<p>Easier? It’s not quite apples to oranges. So many kids go to college these days. In the early seenties out of the top 10 in my high school graduating class only 8 went to college from a high school that was a very good high school with a strong “college prep” trak. I took CC classes my senior spring. I got in everywhere I applied including what is today considered a lottery school. If my kid were me with the same “resume” and credentials he probably would get into most of the colleges I applied to. It is simply that the competition for spots at the better colleges is more robust. The “smart” kids that didn’t go to college back then and went into trades or made different choices are today applying to colleges. One of my (top 15) friends became a florist, another a cosmetologist, another a well regarded auto mechanic, another a self taught designer…they all own their own businesses, belong to Rotary and other civic organizations, etc. etc…none went to college back in the early seventies.</p>
<p>Mid 70’s: Took the ACT once, did not study for it, having been told at some point, by someone, that it wasn’t the sort of test one could study for. Applied to one state directional because it was the best known in my state (other than the flagship, which was too big for my tastes) for my intended major. I remember sitting on the floor, crosslegged, filling out the one page (front and back) application form with a ball point pen, (which was a formality, because as long as you were in the top 25% of your class you were guaranteed admission as long as there were available spots) while watching re-runs of Gilligans Island. Yes, I was a true scholar. </p>
<p>My small midwestern home town had a strong manufacturing base at the time… two paper mills, a company that built ships for the coastguard and navy, a helicopter company, and most kids followed their parents into good paying, unionized blue collar jobs. Just to go to college at all was a fine thing. I knew two boys who went out of state to college. One to a neighboring state university that had a vet school, (ours didn’t at the time), and one to play football at a DI University. </p>
<p>Which all sounds pretty sad, but through the years at our class reunions, we’ve found that my graduating class from our high school produced a NASA scientist, a veterinarian, a couple of doctors, a plethora of nurses, teachers, businessmen, engineers, a minister, a lawyer, and a number of people who took a lot of interesting paths to fulfillment.</p>
<p>The one and done is probably one of the better aspect of years gone by. I took the ACT once and the SAT once. I did have to write essays for my apps but I sure didn’t anguish over them. I had friends at directionals, friends at CCs, friends at flagships, friends at Ivies…you never thought about it as one is necessarily better than the other…more that some kids came from families with more money than others or had legacy parents and rich grandparents. One thing that I truly believe is the kid makes the kid makes the success…</p>
<p>Was in the top ten in my h.s. class. Took the SAT once, no study. Did one easy state u. app. Could have gone to the flagship but wasn’t interested. Went to the directional state u. that had a better program for my major. I don’t think I anyone from my h.s. class went oos for college. </p>
<p>I think it is harder now and such a big difference in how much parents are involved in the process. My Mom wrote the check for the app. That was about it.</p>
<p>A lot of it is simple demographics.</p>
<p>There are half again as many people in the country today as there were in 1970. [US Census] Even were (a) the same percentage of kids going to college and (b) the average academic achievement level coming out of high school the same, that would translate into more competition for seats at top colleges, which (I’m presuming here, correct me if I’m wrong, please) haven’t increased anywhere nearly as much in number. (I did find some data for Harvard - in the early 60s, freshman class sizes were around 1200, now they’re around 1650).</p>
<p>But neither of the two assumptions in the previous paragraph obtain. First, a much higher percentage of the population is in college today than 40 years ago. In 1973, about 17% of 18-to-24 year olds were enrolled in 4-year colleges; in 2008, almost 28 percent were. [Pew Research Center, <a href=“http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2009/10/29/college-enrollment-hits-all-time-high-fueled-by-community-college-surge/][/url”>College Enrollment Hits All-Time High, Fueled by Community College Surge | Pew Research Center][/url</a>].</p>
<p>Second - and I don’t have data to back this up, but I think most people would agree - the percentage of high school graduates who are prepared and serious candidates for top colleges today is higher than it was 40 years ago - because, I believe, of the huge immigration of high-achieving East and South Asians, and to a lesser extent Eastern Europeans - and also because of the widespread availability of AP courses at most high schools.</p>
<p>Therefore, you have more kids, and better prepared kids, chasing what is essentially a fixed number of seats at top colleges.</p>
<p>The good news, IMO, is that there are a lot more options for the kids who don’t get into the top colleges, and especially for the kids at the lower reaches of the academic scale, than there were 40 years ago - and a motivated student can get an excellent education at any college.</p>
