It seems to be the case. Also, doesn’t U Chicago not publish a common data set?
I haven’t heard of any negative trends concerning URM applicants. Incidentally, our local public HS, which has a very homogeneous student population, seems to have done very well with it’s EA/ED acceptance rates this year. - at least compared its own historical trend.
1 Like
@westchesterdad22 , I agree with you – there are things that admissions is expected to deliver in making up a class. It’s everything from financial mix, diversity, majors, athletic teams, development/legacy etc. The "mandate " may shift from year to year, but the process does not.
ED is used to build the frame. There is a limit to % of class filled which is determined by a lot of things, all part of their overall enrollment strategy.
When a good candidate is deferred in the ED round, it is because the AOs, having built the frame of the class, want to see what this kid brings to fill it out while also looking at all other applicants. The “spectacular” kid mentioned may look just like a dozen recruited athletes, except that he’s not filling a roster spot. Or any number of legacy applicants except that their parents are major donors. So while he’s a great kid, he is not helping them fill in all the required puzzle pieces. He is more of the same. (This, btw, was my kid at his top choice schools. Perfectly good candidate but for most of the boxes he checked, there was someone else who checked them AND some other the schools needed.) But it’s possible that spectacular kid will still be a good fit in the RD round. But they need to see that pool. Because maybe a bunch of kids that meet other priorities want the same major he does, and admissions also needs to balance that.This really is one of those things that is beyond his control.
But he is not being deferred because he’s a slam dunk in the RD round and they want to improve yield. I think they know full well that while having applied ED, he has better odds than some of matriculating, they are running the risk of losing him too. Clearly, they are comfortable with that.
I have friends who have worked as AOs at Penn and many more who have been at other schools. It really is a puzzle to be solved each year - figuring out how to deliver x freshman matriculants that meet all their institutional priorities. It feels very personal when you are going through it. And as all the prep to college placement threads suggest, people want to/think they can control it more than they can. The good news is that there are sooo many awesome schools out there, and a kid who engages while there will have a great outcome.
12 Likes
This is a great answer, and one that could be similarly applied to the BS application process. There’s no ED/EA round of course, but in terms of constructing the community intentionally, the parallel is there for sure.
5 Likes
I agree completely with what you said. My example was a kid whose stats were legitimately perfect- perfect ACT score, top 2 or 3 in a prestigious private school class, all-state athlete, etc. whose parents also both happened to be legacy AND happened to contribute well, well north of six figures in contributions (not to mention sitting on panels, etc.) over the past decade plus. That kid historically has been an auto admit to Penn. They changed over admissions directors this year, didn’t publish legacy status, yada yada. My point simply was that the 2021-2022 admissions cycle is VERY different for many schools, and it seems Penn is actively different with a hammer.
2 Likes
This post should be pinned somewhere. I am so tired of people blaming athletes, or yield protection or some other systemic issue instead of realizing that what @gardenstategal wrote is what is happening.
One of my kids was not as tippy top as the Penn example (by a long shot!) – he applied to four reaches, and got into two. Denied at Davidson and Colorado College, admitted to Macalester and Emory. Another son only got into two safeties and a match. They are fine! Actually, they are more than fine!
It really is OK if your kid doesn’t get into a t10 or t20 (or whatever) school – understanding that it is disappointing in the moment.
