptance rates because very few people applied to them, primarily rich people at exclusive boarding schools and private day schools in major cities, along with some public school students in a few wealthy suburbs like the North Shore of Chicago, Westchester County NY, or Montgomery County, Maryland. As a result, George W. Bush and Al Gore were able to attend Yale and Harvard despite really medicore high school records - pretty much everyone well-connected from places like Phillips Andover and St. Albans were admitted to go wherever they wanted.
Meanwhile, the top students at a high school in Iowa or Oregon or Florida rarely even considered applying anywhere other than their local state schools. It wasn’t even on their radar to consider doing so.
Over time, this has changed. The top students all around the country now consider it reasonable to grab for the brass ring - and the country has 340 million people in it. The number of spots in the elite colleges hasn’t changed much, but 10 times as many students want to go to them.
Sure, it has become more stressful for everyone involved, but I think overall that it is a welcome change.
True, but we aren’t talking about “decades ago”. The numbers have soared over just the past 10 years. Take a look at the historical Common Data Sets for your favorite elite school. For example:
Stanford Fall 2016: 43,997 applicants (4.7% acceptance rate) - most recent available numbers
Stanford Fall 2011: 36,632 (6.6%)
Stanford Fall 2006: 23,958 (9.9%)
Stanford Fall 2001: 19,052 (12.1%)
Stanford Fall 1998: 18,888 (13.2%) - oldest available numbers
So the Stanford applicant pool grew by only about 5,000 during the 8 years between 1998 and 2006. Then it grew by 20,000 over the next 10 years, while the acceptance rate dropped by over 50%. I question whether the acceleration of applications since 2006 is attributable to profound social change.
“I question whether the obvious acceleration of applications since 2006 is attributable to profound social change.”
I propose a hypothesis. China started economic reform in 1978. The first stage of reform was rather slow, and not too many Chinese students came to the US then. In the 1990s, many heavy-weight conservatives, like Chen Yun, were forced to retire. China started to reform in a more “radical” way. As a result, more Chinese students came to the US. Those first-generation immigrants largely came into US grad schools and later stayed in the US. Their second-generation children are mostly now in their 20’s or 30’s. For very top colleges today, this could be a profound change in terms of their application pools.
Class of 1988: 12,638 applicants, 8% international. Implies 1,011 international and 11,627 US applicants.
Class of 2018: 30,423 applicants, 17% international. Implies 5,172 international and 25,251 US applicants.
So international applicants grew by 4,161 over that time period. But US applicants grew by 13,624.
For the Class of 2018, Chinese students were only 23% of the international applicant pool, or 4% of the total pool. They are contributing to the growth in applications, but they don’t appear to be driving it.
@Corbett So the Stanford applicant pool grew by only about 5,000 during the 8 years between 1998 and 2006. Then it grew by 20,000 over the next 10 years, while the acceptance rate dropped by over 50%. I question whether the acceleration of applications since 2006 is attributable to profound social change.
That’s why I said the change was “in part” due to broadening of the application pool. Obviously, a large part also comes from student strategizing. When I applied to college back in the day, I applied to six. Most of my friends applied to three or less.
Now it is not unusual to apply to 15 or 20, to improve your chances of getting into one of the elite schools. The common app makes it that much easier to do, and from the point of view of an individual applicant, it makes sense to do it that way. Yes, it’s a problem, but I’m not sure there is a solution that isn’t worse than the problem.
(as an aside, Stanford might be an a bit of an outlier - it is the “hottest” elite college in the country. Your point is still valid, but mabe not quite as extreme?)
“So international applicants grew by 4,161 over that time period. But US applicants grew by 13,624.”
In other words, the increase of 13,624 US applicants may be significantly explained by the increase in second-generation Chinese Americans over the period of 1988-2018.
Chinese students enrolling in US was 60,000 in 2006 and 300,000+ in 2015. That’s those who are admitted, so one can imagine the total number that applied. And many of these students apply to top schools even if they have no chance getting in simply because they can and they’re hoping maybe, just maybe, they will.
It doesn’t explain all of the drop in acceptance rates, but I think it’s a large factor.
Besides the Common App, I think the shrinking acceptance rate could ironically create of cycle effect of more students applying (driving the numbers down even more). For example, my D applied to 7-8 elite schools, which was probably too many, but the reason was because her stats were good, and so it was going to come down somewhat to “luck”. So the more top schools you apply to, the more chances that one of them will accept you. Since very few people are a “lock” for an elite school anymore, it’s harder to know whether you’ll get accepted even if you’re good, so it’s only logical to boost your chances by rolling the dice as many times as you can.
For a high stats, average income kid from Seattle it is cheaper to go to Stanford than UW, worth the lottery ticket app. I think as state college tuitions climbed and incomes stagnated, the lottery apps to the high endowment private colleges make a lot more sense.
^ this. And in fact, that was a major reason why my D applied to so many reach schools, and did not apply to any excellent publics like Michigan, Virginia, UNC, etc. because even if she could get in the latter, we couldn’t afford it.
