Willl the admissions competition subside?

<p>As the last of the baby boomers' offspring are in late high school and college (and beyond) now, do you think that things will ease up a bit in the coming years regarding college admissions? Won't there be less of a pool of kids applying to colleges in the coming years? (I say this hopefully, as I have an 8 and 11 year old...!)</p>

<p>I have often read that the graduating class of 2011 will be the "peak" year (that is, it is supposed to get worse each year until then) and then it will begin to slowly subside. But that doesn't really help - an 8-year-old will graduate in 2015, and that's just 4 years past the peak --- so I think (depending on how slowly or sharply the peak declines), that year could be just as bad as right now....</p>

<p>Maybe someone else has the exact demographics by year....</p>

<p>It may get better for a time, but the population of America (and the world) will continue to skyrocket. I doubt college admissions will ever be the same as in the 80s and before.</p>

<p>There are more than a thousand colleges in America that are underenrolled, and begging for students. And, as the so-called "top" (read: those with the wealthiest families sending their kids there) reject more and more applicants equally qualified to those they accept, the gap between the top 25-50 universities and LACs narrows, as it already has in the last two decades, until the differences among them pale into insignificance. In that sense, top colleges are becoming LESS competitive, because there are fewer differences among them, and more room "at the top".</p>

<p>Mini, I agree with you.
The public doesn't understand this.
There are many people on this board that don't understand this.</p>

<p>Thus, the frenzy continues.</p>

<p>Along with the population increase factor, you have to consider the increase in the number of apps per applicant. Many of us remember when 1-3 was typical. I bet that number has soared, at a faster rate then our population, maybe.</p>

<p>they may be begging for applicants but until their endowments increase so that they can provide need based aid in the same numbers that the top schools do, I don't see their popularity increasing with anyone that needs aid to attend.</p>

<p>Look just below the top 25-50 and you'll find schools that:
[ul]
[<em>]will be a great fit
[</em>]with choices of size, location, etc
[<em>]that want you
[</em>]that may pay you some merit aid to go there
[li]that avoid the frenzy[/li][/ul]</p>

<p>"they may be begging for applicants but until their endowments increase so that they can provide need based aid in the same numbers that the top schools do, I don't see their popularity increasing with anyone that needs aid to attend."</p>

<p>For the top 50, but below the very top, it just isn't true:</p>

<p>Look at the differences in institutional aid per student, and you quickly see that (among these top 50 schools) there is no correlation between the size of the endowment and institutional aid per student. Note that Mount Holyoke provides almost 40% more aid per student than Harvard, and almost 55% more than Dartmouth, with an endowment that is a pittance of the others. Maclester's endowment is less than half of Mount Holyoke's!</p>

<ol>
<li> Mount Holyoke - $12,792</li>
<li> Reed - $12,683</li>
<li> Oberlin - $12,262</li>
<li> Smith - $12,013</li>
<li> Amherst – 10,925</li>
<li> Macalester - $10,764</li>
<li> Swarthmore - $10,595</li>
<li> Grinnell - $10,020</li>
<li> Hamilton - $9,795</li>
<li>Harvard - $9,527</li>
<li>MIT - $9,316</li>
<li>Princeton - $9,164</li>
<li>Stanford - $8,660</li>
<li>Bowdoin - $8,649</li>
<li>Williams - $8,560</li>
<li>Dartmouth – 8,132</li>
<li>Middlebury - $8,085</li>
<li>Haverford - $8,079</li>
<li>Colby - $7,638</li>
<li>Bates - $7,535</li>
<li>Washington & Lee - $6,279</li>
<li>Northwestern - $6,237</li>
<li>Davidson - $6,160</li>
</ol>

<p>Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton should be embarrassed. These schools should be at the top of the list. Where's Yale?</p>

<p>I think there is some truth to the difficulties in finding a school
Schools costs are increasing disproportinate to income.
State schools are not compensated for all students who attend.
More students are planning on attending college than 10 years ago, however at least at our flagship U the GPA and SAT scores required to be admitted are much higher.
Traditionally, receiving a AA certificate at a state community college was a way to save money for many students who then could transfer to the 4 year school. However, some schools don't have room for them any more and students are left hanging.</p>

<p>emeraldkity4, that's a little gloomy.
How is Western Washington viewed where you live?</p>

<p>Look at the differences in institutional aid per student, and you quickly see that (among these top 50 schools) there is no correlation between the size of the endowment and institutional aid per student. Note that Mount Holyoke provides almost 40% more aid per student than Harvard, and almost 55% more than Dartmouth, with an endowment that is a pittance of the others. Maclester's endowment is less than half of Mount Holyoke's!</p>

<p>All those schools are still very expensive and once you are talking $40K+ a year, in my mind anyway, the difference between $8,000 and $12,000 is negligible.
Where is the rest coming from? And what do schools that are really below the top 200 schools offer in aid?
Even schools like NYU are notorious for nasty financial aid packages, but it doesn't seem to affect their application rate.</p>