6 Likes
There have been threads about this before with specific numbers for prior years. Chicago admissions do stand out as abnormal. Some example stats from the other thread are below:
Chicago Unhooked (no “distinction”) Admit Rate by Weighted GPA + Rank in Class
4.3+ (top 25% of class): 2014-16 = 10/28=36%, 2017-19 = 15/38=39%
4.1-4.3 (upper 56th to 75th): 2014-16 = 8/32=25%, 2017-19 = 14/30=47%
3.9-4.1 (middle 40th to 56th) : 2014-16 = 11/39=28%, 2017-19 = 4/19=21%
3.7-3.9 (lower 24th to 40th): 2014-16 = 4/12=33%, 2017-19 = 5/11=44%
Below 3.7 (bottom 24% of class): 2014-16 = 1/6=17%*, 2017-19 = 0/5=0%
Most Applied to Colleges: 4.3+ GPA ~= Top Quarter of Class
1 . Stanford: 14/77 accepted overall, 7/62 = 11% unhooked
2. Harvard : 15/75 accepted overall, 6/62 = 10% unhooked
3. UCB: 50/66 accepted overall, 49/65 = 75% unhooked
4. Yale: 16/62 accepted overall, 11/50 = 22% unhooked
5. UCLA: 47/60 accepted overall, 46/59 = 78% unhooked
…
*. WUSTL: 18/39 accepted overall, 16/35 = 46% unhooked
*. Chicago: 15/38 accepted overall, 13/35 = 37% unhookedMost Applied to Colleges: 4.1 to 4.3 GPA ~= 55th to 75th Percentile Rank
1 . UCB: 22/56 accepted, 21/54 = 38% unhooked
2. Penn: 13/48 accepted, 4/37 = 11% unhooked
3. UCLA: 12/46 accepted, 11/44 = 25% unhooked
4. Brown: 6/43 accepted, 1/35 = 3% unhooked
5. WUSTL: 14/41 accepted, 11/38 = 29% unhooked
…
*. Chicago: 14/30 accepted overall, 12/25 = 48% unhookedMost Applied to Colleges: 3.7 to 4.1 GPA ~= 25th to 55th Percentile Rank
1 . WUSTL: 30/77 accepted, 17/57 = 30% unhooked
2. Michigan: 35/74 accepted, 28/63 = 44% unhooked
3. UCB: 11/73 accepted , 10/69 = 15% unhooked
4. USC: 25/70 accepted, 10/47 = 21% unhooked
5. Emory: 16/63 accepted, 8/50 = 16% unhooked
…
*. Chicago: 9/30 accepted overall, 6/24 = 25% unhookedMost Applied to Colleges: Below 3.7 GPA ~= Bottom Quarter of Class
1 . USC 27/98 accepted, 4/49 = 8% unhooked
2. NYU 55/82 accepted, 35/55 = 64% unhooked
3. Michigan: 13/74 accepted, 9/45 = 20% unhooked
3. Tulane: 40/74 accepted, 30/53 = 57% unhooked
5. UCLA: 8/57 accepted, 3/52 = 6% unhooked
…
*. WUSTL: 8/42 accepted overall, 2/29 = 7% unhooked
*. Chicago: 0/5 accepted overall, 0/2 = 0% unhooked
1 Like
Our kiddo was not a legacy, but had athletics (non-recruit because not interested in doing golf at the collegiate level), strong stats & top test scores, published research and high impact EC’s….NO INTEREST in applying to Ivies…none….Kiddo said “Why bother?”……
As I have posted earlier (maybe on another thread), a well known AO at aa D3 NE college, “Your application will reek of privilege”. Didn’t bother to apply ED or RD to that school, which had previously been top of the list. Good thing, nobody got in ED from the class. The lesson here IMHO is that some schools want certain prep school kids and others might take it as a negative if you’re unhooked because of many reasons.
5 Likes
100% correct. The chase for prestige in college has VERY little to do with success post-college. That said, I do think it is interesting to view the shift of admissions offices in real time. We have several ex-Ivy AOs either in our HS admissions office or advising students adjacent to it, and they are all confirming that the last 2 years there has been a tremendous change in focus. The admissions offices are absolutely not “holistic”. They are laser targeted on building a very specific class. Students are very quickly either considered or discarded based in many instances on factors out of their personal control. Once you pass that threshold (which either did not exist or existed much more loosely in the past), you are THEN considered as before.
6 Likes
This corresponds to when a large number of schools went test optional. Are these 2 phenomena related?
