<p>A contrarian view on increased selectivity. My thesis: while more ECs and APs/enriched courses are necessary now, the same kind of kids largely end up going to the same kind of schools as some years ago. I’ve seen the yearly list of schools attended by graduates of the high end country day that my family is connected to for the past 35 years. It hasn’t changed very much. The kids at the country day have not gotten all that brighter in order to maintain the same profile in the schools they attend, although they have had to enrich their applications. Consider the following:</p>
<li><p>Increased SAT medians vastly overstate the increase in selectivity. As we all know, the scores have been recalibrated up, but even if you just look at percentiles, an increase in the SAT percentile of a school’s median student does not reflect a smarter kid. The demographics of those taking the SAT have changed vastly from 30 years ago, when far fewer high school graduates went on to college. The universe of SAT takers includes more marginal students today. I can’t tell you whether the 85th percentile in 1977 is the equivilent of the 88th, 92nd or 94th percentile in 2007, but I can tell you that it is not still the 85th percentile. This has been going on forever. In the 1950s, when only fairly elite students took the SAT, the percentiles were massively different from today’s. Test prep is also raising scores.</p></li>
<li><p>Increased applications from students greatly lowers the admit percentages. When students apply to 10-12 schools instead of the 3-4 that they did 30 years ago, they add a lot of reaches more than safeties. There’s not much point in applying to 4 safeties if they are really safe. All of these students trolling around with multiple reaches lowers the admissions percentages.</p></li>
<li><p>It’s natural to perceive that you have it tougher than people used to have it and deem it unfair! The admissions world was turned upside down in the mid-60s when the top schools started deemphasizing social connections, and there have been articles in the papers with students bemoaning competition ever since.</p></li>
<li><p>Many more schools have made the SAT optional or given the choice between submitting SAT I, ACT, or multiple SAT IIs. Students, in turn, are much more likely to take both the SAT and ACT and submit the best one. If 10-20% of an incoming class submitted something other than the SAT I, it’s safe to say that they would have represented the rump of the class in that regard and excluding them raises the median.</p></li>
<li><p>Grade inflation in high school overstates the increase in selectivity. All manner of giggering with class ranks by high schools (changing which students are included in the rankings, multiple valedictorians and other honors etc) to create the perception of high rankings for students does the same.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Ultimately, I do agree that admissions have become somewhat more difficult. With a vastly larger upper middle class in this country, there are more people who are conscious of and wish to attend elite schools. My point is that the increase in selectivity is not nearly as great as many people think.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Students, in turn, are much more likely to take both the SAT and ACT and submit the best one. If 10-20% of an incoming class submitted something other than the SAT I, it's safe to say that they would have represented the rump of the class in that regard and excluding them raises the median.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have an indication that this is actually happening? That students take both without sending score to their desired schools, wait until both results are in to see which one is more advantageous, and the pay to have just the one test's scores sent?</p>
<p>
[quote]
With a vastly larger upper middle class in this country, there are more people who are conscious of and wish to attend elite schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All the trends you suggested I agree with. I do, however, think two things account for the increased selectivity on top of the things you suggested. 1) The larger college bound population as a whole. 2) Much more "brand-nameism" in college selection. Being an advocate for fit exceeding overall reputation in the selection process, I think this is a sad thing.</p>
<p>It may be overstated, but the trend is clearly there at least for the relatively strong brand name schools.</p>
<p>I think pre-test coaching, taking the test multiple times, and taking both SAT and ACT is much more common than it was 20 years ago. All that work should be worth some improvement. It would tend to leave more kids not caught up in the mania behind.</p>
<p>All very good points, and I would agree to some extent, but at the same time middle-class baby boomers combined with unchanged or even smaller amount of spots actually available at colleges HAS made entrance into college far more difficult today than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago - when one could enter Hahhvahhd with 1 or 2 AP scores, today the norm has been pushed far beyond that. Add the more recent stress on EC into the fray, and, well...</p>
<p>But yes, the perceived increase of selectivity has definitely been overhyped. And for very different reasons I'd personally argue we're creating LESS, rather than more, competent, intelligent and creative students coming out of the mandatory schooling factory. </p>
