<p>“Only 9.3 percent enrolled at an institution that admits less than half of those who apply. Only 2.8 percent went to a school with an admission rate below one-third. While a few parents are angling their toddlers toward preschools with a pipeline to Yale, most students default to colleges that are public, affordable, close to home, and admit at least 90 percent of applicants. A significant number are parents themselves–nontraditional students with families and jobs–are a fast-growing segment of the college population.”</p>
<p>This is not a surprise to me. I have made that point in other threads that most students attend moderately or less selective state schools or open admission community colleges.</p>
<p>But then there is probably not much to discuss about admission chances and the like for such schools, compared to guessing what opaque holistic admissions practices at super-selective schools may do.</p>
<p>However, the article appears to have its own misconceptions, like how admissions is “holistic” “to a large extent”. For the schools that most students attend, admission is automatic (open admission community colleges) or done by a formula based on GPA and maybe test scores (moderate and less selective state universities), with perhaps a small bit of “holistic” process at the borderline.</p>
<p>I find it strange how such schools would need to use holistic admissions in the first place. I’d think that anyone unable to meet the basic numbers required for admission would probably not be prepared or motivated for college.</p>
<p>My school district sends the vast, vast majority of its college-bound graduates to community college or schools with a formula admission. </p>
<p>For the few students who are interested in an out-of-state or selective college, our guidance counselors do an inadequate job of explaining what is required. As a result, most of these few get rejected, and are surprised and disappointed when it happens. The rare student who makes it into a selective college usually has parents who have done a lot of research on their own from middle school onward.</p>
<p>The author sees the crisis in higher education as one where 1/2 the high school population does not go to college, and 1/2 of the population that does drops out or takes a very long time to graduate. That technology (a college matching service) can solve this “problem” is misguided. Matching technology is easy to put in place, and it can set the stage for a new industry. But it doesn’t address the underlying problem for a large number of high school graduates – that of preparedness for college.</p>
<p>The very colleges that the author implies are “mediocre” and that the proposed matching service would drive to higher quality are the ones obliged to provide remedial courses to incoming freshman in writing, and in math. A large number of incoming freshman are unprepared for college. Where should a matching service send them? Best is that it send them back for a 5th year of high school, with a focus on college preparedness.</p>
<p>I’m quite familiar with the courses offered at a local community college and at a local public college. The courses are rigorous. Social and geographical preferences aside, students at these colleges could receive a fine education. Some do. Many, particularly at the community college, do not. And this is not because of the lack of availability of rigorous academic courses. Nor is it because the “teachers” are mediocre. Quite the contrary. The competition for college teaching jobs is intense. Even colleges with 100% acceptance rates attract competent faculty. How do you teach students who are not ready for college level courses?</p>
<p>The crisis in higher education is the last stage of the crisis in American education. The road to addressing the crisis of student preparedness is exactly where it should be – improved elementary, middle school, and high school education. There isn’t some magic at the end of the road – college – that can make up for failures at the earlier education stages.</p>
<p>PS Only 2.8 percent went to a school with an admission rate below one-third also means that there are probably close to 500,000 applicants/applications for those 90 to 100,000 spots.</p>
<p>That IS one way of defining “elite”, but it may be too restrictive a way. A sub-33% admission rate actually covers a tiny number of colleges. Among those that might not count in that number or barely clear it are obvious (to my mind) elite members such as Virginia, Michigan, Smith, Wellesley, Reed, Wisconsin, UNC, Grinnell, Macalaster, McGill, Emory . . . The University of Chicago – a mighty fine college, in my book – didn’t dip below that level until the class of 2011. In other words, there are world-class institutions that aren’t tooth-and-claw competitive for admission – and that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>EDIT: You raise an interesting question, xiggi. I am sure there are 500,000 APPLICATIONS for those spots, but APPLICANTS? No way there’s that many. I would love to know how many there really are – how many kids aspire to go to one of the superselective colleges but don’t wind up at any of them. (Or aren’t offered admission to any of them, since some who are offered admission may choose to go elsewhere for a variety of reasons, many with pictures of dead Presidents on them, but not exclusively.) My naive sense is that the excess demand is pretty low – probably not even as much as 2x the number of slots.</p>
<p>Yes, but we’ve entered a culture where there is great pressure for ALL students to get a college education…not to forget that not all students even finish high school. I’m somewhat of the believe that not ALL students should go to college. I’m not convinced I’m prepared to fund more years of public education and the goals of NCLB which are laudable simply to prod more kids through the process. Improving what is currently in place K-12…sure, but at some point we need to acknowledge that maybe not everyone needs a college degree. By the same token I think that not all community colleges need to have the same mission and perhaps some should focus on 2 year programs and some should focus on prepping kids for dropping in as juniors into the 4 year universities and colleges. </p>
<p>The “matching” system exists currently in many forms, but there are parents of “not quite college material kids” that would be aghast that junior can’t go to State U like the parents did and might actually need two years of seasoning at a local community college. And some kids just aren’t interested in a college degree but go off because the parents expect it or because they simply aren’t aware of other options…until they get a dismal semester or year under their belt.</p>
<p>Whether or not any holistic process is used at the borderline or otherwise, most schools likely have a minimum level of stats to be qualified for admission, but a higher minimum level of stats (or holistic criteria if used) to actually be admitted, due to capacity limitations.</p>
