Claremont Colleges

xiggi
Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:54:36 +0000

You are correct that the acceptance rate has gone down quickly. The 39% is Fall 2005. The 2007 is 26%. That is an astounding increase in selectivity. I assume the testing scores have all gone up quickly, but don’t know where to find that.



It is important to understand that increasing the “selectivity” of students might NOT be the highest priority at the Claremont Colleges. In fact, when the preliminary admission rates for the Class of 2011 at Claremont McKenna came out as the lowest among all traditional LACs in the country, officers found the rapid change “uncomfortable” and “lamented” having halved the admission rate in five short years. However, except increasing the class size (which they did), there is not much one can when a school becomes more popular and generates more applications. Fwiw, many LACs have experienced an “explosion” in applications.

This said, the admission rates do tell only a partial story. Based on SAT scorers, the most selective LAC in the country is Harvey Mudd, but as a specialty LAC with a rigorous scientific program on par with Caltech and MIT, its admission rates are higher. One needs to places those elements in the right context.

The 5C colleges all present different attributes. While the students are not exactly interchangeable, it would be a mistake to believe that the differences in the “selectivity” student bodies are extremely noticeable; students are different and have different … academic qualities. Pitzer or Scripps are not just a small step above a community college and Mudd and Pomona are not “Only Mensa Clubs!”

While it is extremely likely that the applications will continue to increase at the 5C and that sub-20% (final and verifiable) admission rates will become “normal,” one could hope that the schools will strive to maintaining the differences that make the 5C better than the sum of its parts and retaining the uniqueness of one of the most successul academic consortia in the world.