Not to mention that it’s an unbelievably long, heavy list which the average student would be hard-pressed to be able to tackle and submit quality applications in each case.
Props to that student for being to tackle that and not lose their sanity!
2 Likes
I agree that it shouldn’t take 20 years of admissions experience to figure out application strategy. The majority of applicants don’t have access to adequate college counseling, that is another part of the problem.
I also agree with momofmab, that although the NA student is a strong applicant, I expect some of the applications, because of the large volume, weren’t top notch in terms of essays. I can’t remember if that family was applying for fin aid, which could be an issue at the need aware schools. We will never know.
2 Likes
Very little is guaranteed in the world of college admissions (unless a school has a guaranteed admissions chart with the necessary qualifications). That’s why when I try and develop a balanced list, I start with these categories (category names/percentages fluctuate, but the idea is generally the same):
- Guaranteed (100%)
- Extremely Likely (80-99%)
- Likely (60-79%)
- Toss-Up (40-59%)
- Possible (20-39%)
- Less Likely (0-20%)
For the chances, I start off by looking at the college’s own admissions rate. That will then be the category that I start off putting the institution in. Then I look at test scores and GPA distributions to see how the student compares. If the student’s stats are better than the 75th percentile for both, then I am likely to move the school up one category, depending on where that initial admit rate fell in my percentage category. For schools whose admit rates place them in the Less Likely category, I keep them there, unless it’s an 18-19% acceptance rate and the student’s background seems particularly strong even by that category’s standards.
So, taking TCU as an example, it has a 47% acceptance rate which would place it in my Toss Up category. It has an SAT range of 1140-1345 and 40.2% of its students graduated in the top 10%. It did not share GPA information on its Common Data Set. I didn’t see an SAT/ACT score for the Native American student, so it may have been a test optional application. But I see that TCU only had 4 Native American students in its freshman class and 14 Native American undergrads total. So maybe they’re interested in improving that number. So do I think that his chances go from 47% to 60% or above? Frankly, I’d be hesitant, but if I decide, yes, I still put it in the Likely category, which is a 60-79% chance of acceptance. That still means that there’s a 20-40% chance of not being accepted, which is what happened here.
That’s why I believe in building a list starting with the schools likeliest for admission. TCU never would have been a safety for this student in my book. It wouldn’t be a safety for any student, in my book (barring Olympians, Nobel Prize winners, or similar). I don’t understand why so many applicants are intent upon focusing so much of their attention on schools that are unlikely to bear fruit. Sure, throw in a couple of apps if they’re really one’s “dream” school. But to me it’s just setting up a student for disappointment if the bulk of their list is going to result in a probable denial.
5 Likes
His ACT was 35. It seems likely the Nobel Prize winners would be denied for yield protection
1 Like
Residential or not, some students may see these (and other non-flagship state universities) as “beneath” them. That is what makes it seemingly difficult to find safeties for some students.
3 Likes
I saw where it was a predicted 35, but didn’t see any results shared. Thanks for letting me know. So TCU’s ACT range is 26-31 and 40.9% of students scored 30-36. With those stats I would have definitely moved it up one category from Toss-Up to Likely, but that still would have been a 20-40% chance of denial. Just the way that when a student applies to a Top 10 and his/her test scores are above the 75th percentile, that in no way makes it jump from a “Less Likely” school to a “Likely” one. Moving up one category of possibility, sure, but the raw admit rate data is the biggest impact on individuals’ chances when making applications. (Of course, I like to be conservative in my estimates and then be pleasantly surprised at the end rather than aggressive in the beginning and disappointed at the end.)
Then it’s a problem with the students and their expectations, not the admissions process.
5 Likes
This post is a perfect example of students applying to more and more schools.
Maybe I didn’t read the other post throughly, but from what I read, the student applied to 30+ schools because he had app fee waivers. Not to get too off tangent, but the Common App makes it easy to apply to 20 schools at least, the UC app covers nine schools, and the Coalition app offers more options.
Luckily, the student in question has great options! Hopefully he did a great job with his remaining apps and will have even more options.
I have no clue about the quality of that student’s apps and essays, but at least 22 of those applications required supplemental essays. It’s hard enough to do a good job on one application, let alone 22. My point is that being able to submit that many apps lures kids into thinking it’s easy to apply to a LOT of schools. They are not always understanding that applying and doing a good job with the application are two different things. It all fuels this huge increase in the numbers of apps being submitted overall.
5 Likes
You’re using that case to say students need to put in more applications?
No school with a 47% acceptance rate is a safety. One never knows what mistake there might be in the application essay or from a LOR that could turn a 50/50 school off - along with yield protection.
If anything, their situation fits my recommendation of having a rolling admission acceptance as a safety - then only applying where they might want to go more. Most kids at my school apply to 6 or fewer colleges. It works out for them too.
For that student, just with their acceptances so far (9 on the list), 8 will be rejected by them. Not at all good odds from the college’s perspective.
More apps in general will only increase yield protection.
4 Likes
It is not obvious which schools were actually realistic applications. The post only mentions a 4.3 weighted GPA, which does not actually say much about the academic record. Weighting systems vary all over the place, so a 4.3 weighted GPA could have come from as high as 4.0 unweighted GPA or as low as (or lower than) 3.3 unweighted GPA.
But also, the OP’s first post mentions mechanical engineering and environmental sciences. Some of the colleges do not have mechanical engineering*, so the student presumably applied listing environmental sciences as the major. But it is not mentioned which major the student applied for at colleges that have both. To the extent that some of the colleges’ admission selectivity varies by major, the choice of major listed on the application may have been a significant factor in the results. Note that only two in the admitted list have mechanical engineering, but it is not specified that the student applied with that major listed.
