<p>Now, if the increase in rejections cannot entirely be attributed to the increased number of applications per prospect, but, to some extent, to more students getting better grades and test scores, where are these students going to school? Is it the schools ranked below the top 20 (both U’s and LAC’s), state U’s, Honors programs? Any data on this out there? What will be the eventual result of this “trickle down” effect?</p>
<p>The probable cause is the “the baby boom echo”. There are more people applying. This spillover of very bright students should benefit all colleges by giving them talented students by whom they will establish their future reputations.</p>
<p>I think the women’s colleges and the schools ranked between 25 and 50 (on both the LAC and the National University lists) are benefitting most. </p>
<p>The women’s colleges benefit because the odds (for women!) of getting in is much better, so most qualified applicants get admitted. The prestige factor is still there, so many women decide to opt for one of the Seven Sisters when failing to gain admission into the Ivies. These female students would rather go to Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Smith, etc. than a less rigorous but co-ed school.</p>
<p>The 25-50 range benefits for similar reasons: these schools are often the “safeties” for students applying to the elites. As more and more students “settle” for their safeties, the quality of matriculating students increases. Once the student body stats go up, those looking at top schools will find those schools “matches” rather than “safeties,” and will be happy to attend. </p>
<p>In both cases, these schools are matriculating students who might have gotten into the Ivies a few years ago, but now, since the competition is so fierce, are not making the cut. When you have some of the most ambitious, focused students at your college, the bar gets raised for everyone.</p>
<p>I think there are a whole bunch of somewhat different trends that have reduced acceptance rates: (1) more kids (the echo boom bubble, plus immigration, plus increased demand for U.S. education and greater wealth abroad); (2) more kids are going to college, at least for awhile, (3) more good high schools (quality in suburban school districts beyond the traditional ones like Scarsdale and New Trier has really expanded in the past few decades); (4) greater demand for academic prestige (thank you, Rory Gilmore – notwithstanding the oft-ballyhooed CC trend away from the Ivies, they are getting tons of applications from kids who would not have applied in the past, especially women); and (5) more applications per kid. </p>
<p>There are some other trends that I believe result in fewer rejections overall, but which magnify the perceived rejection rate for non-favored candidates: (1) more appetite for diversity (URM and international numbers are way up over the past 10-20 years); (2) more legacies (many formerly single-sex schools expanded their class sizes in the early 70s when they went co-ed, and the legacy bubble is happening now); (3) more ED (increasing rejections in the RD round); and (4) Title IX (taking it seriously has doubled the number of athletes vs. 10-15 years ago).</p>
<p>I don’t think there has been any tremendous long-term increase in test scores (except for the famed “recentering”), but the colleges record and report the scores – best of the SAT or ACT, best single-elements from multiple test sessions – in such a way as to create a ratchet that makes almost everyone above average. I also don’t know that there has been any really significant grade inflation, but there has been a vast expansion of AP-IB-coregistration classes that effectively boost the quality of kids’ grades.</p>
<p>As to where everyone’s going, I haven’t assembled a whole bunch of proof, but I believe the following: (1) stats and yield have been going up at a whole host of public and private colleges that ambitious kids consider their safeties and matches, and (2) public university enrollments – both at flagships and second- or third-tier schools – have increased significantly.</p>
<p>There aren’t THAT many more kids, and, over time, there have been more places in the state universities. No one benefits from the rejections – in previous decades, they didn’t even apply. </p>
<p>There is no evidence that the bar has been raised, that the students at the prestige schools are any better than they used to be, except perhaps in athletics. All that can be said with some certainty is that most of these schools are less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago.</p>
<p>Mini, are there just fewer of the middle class or are there fewer poor kids too?</p>
<p>Both. Fewer Pell grantees than in 1993 (2005 data from Mortenson is the lastest I’ve seen); fewer middle and upper middle quintile ($40k - $99k) (in some cases, much fewer). Not necessarily fewer on financial aid, though - many more in the top quintile ($100k - $160k) receiving financial aid.</p>
<p>Mini, I have to respectfully disagree, particularly with this statement, “All that can be said with some certainty is that most of these schools are less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago.” The elite schools are much more diverse than they were in my day – economically as well as racially. Schools such as Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford now subsidize many undergraduate educations with grants, and as a result, poorer kids are applying - and getting in, whereas it would have been completely unrealistic a few decades ago.</p>
<p>Any data on average parent income?</p>
<p>“Not necessarily fewer on financial aid, though - many more in the top quintile ($100k - $160k) receiving financial aid.”</p>
<p>That’s the top quintile? I can’t imagine being able to pay half of before tax income (50K of 100K) to put a kid through college.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I’ve got the data. (Note the comparison time is 1981, give or take few years – go back a few years from that, and, in many schools, they are in fact more diverse. Princeton, for example, in 1972 had a higher percentage of African-American students than it did last year, and virtually all off them were relatively poor. Now, with a lower percentage in the total, a much larger number can pay full-freight.)</p>
