Population has increased faster than the space in the most desired colleges.
Greater ability to apply to know about and apply to more colleges, particularly out of area.
Increasing economic inequality leads upper-middle to upper class parents to emphasize greater purchasing of opportunity for their kids, and encouraging them to strive for eliteness.
Raising the minimum standards for “hook” admits meant that (for example) legacies and their prep schools emphasize academic achievement much more than they used to, to the point that more of them are now highly competitive academically.
With regard to comparisons to the UK or Canada or many other countries, compare the national populations to the size of the most desired universities. The US has a much larger population, but its most desired universities are generally smaller.
Applying for a top US college is very different to applying for a job even in elite positions like MBB consulting. You don’t write essays telling McKinsey about a book you liked, or where you grew up, let alone impress them with the sports you played.
You impress a consulting firm with your ability to do the job, through a grueling interview and long tail testing process for intellectual horsepower after an initial filtering based on outstanding academic achievement, and the criteria to get an interview are fairly clear. The interview is make or break unlike US college interviews which have essentially no effect unless you have an obvious personality defect. The people doing the hiring are selecting who they want to train and work with, it’s not done by some admission officer who never has to teach the student. All of that is much more like an Oxbridge application than any US college application.
I don’t know about McKinsey specifically, but many persons in hiring positions at “elite” consulting are impressed by sports played during college, as well as generally fitting in with the team and culture. For example, the author of the paper at https://www.thinedgeconsulting.com/assets/pdfs/Ivies%20extracurriculars%20and%20exclusion%20Elite%20employers’%20use%20of%20educational%20credentials.pdf has many persons in hiring positions at “elite” consulting, banking, and law evaluate mock applicants and discuss reasons why particular applicants were favored or not favored. Most persons in hiring at these "elite’ companies said they considered ECs in hiring decisions. A larger portion said they considered ECs than grades or tests. Some example comments are below:
Perhaps surprisingly, it was not grades or work experience but a candidate’s extracurricular pursuits that employers most commonly used as a secondary screen, excluding those candidates who had not participated in high status and/or time-consuming leisure activities. To participate in on-campus recruiting, both career service offices and firms typically require students to list not only their educational and work experiences on their resumes but also their extracurricular activities and leisure interests
Grade discounts were particularly strong for varsity athletes. Floors were typically lowered from 3.5 to 3.0 for varsity athletes
A banking recruitment head (white, female) unpacked the rationale behind the aversion to “nerds:” – We look for someone who’s got a personality, has something to bring to the table. You know, for lack of a better term, someone you can shoot the sh*t with… Typically…they were in sports, they were involved in different activities on campus. The more well-rounded individual versus the candidate who has the 4.0, who’s got all the honors
In any case, colleges and employers have different motivations and goals in admission/hiring decisions. A student who will be most successful as a classics major at Chicago or pre-med at JHU (successful in more metrics beyond just grades in classroom) is not necessarily the same student who will be most successful as a software engineer at Google or banker at Goldman Sachs (successful in more metrics than just quality of work). It’s expected to be a different process that is expected to favor different students.
Yes, most kids who apply to <10% admit rate top ranked on USNWR type private colleges are high enough income that they usually have many quality lower cost options, such as public flagships and merit scholarships. This higher income group is generally not applying because the college is a low cost. The lower income kids for which Ivy+ type top FA colleges are expected to be near $0 cost to parents and are likely to be among the lowest cost if admitted are often tremendously underrpresented among the applicant pool. Instead more expensive (after FA) local public options are often favored. Again this group generally isn’t applyinh to the lowest cost option (if admitted). For example, the abstract of the paper at https://www.nber.org/papers/w18586 begins:
“We show that the vast majority of very high-achieving students who are low-income do not apply to any selective college or university. This is despite the fact that selective institutions would often cost them less, owing to generous financial aid…”
Rather than quality of FA, I think the low acceptance rate often has more to do with perceived desirability or selectivity, which USNWR ranking feeds in to among many other factors. Some students place more weight on which is the highest ranked / most prestigious / most selective “reach” that they can be accepted to over which college is the best fit and most likely to assist with desired goals. This group is a minority that is well represented on CC forums, but many students also have v different application behavior. For example, a list of colleges with most applications prior to COVID is below. It’s composed of publics and NYU. HYPSM… type colleges all received much fewer applications .
