We wouldn’t be here raising these issues if college admissions hadn’t become so competitive. Demography alone can’t explain the intensity of the competitiveness. Super selectivities enjoyed by these colleges aren’t making them better than before in the results of the graduates they produce. No better scientists, engineers, mathematicians, or writers, etc. We certainly have spent collectively more money and other resources, too, not only on college tuitions but also on the preparations necessary for getting into colleges. What went wrong? Are those super selectivities artificial? Are we just looking at the mirage of marketing?
Why wouldn’t it be part of the issue? The US has a large population, but the most desired universities are small. So each one can only take a small slice of the high school graduating class, compared to (for example) the most desired universities in Canada, which are much larger in a country with a much smaller population.
1 Like
It’s certainly part of it, but the increase in population alone doesn’t explain it. Nor does the increase in international students.
There are definitely kids who just pick it up. My own just read on their own, passed an algebra 2 final in 6th grade, never was taught anything by a teacher after second grade until entering precalculus in 7th. Not common of course, but there are more of these kids than you might think.
1 Like
Intense competition- this is mostly a CC phenomenon. Of the several thousand institutions of higher learning in the US, most of them are not terribly competitive for admission. Some are pretty much auto-admit- you have a HS diploma and can fill out a form with your social security number- you’re in. Some are harder to get into but NOT “intense”- they’ve got well known GPA and score requirements, and if you fit the matrix, you’re in.
The teeth grinding comes about because Harvard and Stanford and JHU and U Chicago are small, and they are not inclined to increase their undergrad population by much even though they technically could. (Build another dorm? Not that hard). But what IS hard is deviating from what the colleges themselves think are “special”- a freshman seminar with 15 students and a tenured professor who is an expert in her field. The ability to walk into the rare book library and get two experts (one an archivist, one a librarian) to help an undergrad find a primary source from the 1700’s, with no waiting (i.e. a lot of excess capacity). Stanford doesn’t want to be U Arizona, and Chicago doesn’t want to be UIUC. Operationally, strategically, financially.
Demographics- there will be scores of colleges closing over the next decade according to the experts-- fewer 18 year olds means we need FEWER beds/desks in colleges, not more. That’s the big picture trend.
The fact that it’s not likely to get easier to get into Harvard even after the number of HS graduates goes down-- that’s a different issue.
I don’t believe that the “mirage” of marketing applies to the Harvard’s of the world. Yes, there are kids at Harvard majoring in beer pong (like there are at every university in the world) but for the most part, a kid who is motivated to take advantage of the vast, you can never use them up, resources at Harvard, is going to get a fine education. The key of course is “take advantage”.
I think the “mirage” of marketing applies to a big group of colleges (I will get slammed here if I name them) which cost JUST as much as Harvard, aren’t as generous with need based aid (because it’s cheaper to give every B student a 5K “merit award” than to give A students from an impoverished family a full ride) whose academic offerings haven’t actually “improved” since they’ve undergone a face lift and makeover. Lots of mirage going on. To me- the idea of paying close to full freight at a middling private college when you can get a superior education at virtually every public flagship in the country- that’s the mirage.
And yet I have neighbors and friends- rational people, mostly- who claim that little Susie would “get lost” at a big research U, or Tommy needs the hand-holding that a private college provides if he’s going to fulfill grandpa’s dream that he go to med school and become a urologist.
Tommy barely passed freshman bio but sure- urology.
6 Likes
College Board comes right out and encourages students to prep for the PSAT and SAT and offers the Kahn Academy’s tool free-of-charge. Someone who has a shot at National Merit - related scholarships should absolutely spend time prepping for that competition. Great if they don’t need to, but it’s nothing to be ashamed of in doing so, any more than someone drilling and practicing to make the school sports team.
However, for college admissions in general, there should be a slightly different goal. No one will tell a student they shouldn’t be studying for their Chem or Pre Calc or APUSH, and no one should tell a college hopeful that they shouldn’t be prepping for their standardized test. However, in both examples, wise judgement regarding how you choose to spend your time is very important, and colleges look for evidence of such when they review your application. Getting in over your head with “the most” difficult course schedule you can possibly conjure up isn’t evidence of wise planning. Nor is attempt after attempt to crack a 1550/35. If your prep isn’t giving you better results, it’s time to call it a day and move on to more interesting things that will bring you joy and make you look more inviting to adcoms. If you are at a pretty good score to begin with, move on now. You won’t be rejected because your score was “too low” but you might if you have spent so much time on testing that you don’t have time to research your colleges properly or strengthen your application in other ways.