<p>Many schools have about the same percentage receiving financial aid as they did in 1981. However, while the rise in list prices paid by full-freighters has actually been lower than the rate of increase and income and assets of this small class of wealthier folks (making these institutions greater bargains than they were in 1981), the increases are higher than those in income and assets of 80% of the population. In other words, the income differentials between the full-freighters and others grew, and the percentage of students in the top quntile receiving aid rose at the same time. The median student is thus wealthier, and the average student much wealthier, than in 1981.</p>
<p>“That’s the top quintile? I can’t imagine being able to pay half of before tax income (50K of 100K) to put a kid through college.”</p>
<p>Neither could I, but obviously there are enormous number of folks in that quintile begging for the privilege. (Note there is no college in the U.S. that expects you to be paying for college out of current income.)</p>
<p>“Any data on average parent income?”</p>
<p>I haven’t seen any directly. (I have seen breakdowns of those receiving aid.) A good rule of thumb is that if a private need-blind/100% of need college has 50% of the student body receiving financial assistance, it will be about $170k (give or take a little, but note this says nothing about assets. A family with $170k in income may have four times as much in the way of assets as a family with an income of $85k; there will be times, of course, when this isn’t true, but in the main…just consider the housing stock asset for a start.) At the 50% point, the “average” will be substantially higher than the median.</p>
<p>None of this worries me particularly; back to the subject of this forum, I am much more concerned about the difficulty of lower income students being able to get in - and afford - their flagship state universities, and as more resources are devoted to serving full-payers, I worry about the message that sends to lower income families. (I think North Carolina’s policy is terrific! but it doesn’t work well if fewer lower-income students are able to get in to begin with.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anectode of one, but a cc poster tranferred from one of the Seven to Colgate and was shocked about how much more rigorous, i.e., harder, Colgate was/is…suggest we tread lightly when claiming ‘my school is harder than yours’… :)</p>
<p>I’t’s partially the baby boom-boom, partially the ease of making 11 applications and partially this particular year group–which has been outstanding-- across metropolitan school districts–across continents from what I can tell–since they were in second grade or so. This group was born in the year of the dragon–and they have lived up to that reputation.</p>
<p>Greater demand for prestige can also be seen as greater demand for ‘brand-name’ for kids who want to live globally. Brand-name prestige is very valuable in the global market–particularily as the global market is infused with more and more Chinese nationals. Having worked on three continents, I can tell you that global clientele want that instant ‘name’ recognition. You worked for who? Bingo. Job is yours. You went to an Ivy league school? Bingo. Job is yours. Credentials are established very quickly. Globally recognized brand name helps.</p>
<p>Don’t discount the impact of female students at the nation’s elite colleges. Male applicants had no competition from the best students (women) until the 1970s. Then, it took another 25 years or so for the number of good applicants (women) to exceed the number of previously unchallenged applicants. Of course, it seems harder for the people who used to dominate acceptances at elite colleges. They are facing such fierce competition that many colleges actually have to practice affirmative action and lower their standards just enroll enough male students.</p>
<p><anectode of=“” one,=“” but=“” a=“” cc=“” poster=“” tranferred=“” from=“” one=“” the=“” seven=“” to=“” colgate=“” and=“” was=“” shocked=“” about=“” how=“” much=“” more=“” rigorous,=“” i.e.,=“” harder,=“” is…suggest=“” we=“” tread=“” lightly=“” when=“” claiming=“” ‘my=“” school=“” is=“” harder=“” than=“” yours’…=“”></anectode></p>
<p>Ah, yes, but I wouldn’t consider Colgate to be less rigorous. </p>
<p>(I’m pretty sure I know the CC poster, too.)</p>
<p><lower their=“” standards=“” just=“” enroll=“” enough=“” male=“” students.=“”></lower></p>
<p>The irony is mind-boggling . . .</p>
<p>
That certainly is not true of the more selective women’s colleges, like Wellesley and Barnard – plenty of well qualified applicants get turned away each year.</p>
<p>Calmom, I think momwaitingfornew meant to say “most highly qualified” applicants. What I think she is saying is that a lot of these highly desireable student are turned away from the ivies. That’s why the admissions officers say:
- We could fill our class ‘X’ number of times over; and
- The most difficult person to get into college is the Caucasian female.
These trends result in a larger pool of high achieving applicants for a competitive but also highly self selecting pool for the women’s colleges.
I don’t think she is suggesting that getting into a women’s college is a slam dunk.</p>
<p>Getting back to the OP’s question: I think a school that has benefitted is UCSD. </p>
<p>25 years ago UCSD was firmly entrenched in the UC 2nd tier. But thanks to a strong program and great location they’ve been able to scoop up more and more of the high-end California kids who are increasingly unable to get into UCLA and Berkeley. The result is that UCSD has moved out of the 2nd tier and now commonly regarded as being in the same group as Berkeley and UCLA albeit at the lower end of that group.</p>
<p>corueur:</p>
<p>25 years ago, UCSD was only 14 years old.</p>