<p>"Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton should be embarrassed. These schools should be at the top of the list. Where's Yale?"</p>

<p>Haven't been able to find the Common Data Set for Yale. Given Pell Grant percentages, and the percentage of folks not receiving any need-based aid, my guess is that they'd be in the $8k range.</p>

<p>Yes, they should be embarrassed. (But they're not.) They claim to be "need-blind" (doesn't exist), meeting 100% of need. But note that of the top 6, only Amherst claims to be "need-blind" - but even they admit that they place special priority on recruiting folls with lower income backgrounds.</p>

<p>Emeraldkity - the difference between $8k and $12k is HUGE. Remember, this is institutional aid per student - ALL students - NOT institutional aid per student receiving aid. This number looks at the schools' total commitment to making sure students can attend, and is reflected in both the size of aid packages, and the percentage of students receiving aid. It's probably the best indicator out there - much better than "average aid package per student", "loan components", or percentage of students receiving aid.</p>

<p>Emeraldkity4, if you estimate that half the kids don't receive aid, the amount of aid per student that receives aid is between $16,000 and $24,000. The difference is big.</p>

<p>I can't get bent out of shape about how much aid Harvard gives vs. Princeton. Mini, I wish you'd vent your outrage on our Public U. systems, many of which can no longer get a kid out in under 6 years, many of which can't guarantee housing past Freshman year, many of which spend more on fancy basketball facilities than on Nano labs and funding biotech research, which is what will be required to stay competitive with private universities. I know you've got a bee in your bonnet about Pell grant recepients and their presence at elite campuses, but frankly, I'm much more bothered that low income and middle income kids can't complete their degree at all, than whether they do it at Williams or Wesleyan.</p>

<p>While I completely agree with dstark, digmedia, mini, and others that there are 3,000 schools and only the top ones are part of the frenzy, there are some problems. </p>

<p>1) I count any school who turns away more people than they accept as competitive, and many schools that formerly took almost everyone who applied now have the same admission rates as (say) Yale had not so long ago! So as the "overflow fountain" effect continues, with the huge population of people going to college, many of those "safety" schools get harder to get into. This includes schools well past the top 100 (or top 50, digmedia), let alone the top 10.</p>

<p>2) MAYBE some of the really bad schools will get better as wealthier kids who are turned away elsewhere end up there - but I for one think it will be quite awhile before some of those schools ratchet up their quality in not only a few rich applicants, but better facilities, teachers, etc. There are a large number of schools in my state that are little better than crappy high schools, though the give (ostensibly) degrees. I volunteer at one. The quality of the student work is borderline abysmal - similar to what my kids were doing in middle school (I kid you not. Hmm, or maybe the poor students at the middle school, not the good ones). There are several thousand schools in the country that I would NOT send my kid to - they would be better off going to work!</p>

<p>This is not to deny your general point, dstark, digmedia, etc; and I certainly agree that kids should be looking beyond the top ten LACs or the Ivies - but on the other hand, there are some schools that would be nothing more than a worthless holding pen for my kids. Recently I visited my Ivy, and I was quite literally <strong>overwhelmed</strong> at the talent, energy, creativity, and genius evident everywhere I went. The difference between that school and the fourth-rate regional where I volunteer was so huge, the proverbial "like night and day" wouldn't cover it. There is a reason the top schools are in demand, and there is a reason they are on top.</p>

<p>Spend a half day at my regional and you'll agree.</p>

<p>I hope I am making my point clear --- I am sick as a dog today (sorry!).</p>

<p>Why should HYS and P be embarrassed? At the very least, you need to add in the amount of aid that is not reflected in the numbers. I've read that the cost of educating a student at these schools is north of $60k/year, which means that everyone starts with about $20k/yr in aid.</p>

<p>nedad, there is a big difference a 4th tier and an IVY.</p>

<p>bossom, the biggest reason kids graduate in 6 years instead of 4 is MONEY!
It took me 5 years to graduate. Why, because I had to work 40 hours per week the first 2 years, and 30 hours per week the 3rd year. It had nothing to do with the school.
There are tons of kids that have to work when they go to college. You are more likely to see these kids at public schools rather than privates. To then blame the school for not graduating the kids in 4 years is BS.</p>

<p>A friend of mine teaches at San Francisco State. He said there are smart people at the school along with some that aren't so bright.
What they have in common is they have jobs.</p>

<p>There are plenty of good schools looking for kids that provide EXCELLENT need based and merit aid. They are using their money to try to fill their classes. DePauw is one example - not a name school, not a huge endowment, but they are giving away plenty of money to fill their seats. Financial aid isn't the issue. </p>

<p>The issue is that parents and kids are focusing on "winning the prize" of a "name" school --- they are not looking at all of the schools that are available out there, they are only focusing on about 50 or so "prestige" schools.</p>