A Great Year for Ivy League Schools, but Not So Good for Applicants to Them

Parents Forum
1

<br>

<br>

<p>The third trend driving the frantic competition is that the average college applicant applies to many more colleges than in past decades. In the 1960s, fewer than 2 percent of college freshmen had applied to six or more colleges, whereas in 2006 more than 2 percent reported having applied to 11 or more, according to The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2006, an annual report on a continuing long-term study published by the University of California, Los Angeles.</p>

<p>?Multiple applications per student,? Mr. Hawkins said, ?is a factor that exponentially crowds the college admissions environment.?</p>

<p>One reason that students are filing more applications is the increasing use of the Common Application, a form that can be completed and filed via the Internet.</p>

<p>The ferocious competition at the most selective schools has not affected the overall acceptance rate at the rest of the nation?s 2,500 four-year colleges and universities, which accept an average of 70 percent of applicants.>></p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/education/04colleges.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/education/04colleges.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>I think this admissions frenzy is largely an illusion in one sense. Yes, the admission rates are going down significantly. No doubt about that. And yes, because of this the process is more random. But does anyone believe that this is because a higher %age of hs grads are attending college now? I doubt that there were darned few HYP calibre hs grads who were choosing to work the farm or get a job at the neighborhood Food Lion in years past. And of the additional 100,000 graduates this year, how many do we think are competitive HYP applicants. Maybe a 1000? That would hardly put a dent in the number of applicants to the hyper-selective college even assuming that every one chose submit applications to each college.</p>

<p>The real culprit IMHO is the significant increase in the number of applications that the very top hs graduates now feel compelled to complete. Instead of applying to HYP, many are now applying to every Ivy League college plus the likes of Duke, Amherst, et al.</p>

<p>I suspect that a far more static pool of VIABLE applicants are now casting a larger net, thus depressing the admissions rates. And the results will be more random, more vals will be rejected, more students with perfect SAT scores will get the thin envelope a particular college. But with the larger net, the probability of receiving an acceptance from at least one is probably about the same as the smaller net cast in previous years.</p>

3

<p>It was a BAD year for Ivy League colleges. With the possible exception of Harvard, their selectivity actually declined even as the number of applicants they rejected went up. The quality of the applicants didn’t increase. The chances of them selecting those candidates who would benefit most from what that particular institution has to offer likely declined, and the yield of those particular applicants likely declined as well. </p>

<p>The gains for the colleges are illusory.</p>

4

<p>originaloog-</p>

<p>I agree that the largest factor has probably been the number of applications filed by the top students. Some of it is do to increased competition, and some of it is do to greed. I can’t think of a more inefficient system for matching qualified students with their top choices of schools. It is a shame the colleges cannot devise a better system for matching specific top students with their choices among the top schools. </p>

<p>One factor that is not mentioned in the NYT article is the number of international applicants. From the threads on this website, it seems that an amazing number of international applicants are applying to US colleges. I wonder if this number has also been increasing and how the current number measures against the pre-Sept. 11 number. I wonder in particular if the number is increasing rapidly from Asian countries that are experiencing rapid economic growth and expanding wealth.</p>

<p>Given the lottery-like nature of the application process for the top schools, I would be surprised if the yield of the Ivy League schools dropped this year. I do agree however that the current frentic situation cannot be good for anyone.</p>

5

<p>The stats above show about a 1% increase in HS grads from last year to this. The reported increase in apps at selective schools seems to be running in the 5-15% range, with outliers, of course. </p>

<p>So yields will decline most places because of more “soft” applications; and schools who played it safe on the yield front will go to the wait list for more students than usual. The disturbing part is that this cycle is getting to be self-perpetuating: the process seems unpredictable so students apply to more schools, including more safeties, and the craziness works its way down the selectivity chain.</p>

6

<p>I agree that the craziness is working through the selectivity chain. The end result seems to be that more students end up attending colleges that they would prefer not to attend. This can’t be good for the students or the colleges.</p>

7

<p>The comments about international students underscore a point that I have made several times on CC-the internet and the advance of technology are 1) flattening the world and giving more information to more people than ever before; 2) opening up the American educational system as never before to more and more talented students; and 3) pushing top students to a wider cross-section of schools than ever before. This is a good thing.</p>

8

<p>I agree with #4 and #5. I similarly wish for greater efficiency & matching & predictability. There are a number of indications on the student forums about the large number of institutions applied to. (In some cases, 18; and unless any of these are “bundled,” – ie…, several public campuses within one institutional app --, or unless poeple are massively using the common app, how does one do 18 applications meaningfully and credibly?) Boggles my mind. </p>

<p>I really feel for my D’s class coming up next yr.:frowning:
And let me tell you, she will not have time for any 18 apps with her sr. courseload.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>H&P had a better system for top students to signifiy thier top choice: Early Decision. :D</p>

10

<p>But it wasn’t working so hot, apparently. It was being gamed by wealthy families to try to get a leg up on prestige - but which school was to provide the prestige mattered less and less. And, from the school’s point of view, there were plenty of full-freight applicants in the RD round, so why lock into those who were simply gaming the system? It wasn’t working great to ensure the next football quarterback either, as other schools were gathering commitments from athletic recruits on November 15th.</p>

11

<p>

[quote]
But it wasn’t working so hot, apparently.