<p>Rather, the new standards for admission into top schools and greater emphasis on college education (a B.A. now becoming almost mandatory, whereas it used to be a privilege the average person could do without) as a requirement for better-paying jobs has created more and more specific expectations that create very uniform students.</p>
<p>The upper middle class has grown exponentially over the last 30 years .. therefore, as you said, many more HS students are are making goals to attend CHYMPS. It's simply supply and demand - the average class size at elite colleges hasn't grown much over time, but the # of applicants has. For these reasons, applicants have to work harder and harder and take more and more APs in order to stay competitive with their peers who are aiming for the same schools.</p>
<p>It's not just the growth in the upper middle class which is certainly a part, it's the information age. Everyone in every corner of the earth has now heard of the ivy league. Class in America is based on education and lots more people are chasing the best. It's also a more global world. Bottom line, it is harder to get in.</p>
<p>Yes, I acknowledged that admissions have become somewhat more competative, but my core point is that, for all the detailed reasons, the increase in selectivity is not close to the degree which many would have you believe. </p>
<p>In fact, admissions competition may have gone down a bit at many schools when the post-1964 "baby bust" turned 18 during the 1980s, and it took a while for it to recover.</p>
<p>Some facts to help put things in perspective:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>According to numbers that came directly from the executive director of the Common Application, the average number of CA's per student has stayed pretty much the same for the last few years. </p></li>
<li><p>The UCLA Higher Education Research Institue does an annual survey of over 260,000 freshmen, and the average number of colleges applied to by student has also stayed fairly consistent there. The majority of students apply to less than 5 colleges. Yet, the same study also found that 2/3 of freshmen say they're attending their first or second choice school - another number that hasn't shifted dramatically in the last five years. </p></li>
<li><p>According to data gathered from colleges, the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC), the national college admissions rate for all colleges remains at 70%</p></li>
<li><p>There are over 2,600 colleges and universities in the U.S. Of those, around 5% (or 136 or so colleges) reject more applicants than they admit. That hasn't changed much either.</p></li>
<li><p>By the way, according to the U.S. Department of Education, the number of graduating high school seniors going on to college is increasing about 1% a year, so, even though there is a demographic bulge in the teenage group, in reality the number of students going to colleges isn't hugely different from year to year.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>What HAS changed, in my opinion, is public perception. People increasingly perceive of college as a scarce commodity. While it is true that it is harder to get into SOME colleges now, there is no shortage of spots in the classroom for those who want to attend. </p>
<p>The other change in public perception, especially on internet boards like this one, is that scarcity is the only measure of quality. There are a lot of people who think those 5% of colleges are somehow the only place where one can get a good education or not be doomed to a life of servitude. Sorry, but that simply isn't true - the quality of education at most of the colleges and universities in the U.S. (even-gasp-third tier ones) has never been better. But, if you're only applying to those 5% who reject more students than they admit, you WILL think getting into college is much, much harder these days. Look beyond those 5%, and you'll still find plenty of very good admissions values - great colleges where you don't have to sell your soul to get in.</p>
<p>So, Willow, you're right on target with your posts. Good job.</p>
<p>mj93, what is chymps? I am guessing columbia, harvard, yale, mit, princeton, stanford. Never heard it put that way, always HYPSM. Why and how did you come up with this? Makes me feel good, my son will attend Columbia in the fall, got rejected by HYP.</p>
<p>I believe there is no doubt that the competition is only much harder at a tiny fraction of schools but those schools are the same 20 the top kids all over the world want. 20 years ago people hadn't heard of these schools in India and North Dakota. They went to the best in their region. Airfare was too expensive for most to contemplate going far. Now we all know about ITT and kids from Wisconsin apply to Pomona and kids from Georgia apply to Oxbridge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
mj93, what is chymps? I am guessing columbia, harvard, yale, mit, princeton, stanford. Never heard it put that way, always HYPSM. Why and how did you come up with this? Makes me feel good, my son will attend Columbia in the fall, got rejected by HYP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The C stands for Caltech. These 6 schools top the US News rankings. The acronym was made famous by a thread in the cafe.</p>