<p>The number of high quality high school students in Wisconsin has been declining for several years. The difficulty of admissions to Madison has apparently scared away some as has the new application requirement with two essays and at least one recommendation. </p>
<p>I wonder how long UMinn will be able to afford such cheap OOS tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely true, but think about this… in september we were lamenting that the HS class of 2009 was the largest graduating class in the country. So when calculating decreases in applications, one cannot go strictly by the comparative numbers of previous years. Example: Out of 100 HS graduates, 40 will apply to school A. But this year there are 130 graduates and only 35 are applying to school A. So if you’re just looking at applications, you’re only down by 5, but you’re really down 17 applications (40% of available graduates).</p>
<p>Barrons, based on how easily the Univ of Mn finds itself in financial straits and the looming budget deficit already in plain view for the state as a whole, the answer to your question is probably, they wont be able to do it for long.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the problem these kinds of statements is that if there were 100 high school graduates last year, there will be about 100.8 this year. in other words, instead of being down 5 applications out of 40, youre down 5.32. no biggie.</p>
<p>that said, the much bigger question this spring remains to be yield. and while many expect yield to be way down and thus acceptances way up, i wouldnt count on it. simply, declines in applications originate with those who would have been least likely to enroll if accepted no longer choosing to apply. with fewer ‘unlikelies’ applying, fewer will be accepted and, as a result, yields wont drop as much as they would have otherwise. further, consider that many top-but-not-super-elite schools enroll significant percentages of their classes through early decision at 90+% yield and can do the same with wait lists in the spring (with similar yield) and the numbers on paper may not change at all, especially at schools that have not utilized wait lists heavily in the recent past. </p>
<p>of course, this has relatively little to do with actual changes in selectivity, which i suspect wont be all that apparent either. a few tweaks in the admissions process can go a long way in covering up a class that is a couple dozen sat points less qualified than its predecessor.</p>
<p>…more evidence of what’s becoming obvious…state school apps up in general, but the higher tuition $ OOS apps are down…</p>
<p>U Arizona: [Universities</a> see record enrollment and budget cuts](<a href=“http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/109940.php]Universities”>http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/109940.php)
</p>
<p>Ball State: [In-state</a> BSU applications up 5 percent - NEWS](<a href=“http://media.www.bsudailynews.com/media/storage/paper849/news/2009/02/12/News/InState.Bsu.Applications.Up.5.Percent-3626371.shtml]In-state”>http://media.www.bsudailynews.com/media/storage/paper849/news/2009/02/12/News/InState.Bsu.Applications.Up.5.Percent-3626371.shtml)
</p>
<p>Davidson apps +1.3%</p>
<p>[First-year</a> housing crunch - News](<a href=“http://media.www.thedavidsonian.com/media/storage/paper1145/news/2009/02/11/News/FirstYear.Housing.Crunch-3624032.shtml]First-year”>http://media.www.thedavidsonian.com/media/storage/paper1145/news/2009/02/11/News/FirstYear.Housing.Crunch-3624032.shtml)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whitman apps “about flat”, maybe up</p>
<p>[Early</a> Decision option draws more applicants : the Pioneer | Whitman news, delivered.](<a href=“http://whitmanpioneer.com/news/2009/02/12/early-decision-option-draws-more-applicants/]Early”>http://whitmanpioneer.com/news/2009/02/12/early-decision-option-draws-more-applicants/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amherst (~1.2%)
Bowdoin (1.7%)
Bucknell (~5%)
Brandeis (10.8%)
Brown ~+21% (still approx)
Carleton (4%)
Carnegie Mellon up maybe
Chicago ~+7%
Clemson +7.1%
Colby (7%)
Colgate down
Columbia ??
Conn Col up slightly
Cooper Union ~+8%
Cornell +3%
Dartmouth +8.9%
Davidson +1.3%
Duke +17%
George Wash (2.3%)
Gettysburg ~(15%) (maybe just RD)
Hamilton ~(16%)
Harvard ~+5.6%
Kenyon (10%)
Lehigh (13%)
Macalester (9.7%)
Marquette +15%
Middlebury ~(12%)
MIT +17%
Northwestern ~+2% (count incomplete, 3-4% expected)
Notre Dame up slightly
NYU +0.3%
Penn State ~+4 so far
Princeton +2.3%
Rice +12%
RPI ~up, but not quantified yet
St Olaf (1.5%)
Stanford +20%
Swarthmore ??
Texas A&M +6.7%
Trinity Col down maybe
Tufts ~(3 to 4%)
Tulane ~+17% at least, more growth to count
UC Berkeley +0.4%
UC Davis +4.4%
UC Irvine +4.0%
UCLA +0.5%
UCSB (5.0%)
UCSD (0.7%)
USC down slightly
UConn ~+9%
U Illinois ~+12%
U Minn ~+15%
UNC +17%
U Oregon ~+20% so far
U Penn ??
