After racial incidents/ protests at Mizzou in fall of 2015, freshman enrollment plummeted by about 33% in 2016. They were still down for 2017, but not quite as much. Mizzou claims to be recovering.
Mizzou is beginning to recover, as the 2015 protest begins to fade…
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article210303384.html
However, compare to the fall of 2015, when 6,191 first-time students enrolled at the University of Missouri, it still has a ways to go…
I can clarify regarding athletes at USMA. Appointments are based on a very transparent three-legged Whole Candidate Score (WCS) made up of academics, physical fitness, and medical health. Every candidate has to pass the bar set for each in order to become 3Q (fully qualified), along with receiving a congressional nomination, before the application can go to the admissions table. Extreme physical fitness and “perfect” health are required to pass two of those bars which heavily favors athletes. Plus, as @lastone03 mentioned, the leadership component of athletics as noted by the high percentage of team captains among the varsity athletes dovetails well with what the academies look for and need in future officers. The equivalent of the CC “Chances” forum over on the SA board reeks more with angst over getting that varsity letter or captainship than standardized test scores.
The academies use their prep schools to give promising candidates a Plebe-like year of academics and military structure to prepare them for re-evaluation for the next year’s class. Athletes and prior-enlisted make up a good portion of the prep classes. If the prepster passes the academic bar at the end of the year, an appointment is almost certain.
But note that ALL candidates, direct admits or prepsters, must pass that academic bar before receiving an appointment. Also note that ALL cadets, core players or not, must keep passing that academic bar every day during their 47 months at the academy. West Point admits roughly 1300 incoming Plebes in an attempt to commission 1,000 officers four years later. Our son’s junior class is already below that 1,000. Cadets separate for many reasons (academics, honor, finding the military is not for them, etc.), but all are held to the same standard.
Regarding the apparently low test scores, etc. at the USMA, note that the USMA and other academies have some less traditional pathways to admission:
- Applicants with post-high-school college work apply as frosh (not transfers).
- There is an admission pathway for currently enlisted service members.
So it is entirely possible that some of those entering the academies using these pathways may not have the strongest high-school-based stats (including test scores), but were admitted at least in part by stronger post-high-school records in college and/or as enlisted service members.
To @donnaleighg 's comment at #38, there was a noticeable anomaly in the Swat application trend when the second essay was added / removed. BC had a huge drop when they added an essay, acknowledging when they added it that they were OK with fewer apps.
The school that comes to mind in this discussion is Colby. They have very aggressively attacked rankings and perception via an application process that has eliminated essays, eliminated fees, and now guarantees a free education for households making under $60k. Their applications have gone from 5,148 for the class of 2018 (28% acceptance rate) to 12,313 for the class of 2022 (13%). This is a documented strategy of the new President when he arrived in 2014, and I wonder if schools that targeted applications ultimately return to their previous stature over extended periods of time?
It’s a discussion on the severe fringes of the process, as it was a good school before any of this and will continue to be such. Is there an inevitable slide for schools that pull every application generation lever possible?
Thanks for making that point, @ucbalumnus. It is spot on and I meant to elaborate on the prior-enlisted component as they make up a good portion of the prep classes. Again, the SA admission process and mission does not align neatly with the civilian college process and mission for meaningful comparison.
It’s the private schools. As more and more middle class people apply to these schools, it puts a strain on endowment funding. Students are getting accepted, but are quickly being weeded out after getting financial aid packages. They need more affluent and wealthy people who can afford to pay their high tuition rates. They also artificially limit enrollment to make themselves look more “prestigious.” This leads to more research grants. In reality, they’re getting paid for doing literally nothing and pandering to rich parents. Private schools have the highest levels of grade inflation anywhere. Wake Forest has an average GPA of 3.4. That can’t possibly be because their students are oh so smart! It’s because good grades make everyone happy.
@bclintonk Actually I’m not really defensive (I’m not the one who sic’s it’s/its grammatical errors on a quick message board response at 2:15a – I guess your point, in itself, proves UM’s the better school!!)… Nevertheless my response is: … whatever. I did, in fact, give you credit and I agree’d with the gist of your comments defending MSU in ultimately, probalby not getting really hurt by the Nassar mess (even though, in the moral scheme of things, MSU probably should be given its callous and foolish approach during and after Nassar’s abuses were known). And you also recognized what should be obvious to most: that MSU has more name rec and even staying power (my words) than the Michigan public directionals + GVSU and Oakland, the latter of which are strong in their own right. – heck, you could thrown in MTU as well, which even beats those 2 schools, academically, on most levels and is better known.
But Dude, come on. As Shakespeare would note, not only were you damning Michigan State with faint praise, let’s just say you weren’t quite accurate…and I’ll leave it at that… It’s not worth prolonging a tit-for-tat, point-for-point back 'n forth with you. I just wish, sometimes, that (some) UM folks would not have such a constant need to downgrade MSU comparatively with UM, because as I always concede, and most people know, anyway: of course UM is the stronger school on most levels, and certainly much better known to the public academically. So that being the case, why must (some) UM people constantly pound that drum over and over and over and… Just try to concede, at least a little bit, that MSU is pretty darn strong, too, and is not the totally, Michigan-centric vocationally oriented school some A2 folks make it out to be. Just try…
“They also artificially limit enrollment to make themselves look more “prestigious.””
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this comment, @coolguy40?
@EyeVeee - The slide isn’t inevitable. Some schools play the rankings consistently and win. U Chicago has always been a great school but 10 years ago they ranked in the 10-15s, now they are in the top 5. The school didn’t change but the admissions dept aggressively pursued policies to look more desirable and they shot up the rankings quickly. It’s a numbers game and all schools must decide how hard to “play”.