<p>In the midwest, thirty years ago, most kids seemed to go to their state schools. Even now, it seems like most of my friends’ kids back in the Midwest are going to their state’s schools. I didn’t think of doing much else. I took the ACT the morning after the Sadie Hawkins Dance, glaring at the boy I went with (we did not have that much fun), then my dad wrote a check that seemed like it was for about $4.69, and I went to Madison (go Badgers!). Nowadays even my old state school is a little harder to get into, even for those little native Badgers.</p>
<p>Now I live on the West Coast (go Ducks!) and it seems like people here look beyond the state schools and have done so for a long time; I still see many regional differences. There will always be kids looking at top schools, and there will always be kids looking at state schools… This crazy college search is new both for me and my husband, another Midwestern state school kid (poor Hoosiers). We both also went to state med schools and didn’t venture away til residency, at which time we ventured far away.</p>
<p>I’m from the midwest, Ohio. My two older brothers (HS '70 and '73) went to The University of Chicago and met their wives there. One from OH and the other from NJ. I went to The University of Michigan. Even OOS tuition at U of M was not that bad at the time (late 70s - early 80s).</p>
<p>Choatiemom-- LOVE your story! How great.</p>
<p>It was alittle saner I think…not so much microscopic nitpicking of differences between this school or that school. I agree with you Ohiomom, growing up in Michigan if you wanted big you went to UofM or Madison etc., if you wanted the life of the mind instead of football you went to Chicago and if you wanted small you went to the very best regionally located LAC that your parents were willing to drive you to if you didn’t have legacy status somewhere far away. I remember a friend who originated from the Twin Cities I met as a young adult who went to Purdue and we were all like “Really??? Why did you goooo there?” (Legacy). That’s a hop, skip and a jump these days.</p>
<p>I agree with annasdad there are simply more “smart” kids volume-wise and more of the “smart kids” going off to colleges. From my perception there’s also a heck of alot more B and C kids heading for college that would not have been “classified” as “college track or college prep” in the early seventies. I know my high school “tracked” kids and it did fall out of favor shortly after I graduated so by the eighties there were already more expectations that B/C kids might head off to college. </p>
<p>No I don’t think kids are in general “smarter.” I think on paper en masse they might look more similar, taking all the same classes, doing all the same things. Less diverse other than skin tone or cultural background more homogenized but that’s what happens as our country and globe ‘shrink’, trends and ideas that might have taken a week to get from coast to coast happen in a split second. And kids do more things because parents let them so they have more, more, more…it was enough back in the day to have a job, play a sport and maybe have something you did (music, or dance, or candystriper or band or choir). Now there are more sports, more clubs, less jobs, and volunteering is big with the schools, etc. conformity is encouraged so everyone has a greater possibility of having an application with the exact same “stuff” as the next guy.</p>
<p>I also agree with the comments that there was not so much pressure back then. Many HS grads did just fine without college degrees. I think we defined success differently, basing it mostly on personal happiness without much thought to money or payoff/return on investment, probably because we could live lovely middle class lives on the reasonably abundant good middle-class paying jobs that we could count on getting. Yes, I noted in my story that I went to beauty school out of HS (on a scholarship no less), but I also graduated in the top five of a very large class with absolutely no pressure from anyone to go to college. My parents only wanted me to be happy, and no one I knew would ever look down on anyone for choosing a trade that excited them. Contrast that to all the parental angst on this board today regarding smart kids making dumb choices. Im sure I fit that category. I am grateful for the happy accident that landed me in a great university and broadened both my mind and career options but, guess what? Of all the education Ive had (including Harvard Business School in the late 80s, another funny story), I still cut hair (though not as a profession) and sometimes think wistfully of how much simpler my life was before I became encumbered by todays definition of success. As my moniker indicates, I have a child in an east coast prep school (how far from my humble beginnings) who is living under a whole different set of pressures than I knew at his age (none put on him by his parents), and it sometimes breaks my heart to see how perfectly our culture convinces our kids to view education as a necessary stepping stone to success, too often defined in dollars, instead of a rich and meaningful end it itself. Yes, it WAS easier back then. My heart goes out to you all.</p>
<p>My sister graduated from high school in 69. I was in 5th grade. My parents did not want her to go to our state flagship, a hotbed of political and student unrest at the time. An elderly friend of the family suggested Grinnell. I honestly think she had graduated from Grinnell in 1920. </p>
