@PurpleTitan I thought ED was considered a better bet for weaker students (who show interest by applying ED) because of the decreased odds of getting merit money. Whereas RD was better for students who are more competitive and trying to see who will give them the best offer. Of course, none of that holds true for tippy top schools with great merit.
@doschicos I agree with you to a certain extent. I wouldn’t want a process where kids are simply admitted in order of the stats. I think that would be pretty awful and often lead to irrational results. Its the ED process, that is so upsetting. I think a college that wasn’t practicing some form of yield protection wouldnt need to fill half the class with ED. They could also have other ways to demonstrate interest that don’t completely shut out families who need to consider finances. SCEA comes to mind.
There are places like Emerson with no ED. They state flat out that its unfair to families who need to consider finances in college applications. When they build a class, I am more convinced they are looking at holistic factors. I’ve said on other threads, that I understand that these are private institutions and they certainly don’t owe me any specific type of application procedure. I can understand the desire to have predictability in yield even if it isn’t “protection.” I can also understand the desire to fill the school with people who really, desperately want that school rather than dissapointed IVY rejects. Its just hard on some of us.
The merit $$ will dry up before those colleges are over run by a stampede from other regions. A lot of the ones in the Midwest have been getting the high stat kids for decades and decades who don’t want the big uni scene.
@collegdad13, the study does not support the position that money can buy you a high standardized test score if what you mean is through paid test prep:
"Myth: Test Prep and Coaching Produce Large Score Gains
If tests were easily coached and coaching was only available to the wealthy, there would be an equity problem, even if tests are generally useful. Commercial test prep is clearly expensive, so this is a critical issue.
Researchers have conducted a mix of experimental studies and controlled field studies to test this question. They have generally concluded that the gains due to test prep are more on the order of 5 to 20 points and not the 100 to 200 points claimed by some test prep companies.
One review found a typical gain of 15 to 20 points on the math portion of the SAT and 8 to 10 points on the verbal portion. One of us conducted a more in-depth analysis of 4,248 high-school students and, after controlling for prior scores and the differing propensity of students to seek coaching, we estimated a gain of 14 points on the math test and 4 points on the verbal.
These are just averages, and among students who prep, a small percentage do realize 100 point gains. Why? The research suggests that they fall into two overlapping groups. The first consists of students who are fundamentally well prepared but are rusty on some basic concepts. The second group has not put even basic effort into understanding the questions and the flow of the tests. Gaining simple familiarity is one of the surest ways to achieve quick increases in scores.
Most experts want students to prep. Tests are generally more valid when everyone has had preparation because scores then reflect the application of fresh skills and not differences in basic familiarity with the test. The College Board, which administers the SAT, has partnered with Khan Academy to offer free test prep. Such training is valuable, and having accessible prep materials helps to improve both student scores and the validity of the test."
The 2 authors had in the past received funding from the College Board, so we can consider their findings with that in mind.
If what you mean is that money facilitates growing up in an educationally conducive environment, and that gives students a leg up, their study is in agreement with that:
"Myth: Tests Are Just Measures of Social Class
Admissions tests aren’t windows into innate talent; rather, they assess skills developed over years of education. They evaluate a student’s capacity to read and interpret complex prose, think critically and reason mathematically.
How well students develop these skills is influenced, of course, by many factors, including educational quality, high expectations, stable communities and families, and teacher behavior. It is a tragic reality that these factors are not equally distributed across social class and race in the U.S.
Studies have documented, for example, that the number of words and encouragements spoken to little children varies by socioeconomic status and that these differences are related to the development of verbal reasoning skills. Obviously, some kids from less well-off families grow up in a home environment where they encounter complex vocabulary and sentence structures, but many more do not.
Though we see exceptionally skilled students from all walks of life, the reality is that there is a correlation between test scores and social class. This doesn’t mean, however, that success on standardized tests and in college is simply dependent on class."
Personally, I am a fan of holistic admissions because I believe it creates a richer learning environment for all students. The fact is there are more qualified students than there are spots in the highly sought after schools, so on an individual basis some decisions may seem unfair or random/illogical from the rejected student’s perspective. But I do believe that objective factors have to be an important part of the mix. And like it or not, standardized tests are the only truly equal measuring stick between students. We can argue if the stick favors one group over another, but we can’t argue that it wasn’t the same test for everyone.