UVa +16%
U Wisc Mad (3.2%)
Vanderbilt +13.6%
Vassar +2.7%
Wellesley +3.6%
Wesleyan +21.6%
Whitman “about flat”, maybe up
William & Mary +3.6%
Williams ??
Yale +13.6%</p>
<p>is it unusual at this point in the cycle NOT to have heard about #'s from alot of schools? papa, it just seems like last year, more ED, EA etc stats had been published by mid February…</p>
<p>I don’t know where we got that of 100 graduates in 2008 there are now 100.8 (which agreeably is a statistical nothing). </p>
<p>However, I do agree that the reduction in applications COULD be by those least likely to attend a school. As it was, we spent approx 350 or so on college apps. This included two schools who, for some reason, had no application fees. I can definitely see how the common application and doing it online can make the process of applying to multiple colleges easier, but in tough economic times dishing out between 60 and 80 bucks for application fees might lead some people to be more judicious in where there are applying. And so while application numbers might be mostly down this year, they will continue to fall from these record highs simply because of the numbers of applicants and the high costs of applying to a multitude of schools will fall.</p>
<p>I find this year interesting simply because it was to be the largest graduating class ever and so I thought a lot more people would hedge their bets on getting in AND financial aid packages from different schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder, too. But in the relatively near term it might actually boost tuition revenue. </p>
<p>Right now Minnesota is about 26% OOS, but at least 60% of those OOS students are from tuition reciprocity states, so for revenue purposes they’re essentially in-state. So that’s effectively about 10% paying OOS tuition. </p>
<p>Now suppose over a few years under the new cut-rate OOS tuition policy they can boost non-reciprocity OOS students to 25% to 30% of the student body. That’s an additional 15% to 20% of the student body paying a $4,000/year OOS tuition surcharge above in-state rates, more than enough to make up the loss from having cut OOS tuition by $7,000 per capita from its previous level (since they were getting that stiffer tariff from only about 10% of the students). Plus it gives them a larger and stronger applicant pool, allowing them to be more selective, boosting the perceived strength of the school and in turn drawing an even larger and better qualified applicant pool down the line. Very smart.</p>
<p>Is there room to do that without provoking a political backlash? Probably. According to University of Minnesota President Bob Bruininks, “Historically, about 10% of Minnesota’s high school graduates have come to the U and we’re committed to maintaining that level of resident enrollment. But with demographic changes and the number of high school graduates dropping, we need to protect our place as a magnet to bring the best and brightest talent to Minnesota.”</p>
<p>[Bruininks</a> unveils tuition reform plan : UMNews : University of Minnesota](<a href=“University of Minnesota Twin Cities”>University of Minnesota Twin Cities)</p>
<p>Minnesota kids presently make up about 74% of the student body, Now suppose, holding the total student body constant, you gradually shrink that in-state percentage to around 65% (about where Michigan is) to account for a shrinking pool of in-state applicants, but you commit to protect that level by giving an in-state preference in admissions. And suppose further you’ve now got the reciprocity applicants competing on an even footing with a much larger and generally better qualified pool of non-reciprocity OOS applicants. In that scenario, I could easily see the reciprocity representation shrinking, with perhaps half or more being displaced by more qualified non-reciprocity OOS applicants. And that brings you pretty gosh darned close to the 25% to 30% non-reciprocity OOS you need to have it translate into a net revenue gain. Provided, of course, you can cover the rest of your budget. </p>
<p>We’ll see.</p>
<p>Williams College Application Data</p>
<p>Per this article, dated 2/11, RD applications declined: “This year’s Regular Decision applicant rate dropped approximately 20 percent from last year’s unusually high number, down from 7,552 to 6,001.”</p>
<p>The article includes comments by Adm Director, Dick Nesbitt, about relatively stable ED numbers, increased diversity in ED admits, & possible reasons for decrease in RD applications, including the economy & new application requrement of a personal essay.</p>
<p>[The</a> Williams Record - Articles](<a href=“http://record.williams.edu/record/articles/seek/2937/]The”>http://record.williams.edu/record/articles/seek/2937/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, what tends to be reported are a lot of bogus numbers at this point in the cycle. Back of the napkin estimates that may or may not be confirmed when the Common Data Set numbers are made available. I would take the lists at this time with a big grain of salt.</p>
<p>thanks, interested…as you can see, I’ve only been around CC for two admissions cycles…</p>
<p>When you see precise numbers like Williams gave, those are real numbers – although they will change a bit between now and when the fat lady sings.</p>
<p>The ones you have to watch out for are the “up about 15%” reports. It’s really not an “about this number” kind of exercise!</p>
<p>I personally believe that the bubble of applications over the last few years has been deterimental to the entire process. The same good-fit students are still applying to and being accepted at the same schools. They’ve just been joined by a big glut of students hitting the submit button on the Common App on a whim at extra schools.</p>