<p>It was a two day drive from our home to Grinnell. As we pulled up to the campus to drop off my sister, a boy in a top hat and cape ran past the car. Groups of rather unwashed, bearded, hippie-ish students strolled past. My sister grinned, and I thought it was the most exciting thing i had ever seen. (I was pretty sheltered at the time.) My father turned to my mother, put his hand on his forehead and said, “My God, this is like leaving a pearl in a dung heap.”</p>
<p>^ Love this post.</p>
<p>“Groups of rather unwashed, bearded, hippie-ish students strolled past.”</p>
<p>I think you would have encountered this ^ at any college at that time though.</p>
<p>Went to UCLA late 70’s. It was 1,000 times easier than kids today. So so sat scores, 3.2 GPA, I would not even be considered for Santa Cruz today. Also, to go to San Diego State, GPA has risen from a 2.9 then to a 4.0 today. Amazing disservice we have done to California kids who try so hard in high school.</p>
<p>It’s definitely not your imagination; it is harder for kids to get into college nowadays, because colleges deliberately game the admissions process for their own financial & reputational gain. **Admissions offices are now run by marketing people who aggressively promote their schools to kids for whom they have zero intention of admitting. **</p>
<p>The objective? To bolster the school’s sexiness/exclusivity by deliberately engineering a low admit rate. A low admit rate elevates the school’s ranking in the eyes of alumni & potential applicants. A low admit rate also impacts the school’s ability to borrow money cheaply, as bond-rating agencies will weigh a school’s potential to attract future students (i.e. future revenue). </p>
<p>Cynical? Yes. But, I’m not making this up:
[College</a> Applications Continue to Increase. When Is Enough Enough? - NYTimes.com](<a href=“College Applications Continue to Increase. When Is Enough Enough? - The New York Times”>College Applications Continue to Increase. When Is Enough Enough? - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Skipping pages 2 to 5, because I still don’t have any patience. I guess it was easier, but maybe comparing apples to oranges. For me it didn’t mean the same thing. You either did, or did not get to go. Didn’t matter where. And I sure didn’t expect anybody else to pay, except maybe the military.I applied to two schools and went to both. Public in the summer, and HBCU during the school year.</p>
<p>Absolutely know in retrospect, it wasn’t that way for everybody. Every time this subject comes up here, I remember Aviva Gerowitz asking about my class rank, and me having NO idea what she was talking about. Aviva…are you reading this???</p>
<p>Getting into the elite schools sure was a lot easier. With a GPA of 93%, “meh” SATs, a few ECs and 2 APs I managed to get accepted into Barnard and Cornell, my reaches. I also don’t remember stressing over applications either. I met with my GC for the first and last time in fall of senior year to confirm that I was going on to college. </p>
<p>Today they’d look at my stats and have a good laugh right before throwing my folder into the “circular file”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite. Some colleges may not be suitable because they do not have the student’s major. And a student motivated to achieve highly may not be satisfied at a school in the education market typically targeted by the for-profit colleges.</p>
<p>Way easier. In '82 I applied and got in to 3 of 3 schools as an international student, and undergrad tuition was laughable ($1200/yr OOS at Cajun State). Proceeded to get two graduate degrees, had to take the GRE once (a formality as I was already admitted and funded); got into Purdue grad engineering pretty much by mailing it in. Likewise, Mrs. Turbo did two grad degrees as well, one from Purdue, never once took the dreaded GRE. </p>
<p>There were a few uppity schools even then; one of my roommates sent a letter (a letter!) to request an application form for CalTech and they rejected him via postcard before he even filled the forms :-). UT Austin was also a bit, ehem, non-forthcoming regarding transfer applications (can’t blame them, they were charging peanuts for tuition back then).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Back then, the GRE general test was like the SAT of the time, but with an extra section of logic puzzles (which was probably considered easy by math and philosophy majors and others who took math-with-proofs or logic courses, but perhaps difficult by others). There were also GRE subject tests which actually did test college level material in the subjects, although only in multiple choice form.</p>
<p>It never entered my head to apply to anything but my state universities. My choice was University of Washington, with Washington State as a backup. I was a B student, took the (now-defunct) Washington Pre-College Test, and sent in my applications, filled out by hand. Several months later, I got two acceptance letters. That was it. No campus visits (I knew I wanted to be in big Seattle, not little Pullman), no fretting about ECs, no FAFSA, no Subject SATs, no wondering if I’d applied to enough schools, no sleepless nights worrying about my chances. I don’t think I even had to write an essay. Tuition was $188/quarter.</p>