@doschicos Sure. It’s simple supply and demand. Applications continue to skyrocket, and capacity remains stagnant. This allows schools to be more and more selective. The more selective they are, the more prestigious it looks. For example, let’s say I’m selling a video game machine that everyone in America wants. Then I decide to restrict it to only a few thousand units a month. People are going to be drooling to get it. That really makes it look like I have a great product. Perhaps I do. Once competition comes, people will discover how overrated and overpriced my product was to begin with. It’s the same concept with private schools. By being highly selective with inflated application numbers, with limited capacity, they can make it look more prestigious by only selecting the “best” and “brightest.” In reality, selective means just that. It doesn’t mean better or more rigorous, or any more than an accredited bachelor’s degree. It’s really just highly effective marketing.
We have data for pre-law students courtesy of LSAC. I posted the average GPAs in a recent thread.
3.56 Michigan
3.55 UCB / UCLA
3.44 William & Mary
3.43 UVA
3.41 UNC Chapel Hill
3.39 Wake Forest
The only top 40 school with a lower GPA than Wake Forest is UCSB at 3.35. (Note: data is not available for Caltech, MIT, Georgia Tech, CMU, and Case.)
“U Chicago has always been a great school but 10 years ago they ranked in the 10-15s, now they are in the top 5. The school didn’t change but the admissions dept aggressively pursued policies to look more desirable and they shot up the rankings quickly.”
They are definitely playing the admissions game and playing it hard. But they also made some very real changes to the campus, environment and structure to make what was already a fantastic academic institution more broadly appealing. Instead of reveling in being a grimy, gritty place that offered no creature comfort and used not just intense academics but a callous atmosphere to deter the less than totally serious, they’ve built new dorms, made the surroundings safer, beefed up the residential housing system and made conscious efforts to create a stellar student experience. It’s no longer the place where fun goes to die. And part of their rise in popularity is due to students being drawn to those positive changes. I’ve seen the changes and how exciting they are.
As a high school student in the '80s, I really wanted to go to UChicago to be part of the intense academics and the amazing advances that were happening there. I was invited to visit - in February. Being a poor hick from SW Florida, I didn’t own a winter coat, boots, gloves or any cold gear so just layered on pretty much every long sleeved cotton top I had and a few pairs of jeans and went for it. In the 80s, crime in Chicago was high and the campus had no buffer between campus buildings and the surrounding, very high crime area. The dorms were old and grimy and many of the class buildings not much better. When my host was giving me the tour, we observed what appeared to be a drug deal literally across the street from us. The host reassured me that it wasn’t as dangerous as it appeared and that if someone was chasing a student, the student could just run, knocking off the white security phones placed every few blocks or so until campus security tracked the student down. Wearing all the layers I was and still freezing, I couldn’t imagine how quickly I could run from a drug dealer chasing me and sadly concluded I wasn’t fast enough to attend school there. OK, that’s a little bit of a funny spin on it, but many potential students decided the same thing I did - it was a shame to miss out on the fantastic academics at UChicago but there were safer and much more enjoyable places to get a college education.
That has largely changed. The college has bought much of the surrounding neighborhood and created a buffer zone. Crime rates have dropped. There is visible security everywhere and students feel safe on campus. Students have a great quality environment on campus and easy access to Chicago, one of the US’ great cities. There are new dorms and the older buildings are beautifully maintained - it’s now a gorgeous, inviting campus. The residential housing system draws students who want social ties without going Greek. The administration understands that the student experience is important and works hard to create a good atmosphere.
The academics have always been top rate. Now that UChicago has the matching amenities and is a positive student experience, it’s reasonable that rankings and popularity has risen to the place its academics have always been.
The 1980s was during the crime wave era, so it is probable that other schools in higher crime areas benefited from the general decline in crime rates. USC and NYU seem to be obvious examples.
@coolguy40 I’m confused by your explanation. How is the selectivity artificial? The colleges can’t just increase their numbers willy nilly. They are limited by the schools physical plant and other resources. Also, how does this pertain to just private colleges as you state. The same increase in demand for limited spots is true at both private and public schools that are considered to be desirable.
@coolguy40 More often than not, this is the case and applies to both private and public schools with good programs. It’s the schools struggling to get applicants/matriculates that are on their way down. They don’t have what people want whether that’s academics, respect from employers/grad/prof schools, campus “feeling,” or “look.”
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
May I remind users of the rules of the forum:
https://www.collegeconfidential.com/policies/rules/
Let’s try to focus on the original question. “Which Overrated Colleges are on the Way Down?”
On the way down are schools outside the top 150.
For the cost of college today people want a solid ranking and/or a recognizable brand name, Schools with neither will continue to struggle.
If they were outside the Top 150, can we really say they were overrated?
If we’re going with that, in my state ¶ our true state schools (most names unrecognizable to many, but doesn’t include Penn St, Pitt, or Temple - see list of those included at the end of the linked article) are declining in population - this article says 13% over 6 years and I know it’s still declining. State funding has declined too. We’re already the third highest in cost for our public college education, so many students are finding it more attractive to go elsewhere (esp if need based aid factors in), though the article blames it on the aging population in the state. I suppose that would have something to do with it as few want to come to those state schools from OOS.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see my state close (or merge) some of the schools relatively soon.
@Creekland - Interesting article. I do think that certain economies of scale are necessary in higher ed today. I think very small colleges will struggle.