“Its the ED process, that is so upsetting. I think a college that wasn’t practicing some form of yield protection wouldnt need to fill half the class with ED.”
The ED process is definitely imperfect but there are benefits to all parties. Many LACs will give you an early financial read from their FA department if you ask.
A lot of students being locked in early through ED are athletes, which represent a higher percentage of the overall class at LACs given their smaller size. I can also understand why that needs to be done in an ED round. It is also why, when looking at the higher ED acceptance rates, if you are not a recruited athlete or otherwise hooked, those acceptance rates really don’t apply to you.
As far as demonstrated interest, there are plenty of ways to show it other than ED but ED is the ultimate way of showing interest.
“And all the high stat kids who can’t do ED look at the next rung down in selectivity hoping for EA and merit aid and suddenly there are no schools left for B and B+ students who also really deserve a chance at college.”
Uh, there are a bunch of schools with a student body that’s roughly the same quality as Lehigh (if you measure by average ACT) with acceptance rates of about 50% or above. Whitman has an average ACT of 30 (same as Lehigh). Sarah Lawrence and NCF are at 29. Hendrix is at 28. If you like big schools, UW-Madison and UIUC’s average ACT’s are also around 28-29.
(All going off of Prep Scholar to be consistent)
Check out their acceptance rates. You honestly think a kid with a 32 ACT and a few B’s would be shut out of Whitman, Sarah Lawrence, NCF, Hendrix, UIUC, and UW-Madison?
If you’re talking about a kid with a 3.0 GPA, they wouldn’t have a shot at Lehigh anyway even if Lehigh admitted purely by stats. But there are a ton of publics (and privates) with an admit rate around 80% and are essentially open admission.
I frankly can’t think of any scenario where a 3.0 GPA kid is shut out and can not go to any college (assuming that their parents can pay for college).
Not today, but what about next year? Isn’t that what we all said about Skidmore and the others just a few years ago? Uchicago was over 70% at one point. But, I know you’re right. This place is great, but it does lead me to over worry sometimes!
@PurpleTitan I completely agree. In fact, I think if you are aiming midrange and below, it’s getting a lot easier to get in now (baby boomer kids are done with college!). I do college advising, and I have Ivy bound kids and SAT/ACT optional kids. It’s never been harder to get in a top rung school.
I had a B student last year whose score was so low the ACT report actually said “Not College Ready”.
I cannot believe how he got into nearly every school he applied to. And these are GOOD schools that people have heard of. I’m happy to say he is doing well as a freshman at one of the schools that accepted him.
I have another client this year who also aimed around the middle. Her scores were about at the 25% but she also did extremely well (also a B student). I think she got one rejection and it was Notre Dame!
@collegemomjam Thats an interesting perspective. So you are saying that while the top rung is getting harder, the mid range and below is getting easier? What is the demarcation between the top and middle rung? Which are some of the good schools that are getting easier?
However, some of these schools are so unlike Lehigh and each other that students may not see themselves as fitting at, for example, both Lehigh and Sarah Lawrence.
@gallentjill, as @collegemomjam noted, the demographics really will make it a buyer’s market (outside of the top). The US will have fewer college-aged kids in coming years and the Northeast and Midwest will be hit especially hard.
At the top, admissions will be ever more insane, but for instance, Eastern Illinois has had dropping enrollment for years. Heck, Mizzou has had dropping enrollment in recent years. And that is a public flagship that is renown in at least one area (journalism). They clearly have room for more students as they had them just recently.
Many LACs (terrific ones, even), will be struggling. Non-flagship publics as well. Whitman has still had spots open in May in recent years.
“However, some of these schools are so unlike Lehigh and each other that students may not see themselves as fitting at, for example, both Lehigh and Sarah Lawrence.”
Of course but there are other examples one can use other than that handful - off the top of my head, colleges like Providence College or St. Lawrence might appeal to a Lehigh lover.
It is very easy to get into college once you come down from the very top.
From The Atlantic:
“The raw numbers are instructive. There are more than 4 million 18-year-olds in the United States. About 3.5 million of them will go to college. And just 100,000 to 150,000 of those—somewhere around 3 percent of the entire age group—go each year to selective schools that admit fewer than half of their applicants. College-admissions mania is a crisis for the 3 percent.”
