How much impact does low acceptance rate by itself have on admissions?

Parents Forum
1

<p>For competitive colleges, how much impact does low acceptance rate by itself have on admissions? </p>

<p>The significant application increase at UChicago has me thinking about the impact of low acceptance rate. I know UChicago’s change in admissions marketing strategy has a lot do with the increase, but for this post, I’m not interested in how low acceptance rate is achieved. I’m thinking about a hypothetical situation where an already competitive college somehow lowered its acceptance rate from 30% to 10% in one year while keeping all other factors the same, e.g., same marketing strategy, same academic environment, same FA policy, etc. </p>

<p>Does low acceptance rate by itself help to draw more high caliber students to the school as some on CC have stated? While keeping all other factors the same as before the acceptance rate drop, how likely it is for this college to have lower than the-year-before acceptance rate for the following year? Any other impact?</p>

2

<p>I believe that one thing that will happen as a school shifts from say a 30% accpetance rate to a 10% acceptance rate is that it’s perception as a “reach, match, or safety” for a particular student will shift. Also, as you say, some elite students who might not have considered it before will consider it merely because it appears more selective.</p>

<p>So a student who before considered it a reach may reach the conclusion that now it is not worth applying to at all. A student who considered it a safety may now consider it a match. And “tippy top” students who never would have considered it at all may now give it a second look. I’m not saying this is right, I’m just saying I think this is how it will be.</p>

<p>One thing I have noticed, from that other thread on application growth. Because applications appear to be up everywhere, it is not necessarily a zero sum game. It is possible that every school’s acceptance rate will go down, but not necessarily in relation to another particular school.</p>

3

<p>Of course we really do not know exactly how this will play out at the University of Chicago. However, one can imagine several possibilities.</p>

<p>One possibility is that Chicago will attract approximately the same number of target applicants as it did before. The kind of kid who was a great fit several years ago will be a great fit today; his or her admission chances will be about as high (they’ll simply reject a greater number of applicants who in the past would not have applied, or been admitted). Another possibility is that Chicago will attract more highly qualified applicants, so the competition for the same number of spots really will increase. Chances for all applicants will drop. The admissions committee must be banking on the second scenario. Otherwise, what would be the point? They be trading a self-selecting process for a more costly one that yields the same results.</p>

<p>In Chicago’s case, what we’re seeing is not just a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. That is a factor but its application growth has been very high relative to other schools. This year it may be due to wider brand awareness, combined with a perception that Chicago is like an Ivy but with double the admit rate. If so, and the admit rate plummets this year, maybe it will swing back up next year in reaction. Absent a clever Game Theory approach to this problem, we’ll have to wait and see.</p>

4

<p>Of course we really do not know exactly how this will play out at the University of Chicago. However, one can imagine several possibilities.</p>

<p>One possibility is that Chicago will attract approximately the same number of target applicants as it did before. The kind of kid who was a great fit several years ago will be a great fit today; his or her admission chances will be about as high (they’ll simply reject a greater number of applicants who in the past would not have applied, or been admitted). Another possibility is that Chicago will attract more highly qualified applicants, so the competition for the same number of spots really will increase. Chances for all applicants will drop. The admissions committee must be banking on the second scenario. Otherwise, what would be the point? They be trading a self-selecting process for a more costly one that yields the same results.</p>

<p>In Chicago’s case, what we’re seeing is not just a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. That is a factor but its application growth has been very high relative to other schools. This year it may be due to wider brand awareness, combined with a perception that Chicago is like an Ivy but with double the admit rate. If so, and the admit rate plummets this year, maybe it will swing back up next year in reaction (students won’t pay “full price”, as it were, for what they thought they could get at a discount). Absent a clever Game Theory approach to this problem, we’ll have to wait and see.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>So, absent of supporting factors and a rise in quality, the hypothetical college would experience the pendulum effect? Even if this is the case, on the fall of the pendulum, would it fall back to where it was or would it still be a little better than before?</p>

6

<p>Probably a bit better than before. Any marketing sort will tell you that you don’t sell the steak, you sell the sizzle. So Chicago seems hot and sizzling – that will linger.</p>

7

<p>This may seem to be a separate tangent in this discussion, but I think FA plays a huge role and will continue to factor into the acceptance rates (and yield). For instance, most if not all ivies are “need-blind” while many top tier, but not all, are “need aware”.</p>

<p>Example: let’s say Brown’s applications rose by +20%. I wonder how many of those applications were sent because Brown is a “need-blind”. Would Brown’s admission committee accept more (or less) applicants who said they needed FA? Does their adcom team maintain a certain percent of applicants who need aide?</p>

<p>Not sure how this will play out, but I’m guessing the jump in numbers of applications is an indication that students are “shopping around”. After all, I think the actual number of students dropped slightly from last year.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>This is my guess too. This means that, in an already competitive college, a lower acceptance rate by itself somehow contributes to an increase in application the following year, which means more kids are drawn by the lower acceptance rate than are driven away by it…interesting.</p>

9

<p>the inevitable lower acceptance rate at Chicago this year is a result of the increased # applications due in part to the change in their marketing program, the hope that FA from Chicago might be more generous than in the past due to the change in administration AND their acceptance of the Common App. It did not happen in a vacuum. To ask what would happen in a vacuum-
“a hypothetical situation where an already competitive college somehow lowered its acceptance rate from 30% to 10% in one year while keeping all other factors the same, e.g., same marketing strategy, same academic environment, same FA policy, etc”
is nonsensical, as such a situation would only occur if the number of available spaces open to incoming freshman is reduced dramatically from the prior year. If the following were to happen, say the admissions office badly estimated the yield one year, and could only accept 1/3 as many freshman one year as they did the prior year, the year after that the acceptance rate would probably shoot back up to the more “normal” rate. In this scenario, I can’t imagine that the lower admissions rate by itself would attract more high caliper students.</p>