I think there’s absolutely a correlation. Historically prestigous HS prepped their kids more effectively for standardized testing. Additionally, colleges care VERY much about ranking, and average test scores played a big part in ranking methodology. So for schools that wanted to diversify…it was tougher to do so without continuing to accept an inordinate amount of prestige.
Now they no longer have their hands tied in that regard. It must simultaneously be much easier to create a diverse class while also being impossible to be “fair” to every applicant.
2 Likes
I think so. The AOs don’t have to worry about keeping SAT scores up, which the guides and people reading them rely too heavily on. They have cover for going after the more compelling students who aren’t top test-takers. SAT scores track with high SES, so it tracks with prep school students.
Read somewhere like Higher Education (don’t remember) that many AOs want TO to continue indefinitely because it frees them up. There’s been some threads on TO on the big board that are relevant to this discussion. I should track them down …
1 Like
Jinx!
2 Likes
Also, TO is very, very, very good for the finances of the top schools. Not that they need it, but couple of million extra every year is a couple of million extra.
TO is the greatest thing for colleges since the federal loan program was created.
1 Like
Is that another way of saying that colleges intentionally want to increase the number of disadvantaged special populations who matriculate at their school, namely URMs, first generation college student, and lower socioeconomic status? Since college admissions is a zero-sum game, other groups like many of the participants of this forum are being squeezed by the methods they are using.
2 Likes
I am super curious how this year plays out, if only I could be munching popcorn from the sidelines! I just wish kiddo wasn’t having to navigate the changes midstream. It has meant a lot more apps and a lot more uncertainty. We are good with him attending any school he applied to, and he is already in somewhere he really likes, so it is all good. But the stress is still there.
From a “what is a boarding school kid to do now” admissions standpoint, I wonder what the prep schools are going to say differently. Back when kiddo applied to prep school forever (5 years) ago, the advice was “be well-rounded!” Now it appears the spike is everything for the unhooked. The bigger schools have always been able to afford spikey kids, but the smaller schools need kids who can wear many hats on their well-rounded heads. I am guessing prep school admissions are going to change. And the schools’ approach is going to differ, too.
As for kiddo - he wouldn’t do anything differently, I don’t think, he except maybe developing a more obvious spike.
1 Like
Colleges have wanted to do that for some time (and have been…slowly), but TO has allowed them the ability to do so without impacting their cherished rankings.
I believe the combination of the USC scandal, social reckoning of 2020, and the pandemic swung the door wide open for admissions offices to correct without worrying about impacting what their bosses hold near and dear ($ and ranking).
I’m not implying it wasn’t a necessary and welcome change from what it had been. But there is a grouping that is being punished for it, and I’d argue purposefully.
2 Likes
Right there with you. D is in UNC- she loves it, it was in her list of schools she’d be thrilled to attend, etc. Waiting on some of the late March RD as well as Ross for UM, but she’s falling in love with her current choice.
I wouldn’t change the experience she’s had at private school for anything. We actually let her choose which school she would attend (she was accepted into two simultaneously) in 6th grade. She has blossomed academically, athletically, and most importantly socially. I agree admissions will change, but the education and the experience should become the focus over and above matriculation stats. That would be a good thing for all…
I think what is going to happen is that the T-15 or T-20 colleges are going to lose luster a tad within 5-10 years. Not with respect to prestige or anything like that. But with students. It is now a pure crapshoot- yes, you need to be qualified, but you need tons and tons of blind luck as well. Which means that absolutely fantastic, world-changing students are going to get pushed into that “next tier” of schools. Outcomes for those students will be no different whether they graduate from Harvard or (pick your choice of schools ranked 20-75). Those outcomes will trail by a few years as those kids get into the real world…but the stampede for prestige will die down.
That, or the college system as it stands now changes.
4 Likes
I think that will put a lot of pressure on prep schools if they can’t justify why their product is superior to a public school. For many consumers, the justification is intrinsically related to how well prep schools place their students into top universities.
1 Like