<p>“The real problem is when this increase won’t be able to keep up with staff and tuition becomes unreasonable”</p>
<p>…Umm, does anyone feel that currently tuition at the majority of schools is reasonable?</p>
<p>(…maybe it’s just me?)</p>
<p>I guess we all need to cross our fingers and hope that a deadly disease becomes introduced into the human population and kills half of the population. Acceptance rates will double! ;D</p>
<p>It’s a global market-the competition is absolutely stiffer, and with the best and brightest coming from all over the world, and adcom’s goal of having an ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse class, you can’t predict that that stellar grades and scores will guarantee an admission to a top school.</p>
<h1>familyof3boys</h1>
<p>Yes it is, American tuition is crazy. Studying in a high tier school in Geneva for example costs 3000$ a year roughly. I guess we are just willing to pay more as Americans.</p>
<p>@born2dance94, being a recruited athlete is a bigger hook than you can imagine. The athletic program brings in revenue for the college, and to do so, they need high quality players. Thus, these players are almost guaranteed admission, especially since they usually sign an official contract to play for the school before they even receive an acceptance. Coaches of highly selective schools do have guidelines, like the recruit has to have above a certain GPA and so on. These athletes would not be randomly applying to a bunch of reaches, as they usually zero in on one school before applying, so they would not be the under-qualified applicants being referred to. </p>
<p>Anyways, keep in mind that the increase in selectivity of ED schools cannot be fully attributed to more students applying to more colleges.</p>
<p>@keabie18 Yep, I totally understand, but I just think that athletics should be something to further bump your application, not help someone who wouldn’t have EVER gotten in otherwise. I know they say there is a minimum GPA and stats, etc, but unfortunately the truth is that if they want the kid, they’ll take them regardless.</p>
<p>Like I said, in my grade we just got a kid into a HYP school for a sport with an SAT under 1800 (taken multile times), no AP classes ever taken, and only 2 honors classes. His only EC is his sport, which admittedly he works very hard at, but I’m just trying to show that there are no other ECs. Could you seriously say he ever would have gotten in otherwise? And please don’t say it must have been his essay, because this is the kid who claims his personal motto is a sexualized Nike swoosh: “Just Do It.” He’s a really nice kid, but not HYP material.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite. More people are applying to more schools. The number of HS grads has peaked. (Doesn’t matter how many more you apply to, you can only attend one.) Of course, the slight decline in US high schoolers is easily offset by internationals, but most of them need aid.</p>
<p>Found an article today from the 1921 New York Times saying how Dartmouth’s acceptance rate was going to dip below 50% for the first time ever. Crazy how times have changed…</p>
<p>@aeropostmaster</p>
<p>I just laughed SO HARD!! 
50% is considered “not selective” now. Literally…I wish it was 1921 again…oh well.</p>
<p>More people are going to college so more competition I guess. </p>
<p>Sent from my Desire HD using CC App</p>
<p>You have to remember that the 50% number was also from a significantly self-selected applicant pool. Even if you were the validictorian, if you went to the average public school you didn’t even consider applying. Hence, there were definitely still hoops to jump through for selective college admissions.</p>
<p>Still, I wonder if in 20 years the present ~10% admit rates will look generous…</p>
<p>I was thinking the same thing. There has to be a leveling off point for schools that are dipping under 20% now.</p>
<p>My school has a 3.2/1650 kid who got into to Stanfird</p>
<p>Guess how?</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^</p>
<p>much better spelling than most of his peers?</p>
<p>In ten years, we will read that the Class of 2026 had it a lot tougher than the Class of 2016. From my perspective, the hysteria is just that! The statistics do not tell the whole story, and this is because they never do. </p>
<p>There is NO evidence whatsover that the applicants in 2004 had it easier than the applicants in 2012. Admitted students do not present a better pedigree than in the past. Test scores and GPA have not increased by much, if any at all. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the process of applying has become much simpler and much easier with more programs than ever and more valid information available through the internet. For instance, ten years ago, there was no College Confidential, there was no Questbridge, and there were few solid assistance resources. Ten years ago, financial aid was stingier and harder to navigate.</p>
<p>Yep, more applications have fueled a concept for a higher selectivity, but that is all there is. And, schools such as Smith or Oberlin still admit waaaay above 50 percent of their ED applicants. </p>
<p>The funnel might have gotten a bit narrower at its very end, but it is extremely wide open at its bottom.</p>
<p>
That might be true, but I believe that’s just because the statistis were already up against the upper bound in 2004: when the median stats are already so high, there’s nowhere to go. Howver, the number of applicants applying with those statistics (ex. look at number of 2400s in the past decade) has significantly increased. Thus, admission rates decrease and lots more subjective decisions (on applicants “intangibles”) are being made.</p>
<p>Do you really think a student with a 2360, 4.0, and excellent ECs would’ve been rejected by Princeton a decade ago? I really don’t buy this idea that admission rates are being driven by unqualified apllicants. Quite simply, due to the influx of high quality applicants, admissions officers are simply admitting on gut feelings and highly subjective factors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None of us could answer that question. However, there is ample evidence that such student would stand a BETTER chance in 2010 than in 2000. Why? There are more spots open at Princeton and obtaining a 2360 score has become easier, even if the 2400 was not applicable ten years ago. </p>
<p>Want to see an official comparison in the last decade? First numbers are from ten years ago, and the second numbers from the Class of 2014. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ten years ago, there were 1677 admitted students, in 2010 that number was 2301. In 2000, there were no waitlist admits. In 2010, there were a total of 164! Sat Verbal went up 10 and 20 points in the past ten years for verbal; went up 10 points at the 25 percentile for Math and lower at the 75th percentile. </p>
<p>Accordingly, are you still sure it was harder to get admitted at Princeton in 2010 … statistically speaking?</p>
<p>
What ample evidence? The evidence which you have provided merely shows that number of applicants has far outpaced the growth in number of spots available. How is this indicative of a growth in openness?</p>
<p>Perhaps you should read my post again.</p>
<p>@xiggi, the mere fact that it is easier to get a high SAT score means it is harder to get in! 15 years ago or even a decade ago, a 2300+ or above (or its equivalent on the 1600 scale) was so uncommon that those kids basically had their pick of schools. Now it is so ubiquitous that it means nothing. Stats and ECs that years ago would have made someone competitive for HYP now are expected for people applying to good state schools. So although the means to accomplish better stats may have become easier, the chance of someone getting into a top school becomes slimmer because the “INCREDIBLE stats” of a decade ago are now merely “sufficient stats.”</p>
<p>^^ That is the kool-aid story. It might sound good at the sidelines of games or at cocktail parties, but there is no evidence of such changes in the enrolled student pools.</p>
<p>As far as "the “INCREDIBLE stats” of a decade ago are now merely “sufficient stats” I would invite you to check the stories I was reading when I joined CC. At that time, there were reports of the debacle of the early admission at Yale in 2004, and the number of rejected students. There are no reasons to believe the same students would NOT be admitted in the Yale Class of 2016. Actually, considering the career of some, there would plenty of reasons to think that Yale goofed! </p>
<p>Strong applicants did not magically show up in the past three years. And positing that there are MORE of them is entirely speculative.</p>