“… Dean of admission and financial aid at Stanford since September 2005, Shaw said he understands the public fascination with a measure of selectivity that now stands at 4.7 percent, lowest in the nation among prominent colleges and universities. That means the private university in Northern California turns down slightly more than 19 out of every 20 applicants. But Shaw didn’t advertise that fact on March 25 when he announced the entering fall class.” …
I think what he says about the fact that there is no difference really between sub 10% acceptance rates is true. However, they definitely still like to boast about having a sub 10% acceptance rate, they just don’t care how far below. They still want to be seen as a selective school, and that is why they continue to get elite students.
Interesting to see one number that is not published normally - International applications were 6435 or 15% of the pool.
“… Dean of admission and financial aid at Stanford since September 2005, Shaw said he understands the public fascination with a measure of selectivity that now stands at 4.7 percent, lowest in the nation among prominent colleges and universities. That means the private university in Northern California turns down slightly more than 19 out of every 20 applicants. But Shaw didn’t advertise that fact on March 25 when he announced the entering fall class.” …
Yeah, right.
He didn’t advertise it directly, but he put the numbers to make the calculation right in the subtitle…
Then he advertised it outright along with the fact that it is the lowest in the nation via an article with a national news source…
The solution is simple - just spend less time and money on advertising and recruiting.
He does have 3 interesting reasons as cited in the article:
- Top students are applying to more schools. “Many years ago we said, ‘Gee, pick six schools. Two safety schools, two in the middle and two that you had no idea.’ Now, that number’s changed, to perhaps nine or more. A couple years ago, I heard a girl say she applied to 27.”
- Higher demand across the board. “For a period of time, the fastest-growing part of the applicant pool was international,” Shaw said. “But the entire applicant pool has grown, every conceivable constituency.” That includes students who are first in their family to go college, and students from abroad who are drawn by the prestige and wealth of Silicon Valley, expanding the potential applicant pool to the entire world. (The number of international applicants this year, 6,435, was about 15 percent of the total.)
- Questionable counseling. Shaw is sympathetic to those who say anybody can apply. “That’s what makes America great. Nobody says no, you can’t.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean yes, you should. ”
Actually, I don’t think that is a solution at all. HYPSM could eliminate 100% of outreach, and it would barely dent their applications.
But much their outreach is targeting diverse candidates, or those who would not have thought to apply. Since those folks are much harder to reach than the kids in tony prep schools, or even top suburban schools, the top schools do require outreach (aka marketing) dollars.
He could help his own cause a little on point 3 by being a little more transparent on the qualifications of the admitted pool. If they were to provide a little more granular data on acceptance rates by GPA/Test score, they could probably eliminate a lot of the hail marys that waste time and money for everyone. Sure you don’t want to miss out on the occasional underachieving gem, but maybe if all those 3.6/28 kids knew that their chance was more like 1 in a 1000 rather than 5 out of a 100, the kids and their GCs would think twice about answering those 10 essay questions.
And I know Stanford (and most elite) admissions are “holistic” but there is still plenty of room to be realistic.
I would also like to point out that Stanford doesn’t seem to do as much traditional marketing as a lot of their peer schools. They also have an applications that requires a lot of effort which is an admirable way to limit the hail marys. The UC schools where $70 and checking a box is all that is required are in a much worse situation. It’s a lot harder to pick the 16,000 best prospects out of 85,000 than it is to pick 2,000 out of 30,000. That’s probably the difference between using engaged admissions counselors and having to use $15/HR application readers.
You can’t blame kids for thinking they “have a shot” when colleges talk incessantly about their “holistic admissions”.
Stanford (and every other top school) should be honest and say, “Unless you have an SAT score of x and an unweighted GPA of y we will not look at the rest of your application. For those relatively few in Stanford that do get in with scores and grades lower than that, it’s because WE want YOU and you’re already on our radar. Otherwise, save your money as you have no chance.”
That would likely cut down on the number of applications quite a bit.
I am not so sure too many uncompetitve people are applying. Many of the people who are applying and getting rejected have excellent scores.