That said I agree that there is a clear correlation between quality of FA and being a top ranked college on USNWR. I expect this is primarily an indirect relationship, rather than a causal one. Most USNWR ranking categories are well correlated with endowment per student. This results in USNWR ranking being very well correlated with endowment per student. The top endowment per student private colleges tend to be highest rated on USNWR. The highest endowment per student colleges also tend to give the best FA, so top ranked USNWR private colleges tend to give the best FA.
The application processes for MBB and other top consulting firms are quite similar to elite college admissions in that ECs and non-academic achievements play an oversize role in who gets an interview. It can seem just as random as elite college admissions as to who gets an interview. From there the interview process is fairly objective with consistent results although fit is also a significant factor in addition to intellectual horsepower.
I personally didn’t see this to be the case. A friend’s child is thriving at McKinsey after graduating from Michigan. He is obese, has nerdy interests, but very bright and sociable enough.
My daughter and many of her friends are working at major banks. Not a single athlete in the group to my knowledge.
it is easy enough to avoid checking the box on the SAT to receive mailings from colleges. However, that is one way colleges can reach out to those whose backgrounds may otherwise prevent them from applying.
Financial aid is indeed an excellent reason to apply to certain schools.
This thread seems to imply some sort of evil intentions in the admissions business. Sure, rankings are a factor in some of what they do. But colleges are also trying to increase access. The days of feeder boarding schools are not exactly over, but there have been some changes in recent decades in terms of who attends.
People need to understand that admissions is about assembling a mosaic. It is not about a hierarchical process choosing the brightest or most deserving.
It is foolish to work hard during high school in order to get in, because that is not even going to increase your chances, in many ways, and making admissions the goal throughout high school kind of contaminates the whole high school experience.
Things will shake out. There are only so many spots and a whole lot of applicants. The frenzy for top schools needs to end. That is something that parents and kids can do something about.
And don’t check that box. Understand that mailings and emails mean nothing at all.
Imo this isn’t the schools’ problem, this is a student/parent expectation problem.
High application numbers is a good thing for schools. It brings in revenue. There is zero incentive for them to do anything differently. This model has been working for some school for 150 years.
I had also high stats kid who forwent engaging in the rat race for the super elites.
If only it were that easy. Being in the top 20% at a target and in a consulting club doesn’t guarantee even an interview. Getting an interview is very competitive. It’s not that transparent.
Yes, and it’s largely due to grade inflation. A 4.0 and 1500 SAT doesn’t mean the same thing as it did 20 years ago. Plus…who makes up these rankings? That’s like saying my Porsche is better than your Toyota Camry. I wouldn’t drive a Porsche even if I could afford it, because it’s a lousy fit for me.
Don’t get caught up in the prestige hype. Find an affordable school that fits you.
There are tons of former athletes in IB and MBB. Both elite consulting and finance like athletes. Just because you don’t know any doesn’t change that fact.
Appropriate tweet and thread from Jon Boeckenstedt (a leader in the admissions ecosystem who always keeps it real):
Hint: Most admissions offices are taking applications all summer most years. It’s just that if they say that, they’re afraid that people will think they’re not very good colleges, because we know how the good colleges work, right?
I think the current admit rates will force changes in admissions strategy by some. Applying ED to selective schools with a somewhat higher admit rate than the very top makes more sense than a HYPSM application often. Those not able to do that may find more appeal in their state school. I know plenty of students with auto admit to the public flagship who did more for a chance at a top school where they were rejected. They regretted it, and I bet an increasing number of kids just take the auto-admit and are done with the process.
I am saying something slightly different, which is that I am not seeing a problem with plenty of non-athletes getting into these top jobs. I am not saying that athletes don’t have it easier.
I guess it depends upon the club. At one college I know well, the top consulting and finance clubs have their own admission process with admit rates in the low teens. The finance club is serious, and the training is well-regarded in the industry to the point that recruiters from the likes of Goldman and Morgan Stanley host separate events just for club members. Quite often the recruiters are former alumni of the club themselves.