You raise another interesting point -specifically about what was considered a “safety” school then vs now. There are definitely schools that I would think of as close target schools (aka safety schools) back in the 80s, that I would not call safeties today.
5 Likes
Absolutely this statement. I’ve had to seriously update my priors for a bunch of schools for D26.
4 Likes
Sorry but what is a “prior”? Prior = priority?
1 Like
It’s a term that basically means when you get new data, you change what you think. So as I’ve learned about how schools that I thought were safeties are now very much not safeties, I’ve had to “update my priors”.
Here’s an explainer: Debbie Duncan: Update Your Priors - KQED
2 Likes
This use of “my priors” would mean something like “I’ve had to seriously update my previously held beliefs/expectations.” 
1 Like
Priors! First time I’ve seen Bayesian statistics on the CC boards…
3 Likes
I thought criminal record. Different life experiences I guess. 
6 Likes
You and me both! Uh oh… 
3 Likes
My kid did this. He took both act and sat in 11th grade and got a 36/1550 on his first and only try for both. His only prep was asking me get a practice test for him(ordered a Princeton review book off Amazon). He literally took one practice test, was happy with his timing and score, so that is it. None of this helped him get into his target and reach schools, however.
Most of his friends took the act atleast 3x to super score. Prep courses are not really big here. Most kids self study and take test multiple times.
2 Likes
When I used the term “black box”, I meant that it’s oftentimes impossible to discern (from the outside) why one kid will get admitted but another kid that seems to be indentcally qualifed is denied. When there are 10,000 applicants who are super high achievers, with extremely similar profiles, test scores, ECs, and they’re all striving for one of 1000 spots at an elite school, yeah, I think there’s something of a lottery effect. I wouldn’t say that the 1,000 admitted kids are intrinsically better or really any more likely to succeed at that school than the other 9,000 when you are taking about highly motivated and qualified students.
I have heard this directly from counselors and deans at every highly selective I’ve visited through my work as an admissions consultant, and I visit a lot of colleges (20 in person in 2023; 13 as of mid-April this year). They all say compression at the top is a problem. GPAs are not as meaningful for distinguishing the best candidates. Many high schools refuse to provide a school profile, deciles, or GPA distributions, never mind class rank, so unless the college knows the high school well, there’s no way to evaluate whether a 3.9 is an average or outstanding performance. I’ve been in the field for 25 years, and I can see this in my students. Kids with moderate skills are now much likelier to have straight As. Some colleges feel they need test scores as an additional tool to cope with this; others do not.
12 Likes
Agreed. There was a big (almost vehement) push (that is probably still ongoing) to educate applicant families that “the process is not random”. While valid from the AO perspective (detailed discussions inform committee decisions), it is simultaneously true that applicant families have little visibility on what is valued or needed at that institution that cycle… hence these families cannot reach informed conclusions regarding admission probabilities.
A potentially weak example might be auditioning for a play but you don’t know what roles have been filled already…. Worst case, you don’t even know what play it is.
3 Likes
Definitely schools that I didn’t think were great back in the 80s are hard to get into now. But as those have risen, have others fallen?
There’s been a demographic shift in the country, increasing after covid. But to be ancient about this, when I was a kid in the 70s - who lived all over the country - the south was darn hot. A/C was not ubiquitous and places like Charlotte were sleepy little towns. People are moving out of the NE, this is demonstrably true, so are the old universities up north becoming less hard to get into? If there are winners - looking at you SEC schools - where are the losers?
1 Like
Those are on the “colleges closing” thread.
It is not actually a lottery, but the elite school admission decisions depend on aspects that are not visible to outsiders, such as essays and recommendations. Note that these are also subjectively graded, and the criteria used by the school may not match what outsiders think it is (or should be).
3 Likes
The colleges seeing significant declines in applications are largely what are typically viewed as more local colleges, many of them public but also a few private.
The more “national” colleges are mostly seeing increases, sometimes large increases. This includes national colleges in states with relatively slow population growth (very few actually have sustained population loss), but it makes sense that would be decoupled for “national” colleges.
My two cents is this is a large part of the perception of randomness. Based on known characteristics, Observer thinks A “should” be admitted over B, and College does it the opposite way. It is possible A had some problem in their essays or recommendations or such that Observer couldn’t see. But I think often, College just chose B and not A for reasons that Observer was simply not considering important in their assessment of what College “should” do.
Of course if College could just give us a simple formula we could easily apply to A and B, it would not appear so random. But what they are actually doing is trying to put together a mix of all sorts of different students, with consideration of things like likely yield and budget and so on. That can’t be reduced to a simple formula, so . . . it appears random.
And functionally we can kinda treat it that way, except for the fact these are not independent probabilities, so you should not expect you can beat the odds just by applying to many low-admit-rate colleges.
1 Like
Even when it does, some need it explained. For example, San Jose State University posts its formula and recent admission thresholds by major on its web site. But it seems that many are not aware of that until it is pointed out to them to explain why it may be a reach for the 3.7 GPA applicant wanting to study CS who knows that some 3.0 applicants got admitted (for less popular majors, of course).
5 Likes
That’s a good point. I guess it reinforces that even when these colleges provide additional information about what they are considering, some people may choose to disbelieve or downplay that information, including sometimes because they are wedded to a notion of what they believe these colleges should be doing.
Many have and do - it’s just that most aren’t interested in considering these.
Maybe it’s the consumer that needs to adapt - if they will want admission simplicity - as opposed to the schools.
1 Like
Absolutely.
From my perspective, some people do not seem to realize the deep strategic connections between the private colleges that they find so desirable, and what those colleges do in admissions. And I do not necessarily blame them for finding those colleges so desirable, but then I think you have to accept that you will need to play the admissions game by their rules.
Or you can decide not to play by those rules, but then you have to find other colleges desirable. Both are valid choices to me, but what it is pointless (to me) is wanting a private college badly but not accepting the terms of its admission process.
On the other hand, if you think the public universities in your state are doing a poor job serving the residents of your state including through their admissions policies, complain away, as is your right as a resident. But understand too that might have consequences beyond admissions.