[quote]
</p>

<p>Possibly, but the big two presented no evidence that it wasn’t working, nor is there evidence that the masses were gaming the system – besides anecdotes. Do you have evidence that the athletic recruits were lacking? If so, how come they will keep early fall writes for athletes? (What is the diff?)</p>

<p>OTOH, the schools PR machines made the NYT very happy.</p>

12

<p>“If so, how come they will keep early fall writes for athletes? (What is the diff?)”</p>

<p>That’s the whole point - the early fall writes were accomplishing what they had set out to do with ED, and kept them “in the game” where ED did not.</p>

<p>“Possibly, but the big two presented no evidence that it wasn’t working, nor is there evidence that the masses were gaming the system.”</p>

<p>I think you can read what the two schools wrote themselves, and interpret accordingly.</p>

13

<p>“pushing top students to a wider cross-section of schools than ever before. This is a good thing.”</p>

<p>hawkette, do you see evidence of that happening? While I see evidence of the addition of schools, I do not see lots of evidence of a substitution of any reach schools for “other” (wide cross section) schools.</p>

<p>I still like a couple of ideas that I think I proposed long ago on CC:</p>

<p>(1) Decision within consortia. (i.e., Ivy League as one consortium, U.C.'s as another, LAC’s as another, other publics with several campuses could be stand-alones or join with similar-profile publics in a consortium) Alternatively or in addition, there could be regional consortia.</p>

<p>THE PROCESS:
Application with supplements, recommendations, and interview process are designed more with mutual fit in mind, than with astronomical competition/high stakes in mind. Individual institutions within these consortia assess relative appropriateness of that campus – including clear desire of candidate & qualifications of candidate, naturally – to the applicant in question. Such aspects of fit would include academic emphasis but not be limited to it, and are affected by statements of purpose of candidate, self-evaluation, etc. In addition, applicant would be required to rank-order all institutions within that consortia that he or she is interested in attending. (Whether one or 8 or 15)</p>

<p>Just as now, the least qualified candidates would be eliminated, but the pool that would be left would be more manageable than currently. </p>

<p>Applicants would still get multiple offers, as now, but it would make it unlikely that many would get double-digit offers – more likely between 3 and 8.</p>

<p>Hey, I don’t know if/how well it would work, but I invite the U’s to give it a whirl. (Right, I’m sure they’re listening to me.) :slight_smile: I’m just thinking that if I were an ad officer, I would be lobbying the U’s very hard for any similar reconstructed system. </p>

<p>(2) Serial ED (I, II, III), with a revised admissions calendar – extended further into the spring than it now is. That ED would operate like EA only in the area of financial aid. It would not preclude need-aware institutions from continuing to operate that way, nor preclude Enrollment Management decisions.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>Mini, would you be kind enough to provide your definition of selectivity as a qualifier for that statement? </p>

<p>Are you adopting and the methodology of US NEWS, with means accepting that selectivity is strictly based on SAT numbers, percent of 10 percenters in HS, and admissions numbers. </p>

<p>In this case, have you seen evidence that the SAT numbers are expected to decrease for the enrollees? Have you ssen evidence that there will be fewer students graduating in the top 10% of their HS? Have you seen much evidence of a dwindling admit ratio?</p>

15

<p>Years from now we are likely to look back and consider these to be the good, old days when an excellent student with high stats had nearly a 50% chance of acceptance.</p>

16

<p>I agree with Bluebayou. Whatever the shortcomings of the ED program, it still remains the single best way for a student to evidence their desire to attend a particular school and for the student and school to pick each other with equal zeal. Most schools say that the caliber of the ED candidates matches or exceeds that of those in the RD round (URM and athletes likely excluded). If so, this means that the ED process also helps other students because if someone applies ED and is accepted, that is one less applicant to a host of other places where they might bump someone else out of a spot.</p>

17

<p>The thing that I’ve noticed is that because kids feel obliged to apply to multiple Ivies (back in the day we picked one), many aren’t getting into their favorite of the bunch. I kind of wish there were a way to trade acceptance. I’m sure Mathson could find someone who didn’t get into Harvard who has an MIT acceptance to trade? :)</p>

18

<p>ED works for a very limited group of students: Those who know early in their senior year that a specific college is the right college for them, those who are wealthy enough not to have to consider the full range of financial aid available at a range of colleges, and those whose senior grades/test scores are not needed to boost their chances of admission. Why should this group of students be given an admissions advantage at the expense of the others?</p>

19

<p>mathmom-</p>

<p>What about EBAY as a trading platform?</p>

20

<p>“ED works for a very limited group of students: Those who know early in their senior year that a specific college is the right college for them, those who are wealthy enough not to have to consider the full range of financial aid available at a range of colleges, and those whose senior grades/test scores are not needed to boost their chances of admission. Why should this group of students be given an admissions advantage at the expense of the others?”</p>

<p>Well, this has been debated to death when Harvard, Princeton and UVA announced that they were ending their ED/EA programs. I would only say that a student who knows what they want and where they want to go and has done well enough not to need to pull their record up senior year is probably a very good candidate for the school to which they would be applying early. Such a student has worked hard for the advantage, such that it is. As for the financial aid argument–this has been debunked many times over.</p>