@UWfromCA but if your family makes less than $125K, tuition at Stanford is 0
^ Which is great for the 23 students from Washington who benefited last year.
This will make all the schools one, two or three tiers down harder to get into. Pretty soon there will be no such thing as a safety.
@UWfromCA Right. I’m not saying many get in - but it’s one reason why people apply, in the hopes of winning the lottery.
But if you’re from a state without a great flagship like UW and want to study OOS, the higher costs involved make buying a lottery for Stanford even more attractive.
OK, so what’s the downside to capping the number of applications that can be submitted through the Common App?
It’s obviously feasible to cap the Common App, because there is already is a cap of 20. And if you search the CC forums, you will find multiple threads started by students who freaked out when they ran up against this limit.
So we know, based on evidence right here on CC, that (1) it is possible to limit the number of applications in the Common App, and (2) that this limit hinders students who want to submit ridiculous numbers of applications. The only issue is whether 20 is the most appropriate number. I think there is a case that it could be lower.
I get your point, and it may have some validity. However, to test this, we would need to get detailed data on the ethnic breakdown of the applicant pool over time. In practice, I suspect that private schools would be very reluctant to provide that info. You could get some general ethnic data for enrolled students, but not for the (much larger) pool of applicants.
Re: Safety
Depends on whether you can pay and whether you are willing to settle for publics (or willing to go to CC first).
Many unis in the UK and Canada and Ireland may be considered safeties depending on your marks. Most publics aren’t terribly selective. CC route is feasible to many top publics (and USC).
A lot of LACs below the top tier definitely want kids with high stats who can pay.
Note that the top US schools try to make their fall admissions numbers look good (because that is what USNews cares about). Other routes could be considered.
So yes, big advantage to ED.
Honestly, there’s just too much emphasis on the very tippy-top; you can get to many, many goals (find great educations, terrific communities that fit you, etc.) via other routes.
Please don’t smash our idols, @PurpleTitan
^This made me laugh.
Virtually all the most prestigious colleges were built over 100 years ago, when America’s population was much smaller and most people lived on farms. Even in recent years, the number of available seats at those colleges hasn’t increased much. I bet that over an 18 year period, a typical American family spends more on cars than it saves for college. So neither the supply nor the available funds have increased sufficiently to meet demand.
However, average test scores haven’t increased nearly as much as admit rates have dropped. Those averages reflect enrolled student bodies, not applicant pools or even admitted students. There is no way to know for sure, but I suspect the average applicant’s test scores actually have dropped (or at least haven’t increased nearly as much as the admission trends might suggest). Admission has become more competitive, but for well-qualified applicants, maybe not that much more competitive.
It would stand to reason that unless performance is dropping, there are more students with high scores than before. Given that even just in the past 30-40 years, spaces at elite universities have not kept pace with population, there are now more equally smart students competing for the same number of spaces. And that’s not even counting the increase in top-scoring international applicants. Would be interesting to see the numbers on the increase in pop vs increase in student bodies at the top 20 universities in past 50 years.
“I get your point, and it may have some validity. However, to test this, we would need to get detailed data on the ethnic breakdown of the applicant pool over time. In practice, I suspect that private schools would be very reluctant to provide that info. You could get some general ethnic data for enrolled students, but not for the (much larger) pool of applicants.”
I agree with your assessment; those are sensitive data.
I think the concept of “holistic” admissions, plus the lack of detailed information from most schools about who gets admitted and who gets denied, and the Common App all contribute to this situation. I just looked at Naviance for my kids’ competitive public high school. Every year about 20/600 kids apply to Stanford. Every year 0-1 student is accepted to Stanford. The school does quite well overall getting students into the top 25 colleges. But everybody (and his/her parent) wants to apply to Stanford. The high school has a decent albeit understaffed guidance department. I’m sure the GC’s tell the kids that Stanford is an extreme long shot. But why not throw in a Stanford app while you’re at it? I remember when my D was finishing 5th grade and the elementary school had a moving up ceremony to middle school. They surveyed the kids on a bunch of questions including where they wanted to be in 10 years and it was incredible how many of these 10-11 year olds said Stanford! We’re in the Southwest so many here are much more familiar with and enamored of Stanford than HYPS and hardly anybody knows anything about LAC’s.
“I get your point, and it may have some validity. However, to test this, we would need to get detailed data on the ethnic breakdown of the applicant pool over time. In practice, I suspect that private schools would be very reluctant to provide that info. You could get some general ethnic data for enrolled students, but not for the (much larger) pool of applicants.”
According to US Census, there were 0.8 million Chinese (including Taiwanese) Americans in 1980 and 3.3 million (slightly more than 4 times of 0.8 million) Chinese Americans in 2010. It is possible that today’s college-bound Chinese Americans are about 4 times that of 30 years ago.
@Corbett wrote
I agree.
@ThankYouforHelp wrote
So these schools used to be filled with rich, mediocre students. How did this evolve into normal people thinking these were the “best” schools? The rich and powerful sent (and continue to send) their kids to places where it was socially advantageous to do so-has it changed that much, and how much elite elbow rubbing do the children of the hoi-polloi really get to do at those schools?
I think it’s the internet. The access to information is just staggering. I mean, look at CC-millions of people read this website, and it’s just a weird little niche of the college process.
I also think it’s a case of perceived scarcity:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=businessdiss
Here’s an excerpt:
The strongest correlative (excepting founding date) for the colleges listed as those with the currently lowest acceptance rates might relate to historical patterns of gender, ethnic and religious discrimination – the more powerful a school’s de facto former discrimination practices, the greater its contemporary appeal.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the ever decreasing admission rates. The top 25 schools will admit about 50,000 students each year regardless of their admission rates. So if your stats are good enough, you should be okay. As for those who are seduced by the sleek marketing of these schools, it is a lottery anyway. I don’t think any lottery ticket buyer bets on it to pay mortgage.
The mainstream applicant is further hijacked with all the criteria providing an edge at these elite institutions - athletic recruit, first generation, URM, low income/ability to pay full fare, legacy, well-known prep schools, etc. etc
Demand has greatly increased due primarily to seemingly inevitable, perpetual population growth; the enduring popularity of a traditional college education (and other forms of education being unable to erode this popularity much); and the Common App and its (imo) high limit.
Meanwhile, brick-and-mortar college seats have not increased to keep up with the higher demand.
So unless or until demand wanes, or supply increases to keep up with demand, admissions will continue to increase in competition and selectivity.