My kids were so busy with testing and subject testing that they were VERY glad to be done with it! The idea of spending even more time would have been soul-crushing 
Agree and by the same token, parents of kids who are high SES and don’t take expensive tutoring also hear a message that isn’t valid. Not all high SES students get high SAT scores due to tutoring some just get them without prep. Let’s face it, putting kids into neat packages based on anyone’s bias doesn’t include all kids or might put one kids in a worse light.
I’d say any kid who gets the score gets the score ( hard work or zero prep).
I know. I’ve got at least one of those. I know how rare they are, and that it is absolutely pointless to base educational policy on what they can do.
@Happytimes2001, yes, whether you studied for the SAT or didn’t, if you did well, your score is valid. I think kids who do well without prep are held up as a “pure” example of academic excellence, and that’s what I’m objecting to. I think practice and preparation should be expected when you do anything important (giving a presentation, a job interview, writing a paper, taking the SAT, competing in the Olympics…). My D is a strong tester but studying helped her speed which improved her score–and I absolutely expected that she would study and work with a tutor (which we are fortunate to be able to afford). I encourage her to put her best foot forward in anything that’s important to her (luckily she’s a kid who does this without prodding) because I believe it’s good training for a successful and happy life.
In a way, I feel sorry for the high-SES kids who everyone thinks/expects should get a high score because their parents can afford tutors, but they get middling or low scores. Even kids who prep may not ace the test because there is a variance in ability, education, motivation, etc. Obviously kids without resources are at an even great disadvantage which is why I think colleges need to view their scores in context.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s accurate to say Stanford is not inclined to increase their undergrad population. For years, Stanford has planned to gradually increase enrollment by 100 students per year, eventually up to a couple thousand more kids (exact number has changed over time), as described at Stanford eyes undergraduate enrollment increase | News | Palo Alto Online | . However, it’s my understanding that years later, Stanford still can’t seem to get the plan off the ground due to a series of local backlash problems with their expansion proposals, as described at Stanford withdraws application for campus expansion | News | Palo Alto Online | .
Stanford does not seem to be obsessed with keeping number of admitted students low enough for admit rate below 4.x%. They no longer even publicly report admit rate in news media, such as reporting admit rate or number of applications for the recent early class of 2025 admits. A similar statement could be made for several other colleges (certainly not all).
Even if Stanford and all other top ## USNWR ranked private schools … did somehow manage to put in an extra dorm and increase undergrad population by some relatively small percentage, it would by no means end the intense competition among some students (a group that is overrepresented on CC). There is a group that will always look for what is perceived to be the top “reach” colleges that they can get accepted to. If there are an extra 10% more spots in top 25 USNWR ranked colleges, then some students might be able to get accepted to a bit more higher ranked “reach” schools. They might apply to or focus on a bit more selective or higher ranked colleges than they would otherwise, rather than just saying it doesn’t really matter if I attend Harvard or Emory since they both excellent schools.
However, I do agree that the number of spots at private colleges that are perceived as highly selective doesn’t tend to increase much over time, even during periods in which the number of HS students attending college was increasing. I think much of that relates to how difficult it is to start a new college that would be perceived of as “highly selective.” Such colleges usually have been operating for 100+ years, sometimes centuries. And in that time have accumulated huge endowments… more than 1$ million per student in some cases.
There have been some highly selective young private colleges, such as Olin, which was founded in 1997. However, all that I am aware of are quite small, making the financial requirements more reasonable. For example, Olin has $1 million endowment per student, but has under 400 students in total. Being smaller, such colleges don’t have much impact on the total number of spots.
To whatever extent they can, top colleges are viewing the scores of less advantntaged kids in context.
