<p>literally every LAC in california, particularly pitzer, claremont mckenna, occidental.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>the increase in the number of applications per kid, and by overall grade inflation and SAT score inflation.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>SAT score inflation? Other than the one time recentering in 1996, how has there been any SAT inflation? Schools with stable selectivity should have shown a one-time jump in SAT scores corresponding to the recentering, but any school showing an upward SAT trend in their admitted students before or after that is getting more selective.</p>
<p>tufts and emory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but any school showing an upward SAT trend in their admitted students before or after that is getting more selective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or seeing the somewhat artificial impact of SAT prep courses and taking the stupid things three and four times.</p>
<p>In 1970, it would have been unheard of to take the SATs three times. PSAT's one time. SATs one time. Maybe a second time at the outside.</p>
<p>I don't know that intensive SAT prep really means colleges are getting better students or that they are fundmentally more selective -- just that their students waste more time on SAT prep.</p>
<p>By the way, the national averages for both the Verbal and Math SATs have increased nearly as much in the 9 years since "recentering" as they did in the 15 years prior to recentering. So, there may well be some significant SAT inflation going on. With a higher percentage of high school students taking the SATs, the average scores should actually be declining.</p>
<p>Since the 1970s Colby College has also moved way up.</p>
<p>Bucknell, Bates, BC, LeHigh.....</p>
<p>Duke (believe it or not)</p>
<p>I disagree that the increasing selectivity at many colleges is a temporary phenomenon. One reason why many schools are becoming increasingly selective is that more families are aware of need based aid which places fewer limits on the colleges their children are able to apply to. More viable applicants=greater selectivity.</p>
<p>In the past many families felt they were only able to send their children to public colleges. I know my family was one. I believe that this is the case for a significant number of families today. The parents residing here are savy enough but some arent. </p>
<p>Also in todays competetive economic environment more families may be willing to go the extra mile and sacrifice more economically to send their children to colleges with higher name recognition in the marketplace. This to would result in greater selectivity at some colleges.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>With a higher percentage of high school students taking the SATs, the average scores should actually be declining.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This assumes that only the smarter kids used to take the test and now the dullards should be diluting out their scores. Another interpretation could be that with greater access to colleges and need-based finanaid, more poor but smart kids who used to have no prospect of going to college are now getting plugged into the system and taking entrance exams.</p>
<p>Overall, the greater the proportion of the population that takes the test, the better an idea we have of the true mean score --> less sampling error. Back when the test takers were a much smaller slice of the whole pie, the estimation of the mean was less accurate. </p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Or seeing the somewhat artificial impact of SAT prep courses and taking the stupid things three and four times.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>If students have studied harder and expended greater efforts to prepare for the test, it doesn't mean that the scores are inflated. It means the students are better prepared. The tests aren't graded any easier. If you work harder or take a second job to earn more money, it doesn't mean that the value of the money is being inflated, even though you now have more of it. Inflation would occur when you are being given more for the same work. Same for the tests.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
In the past many families felt they were only able to send their children to public colleges. I know my family was one.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Good point! I didn't even consider applying to private colleges because of the perceived cost. Also, judging from the posts on this board, there are many internationals who apply to US undergrad schools. They were are rarity "back in the day"</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>In the past many families felt they were only able to send their children to public colleges. I know my family was one.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>My family also! (This was 30+ years ago.) </p>
<p>I think this has been a change in application process for HYP--top public school kids from all over the country are now looking at HYP, which gives HYP a bigger selection of kids to choose from. This has to drive the quality of candidate that HYP chooses upward (at least on the middle to lower end), as suggested by coureur.</p>
<p>But this and the colleges' outreach programs/USNWR/increased info, etc., has also lead to a lot of applications that have a miniscule chance of leading to success and these applications make for an increase in the selectivity figures without affecting the underlying pool of "viable" candidates, as interesteddad puts forth. I would say that at our local high school, of the 10 kids who apply to HYP every year, only 1-2 are viable candidates based on grades, SAT scores and ECs.</p>
<p>Bottom line: the pool of viable candidates for HYP has increased in size over the past 30 years, which would lead to more selectivity; the vast majority of the increased number of applications to HYP today are never viable in the first place and are no more than a $$ making proposition for HYP.</p>
<p>"It will be interesting to see where some of these colleges are in 10 years when there won't be so many students applying. Will any be able to sustain their selectivity?"</p>