@northwesty I understand what you are saying. But how does a place like UChicago go from a 70% admit rate in the 1990s to single digits today? What keeps all the other excellent schools that give B students a second chance from following suit? Look what’s happening to all the colleges in California.
Not all. The CSU system is twice as large as the UC system in terms of number of students, but only a few campuses are heavily applied to (and sometimes only for certain majors) and therefore getting caught up in the escalating competitiveness. They also practice stats based admissions, though most of them are not as transparent as they could be about what past admission thresholds were (SJSU does post past admission thresholds on its web site at http://www.sjsu.edu/admissions/impaction/ ). Many students also start at the open admission community colleges to prepare for transfer to a CSU or UC.
“I understand what you are saying. But how does a place like UChicago go from a 70% admit rate in the 1990s to single digits today?”
Flight to quality. Today, there’s a premium placed on getting a degree from certain top schools. Today, most every smart suburban kid across the country is applying to the same top 20 schools. In the olden days, the market for college was much more local and regional. Today it is more national than ever – standardized tests, internet, Common App, cheap air travel, financial aid, etc. etc. etc. The market for elite U.S. college admissions is much flatter – including increasing participation from foreign students.
A smart Chicago kid back in the day might apply to UChi, UIUC and then maybe also NW or ND. Now smart kids from Maine to California apply to those all those schools. And the Chicago kid today also applies to Stanford and Harvard. It probably is not really getting that much harder for a smart kid to gain admission to one of the top 20 schools (since end of day each kid can only enroll at one school). But it is very hard to get into one particular top 20 school, and overall kids have to work hard to secure a spot somewhere in the top 20… So kids have to ED (which just makes the numbers worse in RD) and/or apply to more and more schools. Rinse and repeat.
Yep.
And the U of C also had it’s own special set of circumstances. Back around 1990 (which must be when it’s acceptance rate was around 70%), the South Side of Chicago (and Chicago in general) was a much rougher place. Every year, you’d hear of U of C undergrads being raped by strangers (not date-rape; more like mug-on-the-street-and-rape rape). That plus the U of C’s reputation as being the place where fun goes to die + a low graduation rate (plenty of U of C undergrads back then would transfer or just drop out) + a reputation that the school cared more about graduate scholarship and research than undergrads meant that it wasn’t very popular with the HS crowd.
But again, not all schools are the U of C. In Chicago, there is another private located in a much nicer neighborhood (Lincoln Park). According to DePaul’s 1998-1999 CDS, it had a 79% admit rate back then. In 2017-2018, it has a 72% admit rate. That’s not exactly a huge change.
Crime generally was much higher in the early 1990s than it is now.
On the other hand, people seem more afraid of crime now than in the early 1990s when crime was actually much higher.
perception is generally wrong. most schools, including Lehigh, will give you same package either way. It is hard to disprove this because you only get to apply one way so cannot compare. But it is the truth. Additionally, if ED1 acceptance comes with inferior FA package to what you need then call and lobby for me and if nothing more than back out of ED. there is no remedy a college will take if you do. The only thing you have to manage id your High School sending transcripts to other schools on time.
Chicago is a special case with an administration focused on reducing acceptance rate and improving USNWR ranking. You can find various articles about how they were so successful including improved financial aid, scholarships, and a very aggressive marketing campaign. It seems to be working for them, as they are up to #3 in USNWR ranking. Its the exception rather than the rule.
A typical college with a 70% acceptance rate cannot just choose to only accept straight A students and drop their acceptance rate to 10% one year. To do so, they need a huge increase in number of straight A students applying and a huge increase in yield. Few colleges have hope of such an increase, particularly ones without huge financial resources. Instead the more typical acceptance rate decrease fits more along the lines of the average increase in students applying to college and average number of applications per student.
What is happening to “all” the colleges in California? I believe the largest enrollment 4-year college is Cal State Northridge. A comparison between the average GPA and SAT of the incoming class in the oldest and latest CDS for Northridge is below.
2006 Average GPA: 3.1, Average SAT 935
2016 Average GPA: 3.18, Average SAT 912