I was thinking about Tufts, where the acceptance rate is now at 14%. They received 20,222 applications and their dean said that 78% of the kids who applied were qualified for admission. That’s over 4,400 kids who had no shot of getting in. Had those kids not applied, the acceptance rate would have jumped to 18%, and those kids could have been saved a lot of stress and heartbreak. I imagine that percentage is probably similar at the more elite schools like Stanford and Harvard.
@Texaspg I totally agree with your point though. If 78% of the kids are qualified and only 14% (or even 18%) are getting in, that does mean that a lot of really good kids with excellent scores are being rejected as well.
The problem is there is no number. It is32, 33 or 34 or 2100? Is it 3.7. 3.8 or 3.9UW? What if the 3.7 was because you were recovering from a severe concussion which can be verified by your doctor and the rest of your grades were great? Or it is because you want to be an English major and you are awful at math so you only can manage a B+ in math but everything else is A and you can write any Intel Finalist under the table? Do you really need to know calculus to be a writer? Part of the problem is they want kids that are focused and follow their passion but want them well rounded in their grades for the most part.
How is it possible for any admissions team to take a holistic approach with 5,000, 10,000, or 30,000 applicants? Whether we like the sound of it or not, the standardized tests are the first filter. The filter removes all the kids who got multiple fliers in the mail thinking the school was speaking directly to them. They filled out an application, paid $75, and received one last piece of mail - this one not so nice and colorful. Sad.
That’s an interesting idea about publishing acceptance rates by SAT score and GPA. I don’t know if Stanford and other top private schools will ever go there, but the University of California campuses for example do that.
Obviously it simplifies a complex process, but it also provides some good information for prospective applicants, e.g. at Berkeley, anyone with below a GPA of 4.0 has a very low chance of getting in:
-4.0 and above, 32% accepted
-3.7 to 3.99, 5.6% accepted
-3.3 to 3.69, 2% accepted
-Below 3.3, 1.3% accepted
So in the case of Berkeley, there are some with compelling personal stories, exceptional talents not reflected in GPA, etc. who get in . . . but GPA is a pretty strong predictor of who has a realistic chance. 3.9 is a great GPA and might seem competitive without the data above, but in fact, most likely it’s just not good enough.
Many years ago, lots of top students in many parts of the country (and overseas) weren’t applying to Stanford at all. They applied to the state flagship, or regional powerhouses like Duke if they were really tip-top students. Now, however, the market for top students is much more a national (and global) market. Today, if a kid really wants to go to a school like Stanford, and has stats that makes that plausible, it would be poor strategy to apply to 2 reaches, 2 matches, and 2 safeties. I can’t see any way to change this short of something like much more extensive use of Early Decision.
Interesting point about ED Hunt and it does seem like that might have some effect. If I recall correctly Stanford did have ED at one time.
@texaspg - Many of the people who are applying and getting rejected have excellent scores.
I can only speak for our high school, a well regarded NYC metro area school, but Naviance suggests otherwise. Over the ten years of data at my disposal the data has shown a significant creep towards lower GPAs and lower test scores. I would estimate the average GPA and SAT for the USNWR top ten national universities is less than 93 and 1400 respectively.
Except that they can’t. Because there are numbers in which a privileged suburbanite won’t be able to get in (no-way, no how), but those same numbers and a compelling essay might work for diversity candidates.
Brown and Amherst are two privates that I have seen that do publish admissions results based on numerical bands.
I’d LOVE to see an actual scattergram of an Ivy league admission round, like the graphs we see in naviance. GPA on x-axis, ACT/SAT on y-axis. I think this would be very telling.
@STEM2017 - The scatter graphs I pieced together for schools that provided GPA/SAT/ACT histograms were pretty close to the scatter graphs provided by Naviance. No surprises except for the occasional recruited athlete.
I’d love to see schools publish acceptance stats by numerical band and hook. If you’re in the bottom 25% or 50% by GPA/SAT, what’s the acceptance rate for each of the hooks (URM, legacy, recruited athlete, 1st gen, development case) and what’s the acceptance rate in the bottom half or quarter for unhooked applicants? That would provide useful information and a reality check.