<p>This is my concern. I suppose it doesn't matter whether our kids go to schools that didn't have a place in the top tiers as recently as ten years ago and will potentially lose their places in those top tiers after they graduate...so why does it bother me? I guess I still find that my husband and I are, even today, judged to some extent by where we went to school. My husband was promoted to a high level position in part because the ceo of his company is a snob and was swayed by the schools he attended. I was recruited for a particular job because I shared an alma mater with a partner in the firm. This is YEARS fter we graduated! So...Where is the network for these newly prestigious schools? When these kids present resumes to would-be employers, do they know that these schools are now considered good?</p>
<p>I wouldn't know! I graduated from high school in the mid 70's and remember being courted with full scholarships by WUSTL and Skidmore. Neither of these schools were considered great at the time; I turned my nose up at them (arrogance of youth!). Average kids went to Lehigh, Lafayette, NYU, Emory even Georgetown. My friends in the top 5% easily got into Ivies (though not Harvard--that was reserved only for the valedictorian of the class). I was admitted to two Ivies and had nowhere near what it would take today to gain that admission. So when my dd tells me that Emory is a "hot" school, I'm incredulous. Really? My neighborhood friend went there with a B average--no honors or APs--from high school.</p>
<p>I apologize for the ramble. I'm somehow trying to make sense of how we approach this phenomenon of schools that have suddenly become competitive. How do we evaluate them? I return to the original question: Is this a temporary phenomenon or will these schools be able to sustain their reputations?</p>
<p>This is why picking a college by their USNWR ranking is a joke. It is almost like buying stock. Will it go up or down by the time you enter the workforce or several years hence(as Shoshi pointed out)?</p>
<p>Ellemenope said, " I would say that at our local high school, of the 10 kids who apply to HYP every year, only 1-2 are viable candidates based on grades, SAT scores and ECs."</p>
<p>I doubt this is true for all parts of the country. I'm in the midwest and in our large public district I've never heard of any students that apply that aren't viable. The majority of kids still stay close to home in flagship U's or private schools.</p>
<p>Not sure what schools haven't gotten tougher-lol. In particular, I'd note the following that seem to have gotten much tougher for admission in recent years:</p>
<p>Univ of So California
Pepperdine
Occidental
Pitzer
Claremont McKenna
Chapman
U of San Diego
UC San Diego
UC Santa Barbara
UC Davis
Tufts
Emory
U of Miami
U of Wash-St. Louis
Babson</p>
<p>
[quote]
My friends in the top 5% easily got into Ivies (though not Harvard--that was reserved only for the valedictorian of the class). I was admitted to two Ivies and had nowhere near what it would take today to gain that admission. So when my dd tells me that Emory is a "hot" school, I'm incredulous. Really?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You went to an atypical high school in the 1970s and have a distorted view of the admissions scene back then. </p>
<p>Emory was a very selective college at least as far back as the early 1970s, roughly on par with Vanderbilt in terms of admissions. The top 5% at most high schools in the 1970s did not "easily" get into "Ivies" just as the top 5% at most high schools today do not easily get into Ivies.</p>
<p>There are only a few schools that have significantly improved their positions on the overall selectivity pecking order. A few of them are "sucker bets" from an admissions standpoint, such as BU and NYU, where the panache of location has driven demand through the roof. A few have incrementally become more selective: Duke is an example, although it was a very selective school in the early 1970s, too. The only real change is that its more acceptable for northeast students to go to school "down there" now than it was 35 years ago, so there is increased demand from the somewhat snobbish NJ/NY/NE markets.</p>
<p>One other factor is that the increased use of merit aid incentives has made a number of schools appear more selective (from an SAT standpoint) than the really are.</p>
<p>For the most part, I don't see much reshuffling of the selectivity pecking order on either the university or LAC lists.</p>
<p>interesteddad:
Both BU and NYU have risen in selectivity, but not just because of location. Both have been able to recruit some stellar faculty. NYU has Stern, Tisch, and the Courant Institute.
When I first went to college (in the middle ages), BU was a third-tier university; but it, too, has attracted great profs (think of Robert Dallek in their history department). It's not only undergrads who are attracted by the location. BU and other area universities have benefitted from the desire of many Ph.D.s to remain in the Boston-area.</p>
<p>interesteddad: I went to a suburban Long Island high school. It wasn't the most elite high school but it was respectable. All I can tell you is that I was ranked #25 in my class and was accepted at Brown and Cornell. My friend (#29) went to Brown. I'm going to look and see if I can hunt up our old college destination sheet but I can tell you that those of us in the top 5% did easily get into the Ivies--I can think of two dozen off the top of my head. Most of us were not the amazing kids we read about now.</p>
<p>Maybe Emory was an easier admit for a northeast kid.</p>
<p>Marite:</p>
<p>I'm not suggesting that BU and NYU haven't improved their academic offerings. They are both fine big city schools. But, move them to Cleveland and Detroit and I doubt they would have quite the same number of applications!</p>
<p>Bentley and Penn State along with Emory have all seen a tremendous jump in applications and a very large increase in their selectivity. Penn State because of their noted business and science programs. Bentley was named as a "hot" school for 2004 by Kaplan/Newsweek and Emory has decided to make its admissions standards much tougher</p>