Yes, the self-selection factor is big. Same with Caltech. Numbers wise, half as hard to get into as MIT, but lots of MIT people are not admitted to Caltech (17% versus 8% or something close…). Bryn Mawr is another case in point. Chicago used to be almost exclusively so, but their president decided to ape the Ivy’s, so they get 30 000+apps like their peer schools. That may be one of the reasons apps to Reed have risen.
Reed and Bryn Mawr show that scores are not the gold keys to scholarly brilliance. For example, Reed has 32 Rhodes scholars, where as Penn has 5, Northwestern 16, Columbia 27, Georgetown 24, Vanderbilt 26, Michigan 26, Swarthmore 28, Hopkins 19, Amherst 20, Cornell 30. And Reed is the tiniest and youngest of these places…
Yes, the self-selection factor is big. Same with Caltech. Numbers wise, half as hard to get into as MIT, there are MIT people that were not admitted to Caltech (17% versus MIT’s 8% or something close). Bryn Mawr is another case in point. Chicago used to be almost exclusively so, but their president decided to ape the Ivy’s, so they get 30 000+apps like their peer schools. That may be one of the reasons apps to Reed have risen.
Reed and Bryn Mawr show that scores are not the gold keys to scholarly brilliance. For example, Reed has 32 Rhodes scholars, where as Penn has 5, Northwestern 16, Columbia 27, Georgetown 24, Vanderbilt 26, Michigan 26, Swarthmore 28, Hopkins 19, Amherst 20, Cornell 30. And Reed is the tiniest and youngest of these places…
@cutepug Caltech’s acceptance rate is 8% now, compared to 7.9% at MIT, so the example is a bit outdated - as is the question, considering Reed’s acceptance rate was 32% last year, only a bit higher than other elite LACs.
Thanx for alerting me about that. As for contrasting Reed to peer schools, Amherst is down to about 12%, Carleton is around 19% and Swarthmore hovers around 12% for admit rates.
It would seem pretty obvious to me (and noted at the start of this thread) that non-compliance with USNWR and the subsequent low-ranking b/cf of that non-compliance would eliminate all those applicants who just apply to the most highly ranked. So the smaller pool of applicants would drive up acceptance rates. BTW, anyone see that hilarious article in NYT about Stanford not accepting anyone & therefore becoming the most selective school in the nation?
Two factors suggest that there will be continued downward pressure on Reed acceptance rates for 2016:
(1) The Reed Admissions Tumblr recently reported a “record number” of applicants. So they apparently topped the high 2015 number. An increase in applicants commonly signals a drop in acceptance rate.
(2) The 35.0 % acceptance rate for 2015 was too high, and caused problems with overenrollment. They wound up with about 420 students, while the normal class size is only about 350. Overenrollment commonly signals a drop in acceptance rate.
Both signals point to a significantly lower acceptance rate at Reed for 2016. The rate will probably drop into the 20-29% range. This would be comparable to schools like Wesleyan, Bates, Oberlin, or Grinnell.
I’d say the question becomes less relevant should the 30% threshold be reached. Acceptance rates lower than this may have little impact in terms of admitting a capable, motivated class. The same question has received a fair amount of responses in the Williams forum (acceptance rate ~17%). In this range especially, I wouldn’t think a lower rate would serve the college. A higher one, actually, could conceivably be preferable. A good admissions yield (30%+) is desirable under all circumstances.
A good admissions yield (30%+) is desirable under all circumstances.
Reed’s yield is currently below that level; it was only 22.3 % for Fall 2015. But if the yield improves, that would be yet another factor putting downward pressure on the acceptance rate.
*In this range especially, I wouldn’t think a lower [acceptance] rate would serve the college. A higher one, actually, could conceivably be preferable. *
If Reed wants to maintain a class size of about 350, then mathematically they cannot have a high applicant volume AND a relatively high acceptance rate AND a strong yield. Something has to give, or else they will be overenrolled. And as a small LAC, they aren’t well equipped to handle overenrollment. This is the current problem with the Class of 2019, which has about 420 students. The lecture halls and housing, in their current form, don’t have sufficient capacity – see [this story](http://www.reedquest.org/admission-mistake-floods-reed-with-first-year-students/): “Admissions Mistake Floods Reed with First-Year Students”.
To prevent overenrollment, Reed needs to either (1) discourage students from submitting applications, or (2) accept only a small percentage of applicants, or (3) discourage accepted students from enrolling. They will probably go with option (2).
If Reed continues to get large numbers of well qualified applicants, then in the long term they could consider growing and intentionally admitting larger classes. At about 1400 undergrads, they are currently quite small even by LAC standards; they could grow by 25% and still be a relatively small LAC. But this would require some significant planning and infrastructure improvements, which could take years.
