https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/trump-bump-student-numbers-rise-us-womens-colleges
I didn’t realize we were part of a much bigger trend! For my DD it was definately a deliberate choice to go to a women’s college (she applied to 4). Interesting shift and will be watching with interest what happens over the next few years.
Its record yields everywhere this year, especially at top schools. Journalists always seem so quick to attribute every trend to politics.
Thanks for posting this!
I know almost all colleges are seeing record applications (due mostly to the ease of the common app), but there’s only so many high school seniors to go around – if some schools are seeing record yields, @jzducol, doesn’t it hold that other schools would be seeing lowered yields?
^The increasing yield only seems to occur at top end of the colleges. There are two reasons that I think can explain the higher yield trend in recent years at more highly ranked colleges. One is that there are increasing number of applications to top colleges which are easier to apply to and better known by more people in this internet and google age.
The second reason is a bit more subtle, but no less important in my opinion. It has to do with more or more holistic approach at top colleges in recent years----by de-emphasizing more observable characteristics, such as stats. The effect of it is that the admission outcomes are more random. To understand the effect, consider the following hypothetical scenario:
You have top 100 kids applying to top five colleges which accept 10 kids each. If the admission criteria is solely based on an observable ranking (like GPAs/test scores), the top ten kids will have ten acceptance offers from all schools and the yield will be 20% an average. Now we change the criteria to a more holistic one where all 100 kids have a chance to get the total of 50 offers. Obviously, the likelihood of a kid having multiple offers is dramatically decreased. If most kids have only one offer the yield would approach 90%.
@jzducol That may be, but if you read the article you would see that there’s an increase in the awareness in applicants of misogyny in the current political discussion that is showing up in more application essays. Whatever is going on at other schools, at least these women’s schools are seeing more applicants who are politically aware and seeking out women’s colleges.
Well they are women’s colleges so it could be as simple as today’s women find appeal in all women colleges again…these things go in cycles. I doubt women are more politically aware than women in the early seventies. It is just that the concept of equal…men’s colleges admitting women and woman’s colleges admitting men was popular. It was more of a one to one attitude then. Today’s women might view equality with a different lens and prefer the strength in numbers approach rather than competing one ti one. I can understand a desire to self segregate these days. That elusive fit can be about POV.
Interesting! I’d like to see an apples-to-apples comparison between each women’s college and a co-ed peer. I don’t know what the yield trends are at similarly selective LACs.
I think it’s largely of a function of the increased level of competition for all elite & highly selective colleges. The women’s colleges have always been less selective than comparable/peer co-ed college simply as a function of excluding males from their applicant pools. But the diminishing admit rates have impacted all college, so the women’s colleges look more attractive as match candidates for high stat students; and at the same time their increased selectivity leads to them being perceived as more desirable and prestigious. Plus the crazy admissions climate now increases pressure on students to apply ED; and also increases likelihood that in the RD round the students might find that their women’s college admission is their most attractive option.
A dozen years ago, my daughter was cross-admitted to both Barnard and U. of Chicago, and I think that was relatively common at the time. Statistically, Barnard was the more selective. The year my daughter was admitted, Barnard took 25% of apps and Chicago took 35%. But now the numbers have shifted dramatically – Chicago’s admissions have fallen to single digits, and Barnard’s are less than 15%.
It is interesting to me how many of the above posters are willing to simply write off the claims of the actual admissions staff at the women’s colleges that this is related to the political climate and the choice that young women are making to attend women’s colleges.
Yield is complicated, and we don’t have final numbers till Sept/Oct. Once those numbers our out, we can start doing some comparisons The general trend could very well be an increase in yield at all very selective colleges. It’s a bit early to give Trump “credit” for the increase in yield at elite, highly selective women colleges.
Well, it’s not early if the women are writing down that information in their essays and then following up by accepting the schools they hoped to enter. That’s information that I’m sort of amazed that the commenters here are ignoring.
That is what the article is saying.
Or can someone show me words in the article that indicate otherwise? I may have misread it.
Applicants will always find things to say as the reason for choosing the school, they could be ABC this year and XYZ next year. And AOs will always find things they can believe and advertise that their school is more in demand.
I am not saying that the Trump factor is not the reason for increasing interest in women’s colleges or misogyny shouldn’t be condemned. It is just that when it happens against the backdrop of increasing applications and yields at peer LACs and universities it is hard to know its true effect until we see all the data.
You don’t choose a women’s college for four years just to register displeasure with some current political concern. You have to want the full experience. Or some other driver like net cost.
It’s possible the crazy long waitlists so many colleges had this year were part of their yield protection strategies too.
Maybe things like this headline today are contributing to women choosing these schools “Former University of Washington rower who shared photos of himself having sex with two women who were blacked out gets just THREE DAYS in jail.” Maybe more women are not interested in the out of control frat boy climate at some colleges.
We don’t seem to be seeing much reference to current political climate as a motivating factor in the forums here.
If you ask a bunch of 17 year olds to write supplemental essays on why they want to attend a particular school, or to respond to supplemental essay prompts, then many are going to write about topical issues or concerns.
But if the ad coms want to know why their yield is going up, then I think the first place to look would be the cross-admit data. Are they seeing a change there?
I think that yield is closely tied to selectivity – this table on the Barnard site would tend to indicate that – as the admission rate goes down, the yield goes up: https://barnard.edu/sites/default/files/adm2_fy_admissionstable_10.17.17.pdf
Students tend to opt to attend their reach colleges when they get accepted, if affordable to them. So the lower the chances of admission, the higher the likelihood that the students they accept will have fewer peer-school level options.
Here is a single data point for you all.
My daughter is extremely liberal socially and politically.
She is disgusted by the current administration.
She has no interest in dealing with right-wing culture and has no desire to have that impact her education or her social life.
She turned down a full ride to UPitt, turned down scholarships at co-ed schools, to attend a women’s college BECAUSE of the atmosphere at a women’s college vs. the atmosphere in other colleges/the country at large.
My daughter was sent a questionnaire to fill out after accepting her place at the college. The questions were specifically asking WHY did you choose this school and WHY did you choose a women’s college. I would imagine her college is not the only college to have this kind of follow-up with newly admitted students.
Now, if college admissions people are seeing this kind of data point multiplying this year over previous years, I do not understand the posters here who are trying to deny this as a trend.
If the guys don’t start doing better in high school, they are all going to be women’s colleges.
The Barnard “First Year Admissions” table I posted above shows the trend toward declining admit rate and increased yield goes back to 2012.
Wellesley stats show yield holding steady in recent years, significantly down from a high of almost 72% in 2002. Over the past decade, the highest yield was 61% in 2009. In 2017, yield was 59% See https://www.wellesley.edu/oir/wellesley-college-data/factbook-2016-2017/admission-statistics-1996-2017-/node/115646
Smith has seen its applicant pool almost double since 2005,but the trend line is relatively smooth - certainly no recent spike – and the number admissions & enrollments has similarly held steady with a yield of 37% going back to 2005 - “Smith College Admission Metrics” at
https://www.smith.edu/about-smith/institutional-research/smith-analytics