<p>If you believe, as I do, that the system works best when there is a high degree of self-selection such that students and colleges actually match up good fits for each other, then the glut of applications actually hinders the process.</p>
<p>^^this is the first i’ve heard of Williams being “self-selective”. in the sense of ppl with the means to pay? or, ppl who think they can do the work?</p>
<p>I would guess that part of ID’s point about self-selection & Williams is its location. </p>
<p>If one were to compare Williams location to similar LACs, such as the other schools in the little three, Amherst & Wesleyan, and add Middlebury, Swarthmore, & Pomona, it gets high marks on bucolic & isolated. None of these schools are in cities. But, unlike Williamstown they are definitely closer to urban or suburban civilization & their amenities. Although one could say that Middlebury is isolated, it does have a town. Commercial Williamstown is only a few blocks. </p>
<p>To be happy at Williams, one really has to have the inner resources to find a niche, like the outdoors, sports, & other activities on campus, such as music, etc. Superb academics or reputation alone can’t overcome location.</p>
<p>Union…looks like apps are down, but total app change not quantified in this article, just ED and RD…same pattern as we are seeing with many other LACs, ED up, RD down. </p>
<p>[Pell</a> grants get lift – Page 1 – Times Union - Albany NY](<a href=“http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=770103]Pell”>http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=770103)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although Union does not have the latest CDS (08-09) available online, assuming the breakout of ED to RD is similar to the prior year (259 ED & 4578 RD calculated, from their available 07-08 CDS <a href=“http://www.union.edu/Resources/Campus/institutional_studies/UC_Web_CDS%202007-08.xls[/url]”>http://www.union.edu/Resources/Campus/institutional_studies/UC_Web_CDS%202007-08.xls</a> ) I’d ballpark their Class of 2012 to be 282 ED & 4989 RD (5271 toal apps for 2012, source: [Class</a> of 2012: A Profile](<a href=“http://www.union.edu/Admissions/class_profile.php]Class”>http://www.union.edu/Admissions/class_profile.php) ). Applying the change percentages from the article yields a 2013 app total of 4842, representing a total app change of (8%).</p>
<p>to interesteddad’s valid point about accuracy of reporting and fuzzy percentage change reporting, I’ll put it on my list to go back through last year’s apps growth thread at some point and compare 08-09 CDS stats to original reporting. I’ll be interested to see which schools show a wide variance from these two sources. Of course, the schools that do not say a darned thing (e.g., Harvard, Colgate, many others), either reporting #'s during the app season or publishing a CDS, are in my opinion the least transparent, but I’ll have nothing to compare with them…as I am sure they intend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I beg to differ. It depends on the school. For schools that admit freshman only for the Fall semester and maintain hard application deadlines, interesteddad is right, it’s “not an ‘about this number’ kind of exercise.” But some of the bigger public universities don’t have hard deadlines. The University of Minnesota, for example—which hasn’t publicly posted anything about its applications but did talk to a reporter who inquired about it and offered an “about 15%” estimate—doesn’t have a hard application deadline. It advises prospective applicants that the deadline for “priority consideration” is December 15 and applications submitted or completed after that date may be at a competitive disadvantage, with acceptances awarded only on an “if space is available” basis. So what do you do with those applications numbering in the hundreds or possibly thousands that dribble in after Dec. 15? What about the applications that are submitted before Dec. 15 but are still incomplete as of Dec. 15, perhaps because they’re missing a test score or a teacher recommendation? Do you count them or not? If you’re up 15% in your hard count on Dec. 15, do you assume you’ll get the same fraction coming in after the priority deadline as in past years—or could it be that this year’s crop is just doing a better job of getting applications in by the priority dat? It’s actually quite difficult to put a firm number on the applicant pool in that kind of system, even at this late date. You could simply report the number you have in hand and complete by the Dec. 15 priority date, but that would understate the total number of applications, potentially by a wide margin. And some of these late applicants may well be admitted; if nothing else they represent a reserve pool that the university can draw on if its yield turns out to be lower than expected, a distinct possibility if there’s a sudden surge in OOS applications, for example, and you don’t have a lot of experience dealing with that suddenly larger pool of OOS applicants who may be using you as an academic or financial “safety.” Moreover, late applicants who aren’t admitted for the Fall might well be offered admission for the Spring semester, even though their intention may have been to start in the Fall. So do you count them or not? And when do you cut off the count? Without hard and fast application deadlines these numbers can be a lot mushier than one might suppose.</p>