The reason these “elite” schools wouldn’t expand meaningfully isn’t just because they want to keep their classes small. It is mainly that they want to maintain and increase the values of their brands (i.e. “prestige”). They were fitting as many students into their CS classes as their classrooms allow before COVID. The 15-student seminars aren’t the most popular ones on their campuses. Besides, plenty of other less-prestigious private colleges offer small-size classes. Their brand values, or “prestige”, on the other hand, is a function of supply and demand. If they increase the demand while keeping supplies limited, they can enhance their brand values. That’s where the higher selectivity comes in. To increase demand, they make as many students believe that they have a chance to be admitted. They can do this by marketing to as many students as possible, by making selection criteria as vague as possible, and by using as many tricks as possible to climb up in popular rankings.
1 Like
Yes, Harvard’s Trustees have secret meetings where they agonize over getting one more application from a kid in Scarsdale-- and improve their “marketing” in Winnetka to keep their “rankings” high.
You get to believe what you want to believe!
I wasn’t talking about Harvard specifically. Besides, trustees won’t get themselves involved in such minutiae. Policies are carried out by many people at different levels. The evidences are that many of these schools do care about their “rankings” and they aren’t immune to one-upmanship against one another.
You get to believe what you want to believe!
I agree with this! Our S19 is a better test taker, deeper thinker, probably more academically curious than D21 but she’s no slouch in the academic department and would offer other things to a college. She’s charismatic and a natural leader and a big joiner. I can see her all over a campus, contributing in a lot of ways while S19 is spending 20+ hours on his sport and has little time for much else than that and school work. As long as a student can do the work, colleges need all types of kids.
1 Like
IF some colleges are concerned with ranking, it’s far from the only consideration. This is far from the simple yea or nay, “It’s this or it’s not,” that many think.
In this level of holistic, it all goes into the pot. At some level, of course, they’re concerned with brand. But some toss around words/concepts like brand, yield, transparency, who’s ‘deserving,’ and miss both the simplicity and complexity.
I think I could say, you aren’t looking at holistic from a holistic mindset. You’re more looking for straightforward cause-and-effect.
Eg, it’s not about whether Top College X just adds dorm space. An increased number of students has impact on almost every service a college offers. Faculty, classroom/lab space, support services, food service, admin staffing, the nature and size of activities, etc.
And some seem to say, “If this is what we want, it should be so.” Or else, there’s something rotten in Denmark.
And to focus on “marketing” of the undergrad college, perceptions, etc. is to miss the forest for the trees.
Yale’s expansion/creation of a Life Sciences Center (not adjacent to campus- two exits up the interstate in the town of Orange). This has almost zero impact on undergrads. It was a capital investment project which has a huge impact on the state of CT; consolidated labs and other facilities that were scattered around the region, moved the nursing school (which is not an undergrad program), etc. This is completely different from Yale’s expansion of “Science Hill” which IS adjacent to campus, does have an impact on undergraduates, etc.
These projects take years- in some cases decades. They cost oodles of money and require a delicate dance with various municipalities and state government agencies. They require a lot of focus on the part of university leadership-- modifications to the Master Plan, hiring architects who know it might be years before a shovel hits the ground.
They don’t do this to “market” to HS kids. They do it because it fits with the overall mission of the university, its affiliated hospitals and research centers, etc.
And yes- the leadership of Yale understands that for a lot less money they could expand their “marketing”.
I could give you the same/parallel examples across the landscape of research universities. Because that’s their mission. Marketing to high school kids to keep their ratings high??? Please.
But what then IS the point of this marketing? This is a genuine question. I don’t have an angle or an answer in mind.
My D18 received scads of mail from Harvard and other ivies. She had a terrific application but was never a candidate for an ivy. And she is not in any category like first gen that Harvard actively reaches out to as part of its mission. So I could never think of a single reason why Harvard would encourage her to apply, unless it was to boost its numbers. But clearly they don’t need more applicants, so why…?
That said, they were lovely brochures and I enjoyed window shopping. 
4 Likes
My son same except University of Chicago and Cornell were the schools that were sending lots of mailers…lots of personalize very nice mailers…and emails
I wouldn’t read too much into this. The brochure type outreach is not specific. The colleges pretty much contract with ACT and the College Board to give them a mailing list of students fitting some general dimensions (geography, score, demographic…). I think they cast a broad net just to reach anyone who is in the ballpark because there are legit candidates. I doubt they do this to decrease their admit rate.
It’s amazing how tech can make mailers look personalized when they are not.