*No mechanical engineering: Abilene Christian (has general engineering), Bates, Denison, Dickinson, Pepperdine, Oregon, Amherst, Pomona, Texas Christian (has general engineering), Williams, UNC-CH.
3 Likes
Not just that 1 post. Many examples of kids I know IRL whose results seem odd: the Robertson scholar at Duke who was denied in-state at UVA, for example. Of course these anecdotes suggest acceptances are less predictable, and thus applicants will respond accordingly.
Maybe it is not happening more often. Maybe there are other explanations. But the perception, here, is that admissions is less predictable then it was 3 years ago, and families act on that.
3 Likes
Started a thread on what public universities should do:
I’ve been hearing about the competitiveness and unpredictability of college admissions for at least 10 years, including the requisite stories about valedictorians who didn’t get in anywhere. While covid and TO may have accelerated the trend, it isn’t new. I found my own kiddo’s results this year fairly predictable - 4 acceptances, 2 WL and (probably- still waiting) 2 rejections. Except for one school (the reach) his stats were well in range for all the schools he applied to. One WL (Pitt) was most likely due to applying too late combined with the huge surge in applications. Just because the majority of his schools were likely/toss-up doesn’t mean I assumed he would be accepted to all of them (although, that could have been the result). In my view, a student should have the bulk of their applications go to guaranteed/extremely likely/likely/toss-up schools. With that strategy a good number of acceptances should be the result. When a kid thinks only a T50 (or the equivalent LAC) is good enough, it gets dicier.
5 Likes
Many great posts on this thread.
I think that this may unfortunately be the new norm unless some/most of the following happens (purely speculative and so, it is only for as food for thought):
- No more TO at the T50 (this is tough now that it is introduced… there are also social/economic issues to consider)
- AOs are not primarily measured by the current metrics (#of applications, yield, etc.); and do not disclose the yield/admit rates, say, until 3-4 years post admission cycle
- (Well-thought of) college rankings are not based on some of the same admission related metrics
- Elimination of ED/ED2 and maybe EA at T50 (this only works if all would agree – I am not holding my breath)
- College Board puts a limit of, say, 10 applications max through the Common App (vs. 20)
- College Board and T20/T50 collectively offer an AI-supported early read option (at a fraction of the admission fee) to provide likelihood of admission or encouragement to apply (but one that does not preclude an application if that is what is an applicant still wishes to do) … enhanced Naviance-like and coming from the college, it may impact behavior and fine-tune expectations
- College Board allows ranking of applicant choices on the Common App (this may also be tough)
- No idea how to deal with FA issues, though…
I am sure that there would be many more remedies but most involve some sort of cooperation of the involved parties but the same involved parties seem to be benefiting from the “arms race”… and there may be some other legal or other issues…
So, again, this is probably the new norm.
3 Likes
Unless this comes with a system similar to Questbridge or medical residency matching, applicants will not want to reveal their rank orders ahead of admission decisions, since listing a college with a lower preference rank will be a negative point for “level of applicant’s interest” at colleges that consider that.
Yes, that is the messy part. Note that Questbridge and medical residency matching have all options with fairly similar financial implications. This is not true for general college admission in the US.
3 Likes
But I’ve read repeatedly on CC and elsewhere that there is no such thing as yield protection; that yield protection is just the rationalization of parents and kids who “don’t understand the process” or fail to grasp how many “equally talented kids are out there”? Are we saying yield protection is an aspect of the new normal, or is it still (supposedly) a myth?
The fact is that it is now commonly accepted wisdom that there “aren’t enough spots”. That’s nonsense. I went through the USN rankings and there are over 80,000 spots at T30 colleges. That’s without going into the LACs or top students who attend flagships or other schools for a variety of reasons. Pick a conservative high test score (say, 1450) and conservative class rank (say, top 5%) and there aren’t 80,000 kids with a 1450 and top 5% ranking in America, let alone 80,000 kids with a 1500 and top 1% ranking. That’s just how the numbers work out. People spend so much time on College Confidential that they now think a 1560 SAT is commonplace.
I’m certainly not saying grades and scores should be everything but there ARE spots for high stats kids if that’s how selective colleges actually wanted to distribute those spots. Instead, we get legacy admissions and sailing team recruits and the added vagaries of test-optional carving out so many slots that 80,000 has turned into something more like 30,000… and an admissions atmosphere in which many of the intra-high school decisions I’ve seen appear borderline arbitrary.
3 Likes
This probably depends upon who you ask. Some of us never thought it was a myth - AND - there are a lot of highly qualified students out there who are trying for the same schools.
Google tells me roughly 61,000 students get a 1450+ on the SAT and 25,000 get a 33+ on the ACT. Undoubtedly there’s some overlap, but not everyone takes both.
There are also international students, sports recruits, and more.
Then there’s the financial aspect.
It’s all part of the college picture and why even top students need a true safety.
1 Like
But nowhere near all of them get top grades. That’s why I said SAT and rank. With test-optional, grade inflation, and the elimination of class rank, elite admissions is largely about EC framing and an essay writing contest between 50,000 kids, all with an UW 4.0 GPA.
2 Likes
Neither. Yield protection is not a myth (at some, but not all, colleges), and is not new. However, rejection of high stats applicants is sometimes attributed to yield protection when the real reason was something else.
7 Likes
That may be true at the schools some of y’all send your kids too where “everyone” is good, but it’s extremely - very extremely - rare at the public school I went to and the one I work at to see such a score without the student being top in GPA as well. So rare I can’t even think of an example TBH.
In the schools where “everyone” is good - you’re also competing against each other for the same slots, another knock if one thinks any top school is a safety.
3 Likes