Much2learn: but the number of accepted students is still much smaller than the number of applicants. If the schools accept even double the number of kids than in the past to meet their yield, that is still a much smaller number than the number of applicants. Thus, mathematically a 50% increase in the number of admitted students has a much smaller impact on the admission rate than the number of applicants. I did that analysis with the Duke numbers. Dropping yield from 70% to 50% would change the admissions rate by 3.5%. If the number of applications doubled, however the admit rate would drop by 50% - a much bigger change.
@Itisjustschool That is exactly it.
It isn’t the increase in applications per student that is causing this impact. It is the change in behavior of top students. As they apply to more and more schools, the yields are relatively stable at the top schools, but they are falling at weaker/backup schools, so the average yield isn’t changing, but it is being reallocated among the participants. That means that the strategy of top schools to encourage more students to apply is not entirely marketing driven. In addition to driving down their acceptance rate to boost prestige, they are also actually finding more outstanding candidates in the pile.
Yes he is prepared to pay full price at 3 schools.
@ItsJustSchool, actually more HS grads are going on to college compared to 3 decades ago.
@PurpleTitan, more grads are going to college over the long term (and perhaps more internationals, as well), but there are population swings, increased capacity (Liberty University, one of the largest private universities in the world, did not exist 3 decades ago), and other factors to consider.
More students going on to college over the long term is not what I was addressing. I was addressing year-to-year variations. Also, how do YOU explain Sweet Briar and Mills College (among others) struggles despite being good schools?
You really can’t apply broad averages to the demographic shifts and the specifics of the admissions process that are underway.
@ItsJustSchool, year-to-year variations aren’t that big. No school has seen it’s acceptance rate drop from 50% to 10% in one year.
Over decades, the lower-end LACs and Catholic schools have certainly seen their popularity drop while the top research universities (some publics as well as privates) have seen their popularity rise.
However, the LACs are tiny, while universities like USC, NYU, UMich, the UC’s as well as BU, Northeastern, and GWU are definitely harder to get in to compared to 3 decades ago yet these are all big schools. Giant schools, in fact. UMich takes in more freshmen than 10 LACs added together. So there are more kids who want to go to college now.
I found some of these articles interesting. The first (from 2014) argues that it is, in fact, no more difficult to be accepted to selective schools now (or in 2004, to be accurate) than it was in the 1990’s:
The other (from 2001) is an interesting analysis of how ED favors increasing the quality of student admitted, as well as the selectivity of the school (albeit by disadvantaging the student), and shows how University of Pennsylvania used this approach to advantage:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/the-early-decision-racket/302280/
Of course, it depends on what you mean by “selective school”. For example, in California, it is much harder to get into UCB or UCLA or CPSLO than it used to be. But if “selective school” is defined as “any UC” or “any CSU”, then it is not harder to get in than it used to be.
@ItsJustSchool, 2004 is also not “now”. In college admission terms, it was a different era:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm
Cornell, Northwestern, JHU, and ND all admitted around 30%.
UChicago, Vandy, CMU, and Emory all admitted about 40%.
Even UMich, which I consider a near-Ivy, could truly be a safety for many kids as they admitted over 60%. Grinnell took in over 60% as well.
What are the admit rates for the schools I listed now?
^^exactly! When we was trying to find colleges for my hi stats; quirky kid who was graduating in 2006, we figured Chicago was then a “match” school -based on their acceptance rate of 40% in 2005. Then in 2007 [?] or sometime thereabouts, they decided to start accepting CA applications and …BOOM, the number of applicants sky-rocketed and their acceptance rate plummeted.
USC’s acceptance rate in 2005 was above 40%- that was his “safety” .
Its not anyone’s “safety” anymore. …
All because more students CAN NOW apply to more colleges , because of the Common App, with just a keyboard stroke.
“Jim Hull, senior policy analyst at the National School Board Association’s Center for Public Education, says their 2010 report shows that it was no more difficult for most students to get into college in 2004 than it was in 1990’s.”
Good God man! The millennials - the offspring of the American BabyBoom generation- were just being born in the late 1990’s! And did not start to apply to colleges until the middle of the last decade, after 2004.
The demographics f how many students were applying to colleges started to really accelerate after 2005 AND, in addition, thousands of the smartest Asian students also started to apply to US colleges at the same time.
The result?
LOTS more applicants for the same # of openings at US colleges. And that trend has only increased.
Thats the reality.
@ucbalumnus, actually, if you look at the link I posted, CalPoly-SLO had an insanely low admit rate in 2004 (about the same as HYPSM).
However, CPSLO probably did not have anywhere near as strong an applicant pool as HYPSM.
Quotes from the 2014 article referenced above:
The article implies that getting into a competitive (i.e. “equivalent”) school to your first choice, or your first choice, is no harder than it was before; but getting into a specific target school (e.g., your first choice) from within a group of similar schools is becoming more difficult every year.
Does he have the same expectations for all three of you? Do your sisters feel the same way?
Why is this college so “desirable” in the eyes of many high school students? It is located at a not so desirable city (small city = boring.) I do not get it.
I would rather go to UCSB or UCSD or UC Irvine (Cal or UCLA could be even better located) instead of this college just based on the desirability of location alone.
Engineering focused? Most of above-average colleges (including SJC and University of Santa Clara) will serve the students well but they are better choices in my opinion, based on the desirability of locations. The students need to live there for 4 or sometimes even 5 years. The “study” or academics is only a part of the student life in those 4-5 years. Why do you want to pick such an “uninterested” place? (To be sure, I agree CPSLO is a perfectly fine college. I just have a second thought about its location.)
It may be a “reach” school for many California applicants for whom the good-financial-aid private schools and many of the UCs are seen as too selective, and do not want to go to a commuter-based school that most of the other CSUs are, or pay a lot of money at a private school whose financial aid is not that good. Also, as a CSU, it is generally seen as a school for students who want to be ready to work at graduation more so than UCs and other highly selective schools (yes, this viewpoint is anathema to many posting on these forums, but is probably what a majority of college students are looking at as the purpose of attending college).
It may be a “reach” school for many California applicants for whom the good-financial-aid private schools and many of the UCs are seen as too selective, and do not want to go to a commuter-based school that most of the other CSUs are, or pay a lot of money at a private school whose financial aid is not that good. Also, as a CSU, it is generally seen as a school for students who want to be ready to work at graduation more so than UCs and other highly selective schools (yes, this viewpoint is anathema to many posting on these forums, but is probably what a majority of college students are looking at as the purpose of attending college).
Why is this college so “desirable” in the eyes of many high school students?
THIS is why-
IT’S CHEAP!
2015/2016 Cal Poly Student Costs
Total Annual Tuition and Fees–$9,000
Total of “Price to Attend Cal Poly” plus “Other Estimated Costs” Undergraduate:
California
Undergraduate
On/Off Campus=$25,467
Thanks for the explanation.
Both (being a non-commuter-based school and being cheap) seem to be good reason. Not many parents live in SLO and this could be a plus for the college age students. Both parents and their child get what they want.