<p>@xiggi: I look at it a bit differently. If each student applies to one college, then you’re right.</p>
<p>Consider this simple example. Let’s say the top fifty colleges each admit 1,000 students. And to keep things simple, let’s say the yield is always 100%. Simultaneously the top 50,000 HS seniors all apply to all fifty colleges. Each college accepts 1,000 students - a different 1,000 for each, of course. So every student is accepted at one college.</p>
<p>Consider the ways we could look at this:</p>
<p>Only 2% of top students are accepted at any top 50 college, or…</p>
<p>100% of the top 50,000 seniors get into a top fifty college.</p>
<p>I believe the premise is that, if the applications are so numerous, and the qualifications so frequently well above the threshold, there is no other way to decide. Or that it’s necessary if you want students who are not only prepared and motivated for academics, but also bring interesting talents into the mix. </p>
<p>Personally, I think this is a load of baloney. It distorts and over-complicates the process. Just make the tests harder if you need a way to separate the sheep from the golden-fleeced sheep. Smart kids will enter with plenty of quirks and talents regardless.</p>
<p>On CC, it’s relatively common for someone to have multiple (let’s say 6 - 8) superselective colleges in their pool, but I wonder how much that’s true in real life. I am sure there are many students who apply to good (but not superselective) and maybe throw one of the big names in the mix - because their goal may be trying to get into THAT superselective college that appeals to them for whatever reason, not trying to get into ANY superselective college.</p>
<p>Do you think the culture of which you speak is really a new one? I have to be honest, the kinds of (affluent, striving for excellent colleges and knowledgeable about elite) schools I read about on CC resemble my own (suburban affluent) high school of 25 years ago far, far more so than my kids’ (suburban but more “mixed affluent and not”) high school experience today. In other words, I think the socioeconomics of a given high school / community are what drives the obsession, not the time period that we’re in.</p>
<p>I agree with you also JHS. Some college are self selective which causes higher acceptance percentages. It has only been recently, for Chicago and Michigan, where for whatever reason more kids applied than several years ago. The relative freshman class size does not grow accordingly and voila, lower percentages. There is abit of herd mentality that goes along with college admissions…or self fulfilling prophecy…the more kids apply, the lower the acceptance rate ergo they must be ‘better colleges’ all the while the caliber of the school has not really changed for decades. Another example is Carleton and Macalester…great colleges but historically with a fairly self selecting applicant pool. The other oddity is that they are very different colleges, with very different student bodies, in very different environments yet you’ll see a fair number of kids that have both on their list which always puzzles me and I can only assume herd mentality, more apply, the acceptance rate falls and the false assumption is that the college is somehow “better.” </p>
<p>This is all off topic, but to bring it home, a matching program might surface up schools that are "identical’ and the differences in caliber of education infinitesimal to other schools but if the schools don’t have the same perception it won’t work because kids will still gravitate toward the one they’ve heard of, or their friends have heard of or their parents have heard of…it’s part of the reason that the large state publics are still on everyone’s list. Most people know they will get a decent education and they are known commodities.</p>
<p>500,000 applicants.
Average Acceptance = 20% (mean of 10 and 30 percent)
100 percent yield = 100,000 admitted/enrolled</p>
<p>If you consider an average of 2 applications per students, you have 1,000,000 applications. You could look at the UC system to identify the percentages of unique applications versus combined ones. Close to 500,000 applications for about 140,000 unduplicated applications. </p>
<p>You may be correct Pizza, but even looking at my #2’s closest friends. All had the high school stats and chops for college. Now in year 2, one has dropped out of his private LAC and is “considering” going to the local state U but is already headed west to the mountains for “the season”, one went to CC for a year and has joined the military, one attended the local U but has quit and gone to apprentice as an electrician. Two are still in college (mine and one other) and will most likely finish. All of these kids were “college ready” with similar socioeconomic situations and we have a district that send 89% off to college and is a highly ranked HS, but some kids just aren’t meant for college right after HS or really ever.</p>
<p>Ah, the Holy Grail of “outside” statisticians! Outside as in looking at the numbers like you and I have to do! This issue comes up when trying to dissect the Ivy League (as an example) and speculating about how many of the 200,000+ applications are unique. The multiple applications have led some to claim that the admissions percentages are way above the 10 percent shown by raw numbers. True as it is, we also have to see that each school receives unduplicated applications. </p>
<p>Again, the UC statistics lift a bit of the veil, but this issue remains cloudy.</p>
<p>“That IS one way of defining “elite”, but it may be too restrictive a way.”</p>
<p>My local community college nursing program. Many Yale graduates who go to Harvard Medical School couldn’t get in (at least a couple of years ago) without repeating courses, 'cause their GPAs in required courses are too low.</p>
<p>Of course, most applicants to the University of Phoenix get in, and that one school dwarfs all Ivy admits combined. And the average undergraduate student in the U.S. is 24.8 years old (or was two years ago), and most didn’t even apply when they were 18. Most of the students in that 2.8% are in the liberal arts - a tiny fraction of American college students.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, how would the reverse work? How many of those people who compile a straight A average at a community college for 45 hours of basic classes in anatomy, english composition, nutrition, algebra, etc. do you think could gain acceptance to Harvard Medical School? </p>
<p>While it is nice to bring up a comparison between a very competitive community college program that might enroll 10 percent of its applicants, I am not sure that the comparison between the typical qualifications for Harvard Medical School (such as Yale) and community college credits holds any meaningful value.</p>
<p>But, of course, apples and oranges belong in one fruit salad!</p>