<p>I've been hanging around CC for a long time. My first went to college 11 years ago (I think I came on here when she was in the transferring process), the second 5 years ago, and the 3rd last year. I appreciated the help I got from many folks in many different ways through their journeys. But, I read comments from parents whose kids were applying around the time of my first two and I just want to say "things are different now." They just are. When acceptance rates get down to 6%, luck or capriciousness or whatever you want to call it does play a big role for an "unhooked" high scoring, actively involved student. It is not that the students who are accepted out of that pool aren't great -- it's just that there are many more equally great by all possible measures who aren't accepted. And many schools that were reasonable choices for those students have moved into that range as well. My 2230, 12th of 1000, 4.0, singer went to MIT. 5 years later my 2250, 4.0, 7th of 1000, newspaper editor was waitlisted at Scripps. The school my first transferred to has gone from 40% to under 15% acceptance in that time. Early decision is playing a much bigger role. Parents whose kids went to college 4--5-6 years ago try to be understanding when parents sound anxious or resentful. Things have changed. </p>
<p>The times, they are a-changin’.</p>
<p>Really is a delicate dance of encouraging my kids to aim high while staying aware of how slim the odds are. And how they shouldn’t be mad at anyone if they don’t get into a highly selective school. 
</p>
<p>I only had two years between kids and my S14, who I thought was more qualified, had less desirable results than his sister did. It’s really tough. I’m glad we’re done after this. </p>
<p>@2016BarnardMom Your 14th son?</p>
<p>Class of 14 Son 
</p>
<p>Is it because there are that many more qualified students? Or is because fewer students are qualifying where they want to attend and driving up the number of applications at the “top” institutions and the acceptance rate down? Assuming the same number of qualified applicant one would think that some schools would be experiencing a drop in their yields. </p>
<p>Some schools do face a drop in yields. WIth the Common App, it’s easy for kids to drop +12 apps to a wide suite of colleges. The influx of international kids doesn’t help. I interview for an HYP and we’ve seen a doubling of apps in the last six years. Population-wise, we’re the same. A decade ago, many top kids would have applied early and been accepted at our very nice flagship and just finished out their senior year. Now, those same kids, with accept in the back pocket, drop another ten apps to USNWR darlings. This is the big skewing factor.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine what this huge increase in applications has done to workload and hiring in admissions offices!</p>
<p>I have decided I really don’t like the common application. I think it’s encouraging kids to be very lazy about choosing where they apply. Many universities are getting 10s of thousands more applications than they did 10 years ago. When a student had to fill out an application for each school and be prepared for different sets of questions the time alone required that you choose carefully. I think abolishing a nationwide common app. would bring back some sanity into the whole college admission process. It’s probably about revenue. $50-75 an times 30+ thousand applications is not insignificant.</p>
<p>^^^^Just raises the threshold bar higher. Schools are looking for a certain threshold for stats, the initial purge. What it takes to get in the door. Not sorting from the highest applicant down but sorting from a certain threshold just to get a look and that threshold has been raised. No more work, just more not making the first cut.</p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>The odds are NOT slim that your children will succeed. The odds are slim they will get into an Ivy. SO WHAT? </p>
<p>Maybe they can enjoy the rest of what the world has to offer with some of the money you save?</p>
<p>I have been on CC since 2007 when D1 was applying to colleges. I don’t know why, but I am seeing a lot more unhappy students (parents). I also know more students going the ED/EA route and are admitted during the early round. </p>
<p>I am glad we are done. </p>
<p>I think that more students have learned more about how to play the game, how to raise their test scores, what kind of ECs to do, how to write a better essay, etc. This is due, in part, to the internet (e.g. CC). So there are more kids who think they migh have a shot at a top school. Also, there is more info about more schools available, so kids will learn about more options. And the common app makes it easier.</p>
<p>I think there are more “top kids” now than there used to be. Also, more of a feeling of entitlement, which makes them believe they should/will be admitted to a top school. (Just like they think someone else should pay for it, and don’t understand why their EFC is so high or why they are gapped.)</p>
<p>OTOH, as admission rates drop, kids may realize that their chances are slim, so they increase the number of schools they apply to.</p>
<p>Let’s not forget the role the schools themselves play. They are desperate to increase their applicant pools and therefore inundate kids with brochures and emails as if they were selling cruises rather than an education.</p>
<p>I wonder if there are more top kids or more opportunities for AP classes, weighted grades, multiple SAT tests, coaching and even HS grade inflation. I guess this is all part of the gaming and many on this sight are the most savvy. I really don’t mean that to be pejorative rather the parents and kids who frequent this web sight are very aware that education is important and want to be sure their child or themselves have all advantages available. I really do believe that in the process of playing “the game” many kids and parents forgotten the accomplishments and what the goal of educating themselves is. Instead many have chosen to believe that they are only successful if they attend and graduate from a set number of universities. Education is less a goal than status.</p>
<p>I know it is common to blame the low admissions rates on kids applying to large numbers of schools, but if that were the case wouldn’t we expect more use of wait lists? My experience last year was that none of the three colleges who offered my kid a wait list even went to their lists. I think there are more qualified applicants for limited spaces now. And it’s not just at the HYPSMwhatevers, it’s also at the schools that 5-10 years ago took around 30% of applicants and now only take 15%. It lessens the value of comments about a kid who was accepted at a top school with a low gpa or test score 5 years ago. Someone around here is fond of saying that for some students there really are no match schools and there is some truth in that. </p>
<p>I think it’s absolutely true that once you get into the top echelon–kids with near perfect sats and in top 5%-- there are no match schools.Every school that they are statistically a candidate for takes such a small percentage of applicants that they could easily get shut out of all of them. That’s why for these kids the most important decision is to choose safeties wisely. Only apply to those that are financially feasible and that you can attend with enthusiasm. If you cannot muster enthusiasm about matriculating anywhere other than your top choices I would argue that you may not be mature enough yet for college life!</p>
<p>The talent pool is growing. Schools that were once regional schools have become national universities. Elite schools have opened their doors to top-notch students from a range of socioeconomic levels. </p>
<p>Back in the days before time began when H and I were excellent students at midwestern high schools, most kids looked no further than the schools in our state (or maybe one or two over) when we looked at colleges. Not even top students aspired to Ivies or even looked too far beyond geographic borders that would have been roughly equivalent to the Big Ten at the time. (Even Nebraska and Pennsylvania were beyond the pale back then.) Need-based aid was paltry, and merit aid not much better. Add to that the tendency of Catholic schools to push Catholic colleges and public schools to push state U’s. And the limited number of applications per student, especially top students who were pretty confident that their good grades would get them into the “top” schools in their sights. </p>
<p>Those borders have been shattered, and top students are no longer bound by those geographic, economic, or (for want of a better word) cultural limitations. Despite spiraling costs for middle class students, financial aid has made college choices possible for lower-income students that would have been all but impossible when I was applying to college. </p>
<p>But even as the pool of applicants increases, the list of “top schools” still seems to be defined for many by the traditional eight ivies (with maybe one or two others worth considering 
). As those schools become “lottery” schools for even the best students, we start to see the competition growing at the next tier of nationally-recognized schools. Meanwhile, excellent small schools that do not have as much national recognition continue to have acceptance rates that are actually still pretty reasonable (e.g., Macalester at 35%, St. Olaf at 53% and Augustana at 62%). </p>
<p>May I ask, with demand from students qualified to fill seats in the “top” tier of colleges, why have those schools not expanded supply (seats)? How would an expansion harm those top institutions if the stats of the applicant pool are so high? Could the schools afford to expand? Anyone know? </p>