<p>Well, since this year is the end of the baby boom, we have it the worst, or possibly second worst due to the economic crisis. In a few years, top colleges will not be as competitive as now. Am I the only one who is ****ed because of this?</p>
<p>PS: I'm in an annoyed mood.</p>
<p>I know, it really sucks but hey, when is life ever fair?</p>
<p>At least you know your acceptance is worth something..more than it was, and more than it will be! :)</p>
<p>what do you mean by "this year is the end of the baby boom"?</p>
<p>^ We are statistically the last generation/year of Baby Boomers' kids, meaning the population of high school graduates is highest, meaning the most people ever are applying to college, meaning acceptance rates are going to be disgustingly low for top tier schools (less than 5% for HYPS).</p>
<p>They still let dumb people into top colleges, if you have a hook.
I dated a girl last year who is currently a freshman at Princeton (with a sub-1400 SAT and a double legacy)..
My friend with a 1590 didn't get into Princeton, on the other hand, obviously he didn't have any hooks.
They are both partying hard at their respective colleges though (he goes to Duke), so chill out!</p>
<p>^ It's not just that your friend didn't have any hooks. His ECs and essays probably weren't up to par.</p>
<p>Do you think that would also apply to the class of 2011? Say, if the economic recession still continues.</p>
<p>Class population-wise, class of 09 is definitely the largest, so i think class of '11 will definitely be smaller. Economy-wise, i'd say things will stay the same, public universities like the UC's will probably keep their enrollment cut policies.</p>
<p>It's not going to get any easier. Here is my FAQ on the subject: </p>
<p>DEMOGRAPHICS </p>
<p>Population trends in the United States are not the only issue influencing the competitiveness of college admission here. The children already born show us what the expected number of high school students are in various years, but the number of high school students in the United States, which is expected to begin declining in a few years, isn't the whole story. </p>
<p>First of all, if more students who begin high school go on to college, there will be more applicants to college even with a declining number of high school students. And that is the trend in the United States and worldwide. </p>
<p>Second, colleges in the United States accept applications from all over the world, so it is quite possible that demographic trends in the United States will not be the main influence on how many students apply to college. The cohorts of high-school-age students are still increasing in size in some countries (NOT most of Europe). </p>
<p>Third, even if the number of applicants to colleges overall stays the same, or even declines, the number of applicants to the most competitive colleges may still increase. The trend around the world is a "flight to quality" of students trying to get into the best college they can in increasing numbers, and increasing their consensus about which colleges to put at the top of their application lists. I do not expect college admission to be any easier for my youngest child than for my oldest child, even though she is part of a smaller birth cohort in the United States. </p>
<p>And now I would add to this that at the very most selective colleges that have just announced new financial aid plans, next year's (and the following year's) crush of applicants will be larger than ever. When colleges that are already acknowledged to be great colleges start reducing their net cost down to what the majority of families in the United States can afford, those colleges will receive more applications from all parts of the United States, and very likely from all over the world. </p>
<p>The Economist magazine published a brief article about these trends in April 2008. </p>
<p>University</a> admissions in America | Accepted | The Economist</p>
<p>^ I dont disagree with tokenadult but I'd add some caveats. First, what he says about schools that guarantee financial aid applies only to a very small number of schools, representing a tiny fraction of the whole. Most colleges don't promise to meet 100% of demonstrated financial need, and of those that do, the award often includes work/study and loans that are not really "aid" so much as a means of self-help---you still pay for that portion of your education, it's just that they help you find the job and/or arrange the borrowing. </p>
<p>Second, most colleges--including many of the best LACs---draw primarily from a local or regional applicant base. Even many of the better Northeastern LACs, for example, draw 50% to 67% of their student body from the Northeast---a region where the decline in the college-age population is expected to be especially precipitous. Those schools are going to need to recruit more heavily outside their home regions to make up the difference, and that portends some easing of competition for admissions both in their home regions and for applicants from other regions. And this may not be easy for them, because very few of them have the kind of instant national and international name recognition that HYPSM, the other Ivies, and even some big-time sports schools have outside their home regions.</p>
<p>Third, even where the college-age population is growing, there are demographic reasons to question whether we can expect college participation rates to continue to rise. Latinos are the fastest-growing population segment in many parts of the country, and will make up a larger share of HS- and college-aged people in the years to come. But so far, college participation rates are markedly lower for Latinos than for the white middle class kids who will represent a declining share of the college-age demographic. That could change, and it could be partially offset by a rising Asian-American population, a group with exceptionally high college participation rates, and by increased international admissions. But that all remains to be seen.</p>
<p>Bottom line, it will be harder than ever to get into HYPSM and a small handful of other schools. It may become harder to get into the flagship public universities, at least in the short term, as most financially strapped families make a "flight to value." But I'd expect that a lot of pretty decent colleges, especially small liberal arts colleges, are going to need to make a big push to fill the available seats, not only in the current economic downturn but also quite possibly in the years to come, given the demographic changes on the horizon. So bottom line, I think the picture is far more mixed, and far more complicated, than tokenadult's post lets on.</p>
<p>I'd have to agree with bclintonk. Certain schools have become very hot in NJ that (I think) were basically low on the radar 10 years ago- Vanderbilt, Elon, Richmond and while Georgetown was always hot it is now not even a sure thing for valedictorians. </p>
<p>I think they are became very hot for different reasons and the question is which ones will be able to sustain the demographic changes. </p>
<p>FYI-- OP, I think this was probably the worst year for ED applicants but I think a lot of RD private college applications will be pleasantly surprised in April (but not state school apps)</p>
<p>Hey, it could be worse! You got a stock market crash that is eliminating much of the competition at many schools. Of course, this is only a benefit if your own funds haven't suffered much.</p>
<p>I don't think there's any sure way to know whether college admissions will be easier, harder, or the same over the next several years. It does appear that the traditional body of northeast, white kids will decline over time and that for this population, especially those paying full-freight, competition may ease. Schools need a certain number of these kids and the ability to pay may itself become a hook of sorts.</p>
<p>If the economy continues to worsen, the bottleneck to the private top tier schools may also ease, even as the competition for state schools increases. Indeed, there are schools this year that have seen applications decline and have extended application deadlines in an effort to attract more applicants. </p>
<p>As for the growing international focus of U.S. colleges, remember that this works both ways. More American kids are looking overseas to complete their university studies than ever before.</p>
<p>I don't doubt that competition for the five schools that always seem to come up on this forum will continue to be fierce. For those who are willing to look beyond, it may get easier. Maybe.</p>
<p>"It's not just that your friend didn't have any hooks. His ECs and essays probably weren't up to par."</p>
<p>To the one who wrote this, in all seriousness "up to par" sounds like a horrible choice of words. Admissions officers in top schools, according to someone who seems quite well read on the subject, look very carefully at the application, judge what <em>kind</em> of class they want, and admit classes they believe will contribute <em>as a whole</em> to society. I mean, so your 1590 fellow may be wonderful at academics, do great elsewhere, but it's unfair to him to judge his EC's as "not up to par" for not getting into top schools. For all you know, he just didn't have something or the other admissions officers were looking for It's very hard to say, and we shouldn't presume to know more than we do about the process.</p>
<p>welcome to the club man.</p>