I don’t think Reed gives a hoot (hello there, Doyle Owl) about the stats. The acceptance rate is high, but the yield is low, and the school ends up with what it wants. Reed has chosen to “grow” by expanding its facilities rather than its population. Works for me. USNWR and the others can go take a flying leap into the canyon.
Reed’s strategy is working – they had a record number of applicants for Fall 2014, they broke the record for Fall 2015, and they’ve apparently broken it again for Fall 2016. But as the number of applicants goes up, the acceptance rate goes down. It simply has to work that way (unless the school is deliberately trying to grow, which Reed isn’t doing).
I don’t think Reed wants a low acceptance rate for the sake of college rankings, or for the sake of bragging rights. However, Reed does want lots of prospective students to apply, and their acceptance rate is destined to become low for that reason.
@Ghostt that match the percentage that was estimated by the adcom at the Reed reception I attended, but where did you get the stats? Is there a link to an announcement!
If anyone cares about the current trend, Reed admitted 1600 out of 5700 applicants this year.
Assuming those numbers are more or less accurate, then they are pretty much in line with what I expected.
Application numbers are up, from about 5400 last year to 5700. That’s because Reed has been trying to encourage applications. But acceptances are down, from about 1900 last year to 1600. That’s because Reed doesn’t want another year of overenrollment. 1900 acceptances last year was too many.
I expected a Fall 2016 acceptance rate below 30%. The numbers above imply that the rate was 28%. For comparison, I pulled the following acceptance rates from collegeboard.com:
The bottom line is that Reed, at least for Fall 2016, does not have a “much higher acceptance rate than other elite LACs”. It arguably did until a few years ago – for example, the acceptance rate for Fall 2013 was 48.5 %. That was clearly an outlier relative to comparable LACs. But 28 % is not an outlier.
Olde Reed had a small, “self-selected” applicant pool and relatively high acceptance rates. My guess is that New Reed, for better or worse, will be different. I don’t think that Fall 2016 is a fluke; Reed admissions are going to be much more competitive, in line with other LACs, for the foreseeable future.
Up into the early 2000s, the University of Chicago had a small, “self-selected” applicant pool, with acceptance rates above 50 %. Now their acceptance rates are below 10 %. Like it or not, Reed is likely about to undergo a similar (though probably less extreme) transition.
I suspect that Reed suffered for a few years from some very bad press it received for admissions changes it was forced to deal with after the 2008 financial crisis.
“I don’t think Reed gives a hoot (hello there, Doyle Owl) about the stats.”
Most admits and their working family members do. Reed’s Enrollment and Persistence (Section B Common Data Set) stats just don’t stack up to supposedly similar institutions.
Freshman Retention/ 6-year grad rate* / 4-year grad rate*
The question posed in this thread (look at the top of the page) is “Why does Reed have a much higher acceptance rate than other elite LACs?”
And the answers that have been provided in the thread have been relevant and informative:
Reed historically had a relatively small applicant pool, and relatively high acceptance rates.
Over the last few years, the applicant pool has grown markedly, and acceptance rates have dropped.
As of Fall 2016, the Reed acceptance rate appears to be within the "elite LAC" range.
You don’t seem to be disagreeing with any of these points. Instead, your point seems to be: “But Reed has relatively low retention and graduation rates”. That has historically been true, and it’s a point that potential applicants and their families should be aware of. But it is not responsive to the question posed in the title of this thread.
Your point would belong in a thread on “Why does Reed have lower retention and graduation rates than other elite LACs?” Feel free to start one, if you don’t know the answer.
^Most certainly, Reed DOES NOT have and has never had the admission rates of similar colleges. As per Section C Common Data Sets. Fall 2015 acceptance rates were:
The title of this thread is Why a higher acceptance rate. You are contesting that Reed doesn’t have such. What acceptances rates will be in the future (e.g. after the WL and in future years) is yet to be determined. You are counting your chickens before they hatch. Historically low retention and graduation rates are a valid explanation for comparatively high admission rates. They certainly make admits think twice before choosing to attend Reed. Wesleyan and Vassar are widely viewed as safer bets than Reed for college.
BTW, how can you call a college which two years ago admitted 48.5% of its applicants “elite”?
I don’t know what “Elite” means, but when Reed admitted 49%, the median SAT for the matriculating students was 39th highest in the country (2070). It’s higher than USC, Middlebury, Emory, Cooper Union, and Colgate in the same year. These are schools with much higher acceptance rates. Similarly, Forbes has Reed at 43rd for highest SAT average in the country. This lends credence to the idea that students who select Reed are self-selected. You don’t apply to a school famous for academic rigor without having the preps to back it up. In the end, Reed doesn’t seem to have a problem attracting and matriculating great students.
Finally, a college knows where it stands based on who else considers it a peer. Schools that consider Reed their peers: