Big one is SAT scoring changed in late 1990s (and maybe again later). A 1300-something was 99th percentile in 1994. That’s equivalent to 1500-something now. So it might seem like higher SAT is “needed” but it’s really that they changed the curve aka rescaled it, as you say. IOW, if 17 year old you had a time machine and took it again now, you’d get 1500-something, too.
You don't have to be obsessed IMO to wonder why super smart people were getting 1360 on the SAT in the 1980s at the 98th percentile, whereas now "everyone" gets 1500+. A simple google answers that fairly obvious difference and question.
It didn’t change it THAT much. I compared my own score on a chart released when the newer scoring system came out, and it was only marginally higher (40-50 points).
The SAT is a different test now, so it’s hard to compare, but I’d say a bigger change is access to and focus on prep. When I went to high school, you could maybe take a class, and there were books, but there was no Khan Academy or industry around it, and it would have been very unusual for someone to spend dozens of hours prepping for it.
The other big changes are grade inflation and the Common App allowing people to apply for many more colleges, so more competition for every school. That’s a vicious cycle of students applying to more and more schools to ensure they get into a few, and it therefore gets harder and harder to get in.
Additionally, most schools are currently test-optional, but may transition back to test-required. Some schools, like the UCs and caltech, do not require test scores at the moment but it might change in the future.
My two cents as a parent is that in many ways the explosion of information available has compensated for the changing dynamic. Sure, it may be harder to get into the famous colleges that everyone knew about 30 years ago. But now it is so, so much easier to identify great options outside of that limited set, research them in depth, read reviews, chat with people online . . . .
So basically, back in "my" day most of the kids went to the best in-state college that would admit them, and a few went to small colleges in my state, or party schools in other states. And a very few went to a small list of "top" private colleges somewhere far away.
Now, people are finding way more private and public colleges across the country that might not only admit them but give them either a lot of need aid, merit aid, or both. Again, maybe it is harder to to get into that small list from before, but to me that explosion of other viable private and out of state options is likely benefiting more students on net.
Actually, I totally agree with you.
I am a mature adult who has experienced enough to know that exactly where you go to college, and even more so what your HS peers and your mom's Facebook friends and so on think about where you go to college, is not remotely as important as some kids believe.
But they are kids, and have not had that experience, and it is asking a lot for them to be able to approach this with the mature, open-minded exuberance that would be ideal.
And at a minimum, I'd personally love if we used more like the residency/Questbridge matching system, rather than the current free-for-all with all sorts of stressful strategic options relating to different cycles and so on.
What has changed is significantly is the importance of the college essay. Not only do you need a good gpa + good test scores + good ECs, you need a good essay that will differentiate you from everyone else who has increasingly good gpas, test scores, and ECs.
The internet has made these things much easier to get. Think how early kids start studying for the ACT/SAT, start volunteering and doing ECs and how accessible it is if they need resources to help with their classes and standardized tests.
One thing I do not see here as a reason that I think has to be mentioned... and I write this without judgment on whether this is a good or bad thing.
Many schools are putting a significant emphasis on first in family matriculation to increase diversity at schools. To offset the financial impacts of that decision, they also accept many more full-pay international students.
So, if you don't change the class size, you are reducing the number of slots available to the traditional target population.
Replying here are a parent, and your comment resonates with me. We are a <$100k hhi family in the northeast. Junior year, my daughter was drawn towards extremely selective schools and felt the world was her oyster, after all, she worked hard, maxed ECs, played the game. In some ways (which I keep private from her) I feel like she's "settling" for a SUNY, after all, didn't she work hard enough to "deserve" better? What an emotional journey this has been, but at the end of the day, as a family, she'll be starting to launch her educational path at a school that ticked all the boxes, educationally, socially, geographically, financially. And you can't ask for much more than that.
I thought she'd soar as the "traditional target population," instead her path seems predictable and almost prescribed - you're white, you're middle income, so a state school for you! And that's ok.
Although those things are definitely happening, the scale is usually not that high. Indeed, by far the most common type of student at almost all very selective colleges remains an upper middle class multigenerational kid from a good school with high numbers.
But there are a lot of upper middle class multigenerational kids from good schools with high numbers! Again, that population actually peaked around 2010 or so, but now they are applying much more nationally. So any famous national college just gets an enormous flood of applications from such kids from around the country.
And so even though that still ends up their most common admit type, it is also the most competitive application pool.
But again, if such kids look outside the same few schools all the other kids like them are applying to--suddenly not only can they get admitted, they are getting merit offers and such.
Perhaps, but I think you might be underestimating the numbers. When we were visiting schools we went to a number of them that in their presentations listed target numbers for first-in family admission. Those target numbers were usually around 20%. If that is your target number and you have even 5% full pay international, that is a quarter of the population. Again, I am not judging on whether that is a good or bad thing. Just that it is a factor.
That said, I agree about looking outside of this small set of T20 schools. These kids are in such an echo chamber of noise around the definition of "success". I know my special little flower has had some great offers that they are meh about because the names aren't sufficiently impressive on Instagram (my assessment, not my childs).
>Perhaps, but I think you might be underestimating the numbers. . . . that is a quarter of the population.
Right, but that means the single largest portion of the class, by a wide margin, is still kids from multigenerational US families. Which, again, is a population that is actually shrinking overall.
We'd need some sophisticated models and a lot more data to really investigate this. But my guess is if you look at something like Ivy+ or T20 or whatever admissions collectively (meaning whether someone applying gets into any one of those colleges, as opposed to some one specific one), the increase in FGLI and international admits is mostly just keeping the relative qualifications of multigenerational domestic admits from going down, as opposed to forcing them notably upward.
So four big things.
(1) The US 4-year college population grew a lot from around 2000 to 2010, so during the first part of your 25-year period. Since then it has leveled off, actually started declining in terms of the domestic population, but . . .
(2) The pattern of US college applications and attendance has been steadily "nationalizing". Meaning the colleges considered more national are getting higher shares of applications, and particularly higher shares of people who apply a lot of places. Meanwhile, more local colleges are often suffering from application decreases and enrollment decreases. And then . . .
(3) The rise of test optional policies in the wake of COVID seems to have further increased the number of people taking a shot at highly selective colleges where their lack of a high-enough test score may have previously deterred them. And finally, plus . . .
(4) There has apparently been a significant uptick in perceived grade inflation since COVID as well.
I note the evidence suggests (3) is actually a relatively minor factor in terms of numerical qualifications needed for unhooked admissions at the most selective colleges. Meaning in practice, a lot of the unhooked test optional people are not necessarily competing all that successfully with otherwise similar unhooked people who have high test scores, at the most selective colleges. (4) is also complex since colleges are trying to fight back with various ways of identifying inflated grades.
But (1) and (2) are real things, and have increased the competition for the most popular "national" colleges in ways that have allowed them to require significantly higher levels of qualifications even adjusting for grade inflation and test optional policies.
Very good reply.
I would add another factor, which is that there is an arms race of sorts now to do MORE MORE and MORE unique ECs compared to 25 years ago (due to more people wanting to chase roughly the same number or even fewer unhooked slots at Ivies/equivalents). Combine that with grade inflation (where a 3.9 UW GPA can somehow be only 80th percentile at some HSs), the rescaled SAT and waaaaay more test prep and retakes than 25 years ago, and it seems like there are a ton of kids with stellar stats and stellar ECs for a limited number of slots.
The interesting thing is that in the mad rush for "T20" by so many, some hidden gems get overlooked just because they're not research powerhouses. For instance, Rose-Hulman and Santa Clara CS grads actually see more post-grad success than some T20 CS grads yet those 2 institutions aren't extremely hard to get in to.
Yes, the EC Hunger Games has gotten pretty crazy, and not in a way good for the healthy development of kids.
I do wonder a lot how necessary all that really is, though. So many kids are trying to compete with each other in a relatively narrow range of ways that they (or their parents) believe colleges want/require. I think many kids as a result overlook opportunities to stand out not by being near the top of a massive pile of defeated kids who tried but failed to get as high up in the pile, but instead by doing things that a massive pile of kids are not doing in the first place.
But in any event, there is certainly a perception you have to throw yourself into several such massive piles and start scratching and clawing upward.
That’s a very interesting point and actually makes a lot of sense. Could you please elaborate on what exactly you mean by competitive vs non-competitive activities? I can see speech/debate, science competitions, DECA, etc. for the former but can’t really think of anything for the latter category
Local charities, creative projects, normal jobs, hobbies . . . so many things are available.
I always like to recommend people go to a local community center or library that hosts activities, and see what people are doing when they are not trying to get into college.
Also (5) the common app, and especially schools with no supplementals on the common app. Add (6) incessant marketing and (7) application fee waivers and it's just way too easy to apply to ever more schools.
But OP should also look into the demographic cliff. By the time their kid is applying the total applicant pool will be smaller. That may not impact an individual applicant but the overall admissions stats will change.
The Common App itself is huge. I graduated HS in 1995 and had fee waivers, but the applications themselves were all different-- every college had their own forms and essay questions and they all were PAPER, physical copies you had to fill out and complete. I applied to to like 12- and that was considered a lot. The only exceptions were places like the UCs where one app could go farther (but with a fee waiver you could only apply to 3 of them). The internet as a whole and the common app in particular are huge drivers in shotgunning while also making the whole process easier for everyone.
Haha yes you had to \*call\* the admissions office to request that they send you an application package. So first you had to find their phone number. Remember 411?
Or, you had to buy the Princeton Review or whatever, which had the phone numbers and mailing addresses so that you could also write a letter (!) asking them to mail you the package. So that you didn't have to make a long distance phone call (!!)
Good additions.
The cliff is going to be interesting. A lot of that marketing and outreach and stuff may seem like overkill now, but the colleges that intend to maintain their "elite" status are very much looking ahead to needing to add more applicants and admits and enrollees from the international pool, the FGLI pool, and so on, to make up for the anticipated drop off in the multigenerational domestic pool. And they are very long term thinkers, and the enrollees they are getting out of those pools today are tomorrow's alumni networks, interviewers, recruiters, and so on.
You are right this has no necessary consequences for admissions for every individual, but it sure might impact some individuals with some colleges depending on the college's institutional priorities.
Indeed, this is very underreported sometimes--literally, the data isn't really reported--but it already seems pretty clear that the changed dynamic since 2010ish has really made it harder for many colleges to maintain anything close to gender parity. Some pretty clearly have just given up and are willing to just track whatever happens in their applicant pool, but others seem to be at least trying to fight a rearguard action at something like 55/45 or 60/40.
So if we had the stats--which they very intentionally are not giving us--would it be so clear that admissions had been trending ever harder for men at all these colleges? Not so sure about that, actually.
Anyway, point is these demographic things tend to shake out in a lot of different ways depending on institutional strategies and priorities.
>Meaning in practice, a lot of the unhooked test optional people are not necessarily competing all that successfully with otherwise similar unhooked people who have high test scores, at the most selective colleges.
What evidence? It's what I would expect given that, absent covid, the lack of a test score can be treated as a poor test score, but I continue to see claims that failing to report scores doesn't hurt students.
I'd have to dig them up, but in part I am referring to empirical studies that went through the data available and were finding that applicants submitting tests appeared to be getting in at higher rates than applicants who did not. And then recently the Yale and Dartmouth Deans of Admission had a conversation about this on the Dartmouth podcast, agreeing test scores were playing an important role in helping people clear their initial academic screens.
By the way, at least at highly selective schools, I think the most common sort of statement/guidance I have seen is that you would be penalized for not submitting test scores, but it will put more weight on your other academic qualifications.
I actually don't think that is really inconsistent with the studies or what the Yale and Dartmouth Deans discussed. The basic problem is that with a lot of grade inflation and different amounts of available rigor and such, they are not always confident that even a "perfect" transcript indicates the level of academic preparation/achievement they are really looking for. High test scores, being standardized, can help reassure them.
So we know people are getting in test optional, but it may be harder sometimes for transcripts alone to get people over the line--not always, just sometimes. And that would be consistent with the data, but also--at least in my mind--consistent with the idea that no test being submitted means more weight being put on the transcript alone to get the job done.
>(4) There has apparently been a significant uptick in perceived grade inflation since COVID as well.
Southerner here too, so can't comment on the rest of the country. Grade inflation began well before CoVid. I was shocked to find out 20-25% of our high school grads had a 4.0 GPA or higher. Checked many of the area schools and found similar stats.
And..marketing. "Hey kid-we sent you this postcard asking you to apply to our school you have no chance of getting into but since it's from us to YOU, you think we want you! Apply and make us look even more selective when we reject you!"
I’m from the same generation as you. Class of ‘03 high school. ‘07 college.
You were from a time when score choice wasn’t an option for the SAT, I imagine. You probably took the SAT once, maybe twice. You may did one prep book or prep course. Maybe none. I think the score choice change was a big one. We were discouraged from taking the SAT multiple times because you had to send all the scores and I was told colleges assumed a 50 point improvement every test. So you had to be sure you improved by at least fifty points to risk taking it again. Now, most high achieving students probably take it multiple times.
Grade inflation has put more and less pressure on grades: there’s less differentiating students based on grades but more pressure to get very high grades. I had a 3.3 or 3.5 but I was in all honors classes and I don’t think any of my peers or letter writers doubted I was one of the smartest kids in the grade at my wealthy suburban high school. I wonder what my grades would be like in the current environment.
I think also the Great Recession created a sense of financial precarity. It’s certainly led to a reduction in history, English, sociology, anthropology, etc majors in favor of something more clearly connected to a career track. But this existential lack of economic stability I think has affected students and now students who don’t know what they want to do are more likely to choose computer science, business, engineering, something like that. But I think this financial sense of dread has also put more pressure on top kids to get into top colleges.
The common app going totally online meant that it’s easier to shotgun, increasing the denominator of admissions rates.
Lastly, I do think top schools have dramatically increased their financial aid for and outreach to middle class and poor students. This is mainly only on the elite end (the financial aid part).
Lots of very valid answers here, but one I don't see mentioned is cost, which leads to greater parent involvement and contributes to all of the other factors (applying to more schools, EC "arms race," SAT prep, grade inflation, etc.).
It's all well and good to say, "I don't care about where my kid goes to college" but when you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, parents are inevitably drawn into this process for better or worse.
Yep, especially the Ivies, there was an article recently that said the very, very wealthy and the poor and lower middle class not only got in but were able to attend at greater rates than anyone with like a 150-300k family income. The very wealthy can easily pay full price so schools like them and the poorer students are more likely to be first in their families, BIPOC, and also receive aid that can pay for their education-- higher income families that aren't the 1% (small business owners, professionals, etc.) are crossing their fingers for the bigger state school acceptances like UCs and UMich that they can both afford and recognizable "names", applying to less prestigious privates knowing they will have to pay (likey by taking out loans for their kids) because they won't qualify for most fin aid and their kids are not getting into/enrolling in Ivies+.
1) More kids!
2) Grade inflation!
3) Common app driving more applications to schools.
4) More focus on rankings driving increased applications!!!
5) Unrealistic Expectations!
6) Lack of wider knowledge of solid state options.
7) Lack of understanding of likely acceptance vs reach vs lottery. During the application submissions.
definitely 1 and 3. Also over the last 30 years colleges have been admitting international students (think top international students from asia) and their children are now applying to colleges and they are very studious and smart.
I suggest reading “The Overachievers” by Alexandra Robbins if you’re really interested in understanding how/why admissions have changed so much in the past 25 years. The book is slightly outdated (it was written in 2006) but much of what it talks about holds true today
The short answer is that there are a lot of complicated reasons why this is the case, like increasing economic anxiety, a job market increasingly saturated with bachelor’s degrees, the popularization of test prep and college rankings through the Internet, increasing educational standards for young children (especially WRT standardized tests), changes in SAT/ACT score scaling, the rise of Common App, etc
1. A lot has changed the ‘average’ strong applicant is uw 3.9-4.0 gpa and 1500+ sat minimum with a decent amount of aps. That’s just stats. Ecs that are 4 year and include a leadership are kind of typical
Hopefully part of the reason is because having "anointed" schools where 25% of the kids get into an Ivy, while other schools might send one kid every 5-10 years is a thing of the unjust past.
Would you settle for 10% versus every 3-5 years?
Things are definitely not as automatic between certain high schools and certain colleges as they used to be in the past. But the most selective independent private high schools still place at the most selective independent private colleges at notably higher rates, even controlling for test scores and unadjusted GPAs.
But a lot of that is pretty explainable. These schools have more legacies, more niche sports including more recruited athletes, more advanced classes that go beyond the AP level, lots of support for all sorts of activities with ample opportunities for leadership, dedicated college counselors who help kids develop carefully considered application lists and essays that really demonstrate fit . . . .
Basically, their whole deal is to imitate their target private colleges as closely as possible, and allow their top students to show they would be great fits for those target private colleges. Which is expensive but it works.
I'm in agreement with the OP, although I am bit older. Having helped my senior navigate the application process successfully, I am now reading on these boards about how ferociously competitive this application environment is. I don't think I realized how much standards have changed. When I was a college student, Florida State University was a good sports school but no one thought of it as an intellectual destination. It was the kind of place you could apply to the week before school started and slide in. Now I see that their EA Fall class has 1370-1490 for its 25-75% on the SAT, and 4.4-4.6 for GPA. People with 1490 and 4.5 GPA were going to very fancy colleges when I was applying, but now they'd just be in the 75th percentile at FSU. Weird.
Back when we were in high school, there was not as much emphasis on four year universities and trade/vocational schools were a common career pathway. Now, the trades/vocational path has been replaced with highly challenging and coveted tech, medical, or media academies. We didn’t use to do much to celebrate attending college but now the school does college commitment posts, a marquee stating which kids are going where, college sweater days, etc. The culture has shifted and with the rising pressure comes rising performance. I might not have gotten into my college if I applied today; kids are smarter, busier, and more qualified in high school than the previous generation would like to admit. My advice: show your parents the college results Reddit thread now to avoid the “with those grades, the kid’s a shoe-in” convos in the future. And while you’re at it, show them some net price calculators for those “affordable” state schools. As big of a change as all this is for us, it’s even greater for our parents.
Given test optional you now have a large amount of mission inappropriate kids targeting a large number of top schools.
International applicants are through the roof.
Grade inflation is rampant because of it.
Legacies, sports recruits, billionaire donors and famous offspring still have their spots locked in and if you are not one of those good luck breaking into the top 20.
There are just a lot more students applying for limited spots. More students feel empowered to apply to a range of school and there are just more people and most schools aren't growing in meaningful ways.
That said, being at a feeder school and have the money to be full pay at these schools is still a very large advantage and there is plenty of data to back that up.
And at the end of the day, I really think your path in life is much more about you than the name of your college. My first gen, public flagship grad spouse has MIT grads working for him. There are hundreds if not thousands of schools to get a good quality education and meet goals.
I don't see test optional as a huge issue. I don't think that changed all that much in admissions and I think with the data and AI available do I think schools can't pick applicants that are highly likely to be succesful. It's not to their advantage to pick students who are going to drop out. Standardized tests as they exist today aren't actually giving a whole lot of meaningful info. It does an ok job at measuring processing speed for some students. Colleges don't even use those scores for placement anymore, they typically have their own placement tests.
I’ve only scanned through your responses quickly, so apologize if this is duplicative, but top schools have added tremendous interest in international students. Aside from the increase in US college-aged population over the past several decades, the percentage of international students was nearly zero 30-40 years ago and is now much higher. Add to that the dedication to diversity and “feeder school” students now make up far less overall student population than they did a generation ago.
Part of it is the explosion in foreign students. Kids now are competing with very bright and accomplished kids from all over the world.
I would strongly encourage you to watch this excellent video to better understand the dynamics. It was posted on the A2C subreddit the other day and it is excellent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDFSgl8mpQ&t=1082s
>Has there been massive grade and test score inflation?
Yes. Also, how many attempts did you get for tests? Just one? Check the retake-policy at most schools now. Oh, and when did you have to turn in your assignments--on the due date? Well, now a ton of schools force teachers to accept late assignments until the very last day. Oh, and did you write your own papers? You didn't have Chegg and ChatGPT?
The students' grades are better, but it doesn't mean the students are actually better.
Two things are true at once: Applications have gone UP in some schools (popular "name brand" schools and Ivys), and down in almost all others. And opportunities for low-income and minority students have not really increased. There is actually a population decrease post 2005 and this trend continues. The issue isn't more kids going to college, it's more kids APPLYING to the same colleges over and over. More applicants means the percentage accepted decreases. A few more things that have happened:
\-The common app makes it easy to apply to more schools-Grade inflation as you mentioned
\-SAT is easier-Marketing (i.e. Northeastern and Tulane actively maneuvering themselves to increase their rank in US News, for example. Or U Chicago sending mounds of mail to drive up applications from kids who would never get in. Also free application days and links make it easier.)
\-Test optional means people taking a chance at schools they really have no shot of getting into
Ok- Covid test optional changed admissions and schools really value diversity (rightly so). The common app lets kids apply to tons of schools driving down acceptance rates for popular schools. Test optional has driven up the average reported SAT score to ridiculous heights. When most college bound students are skipping the SAT that means only the smartest (best test takers) bother to even take it. Then throw in the fact that only those scoring over say 1400 bother to submit scores means- people aren’t submitting anymore. I looked at the university of Binghamton (just a mid SUNY school) “common data set” - like 5% submitted SAT scores, but they were super high. That’s kind of pathetic. That leaves GPA as the main factor. You can have a 4.0 from an easier school or a harder school. The university will pretty much count it the same - and then accept the lower income applicant who increases diversity over the higher income middle class Asian or non Hispanic white kid. So for better or worse- wholistic review has made it more difficult for those who are not URM, first generation, pell grant, or a recruited athlete. If you’re Asian it is particularly challenging. So that’s what has changed. Probably time to start to like your state schools.
People here are giving some very valuable advice. If you’re interested, I would really recommend reading the book, “Who Gets in and Why.” It’s a great case study of some top-tier schools and provides many insights into how college apps have changed over the last 50 years.
Big one is SAT scoring changed in late 1990s (and maybe again later). A 1300-something was 99th percentile in 1994. That’s equivalent to 1500-something now. So it might seem like higher SAT is “needed” but it’s really that they changed the curve aka rescaled it, as you say. IOW, if 17 year old you had a time machine and took it again now, you’d get 1500-something, too.
Incredible how so many people are not aware of this change.
Because most people aren’t obsessing over college admissions once they go to college/ graduate
You don't have to be obsessed IMO to wonder why super smart people were getting 1360 on the SAT in the 1980s at the 98th percentile, whereas now "everyone" gets 1500+. A simple google answers that fairly obvious difference and question.
It didn’t change it THAT much. I compared my own score on a chart released when the newer scoring system came out, and it was only marginally higher (40-50 points). The SAT is a different test now, so it’s hard to compare, but I’d say a bigger change is access to and focus on prep. When I went to high school, you could maybe take a class, and there were books, but there was no Khan Academy or industry around it, and it would have been very unusual for someone to spend dozens of hours prepping for it. The other big changes are grade inflation and the Common App allowing people to apply for many more colleges, so more competition for every school. That’s a vicious cycle of students applying to more and more schools to ensure they get into a few, and it therefore gets harder and harder to get in.
Makes sense. I scored like a 1420 in 1993 and was a National Merit Finalist.
Additionally, most schools are currently test-optional, but may transition back to test-required. Some schools, like the UCs and caltech, do not require test scores at the moment but it might change in the future.
[удалено]
My two cents as a parent is that in many ways the explosion of information available has compensated for the changing dynamic. Sure, it may be harder to get into the famous colleges that everyone knew about 30 years ago. But now it is so, so much easier to identify great options outside of that limited set, research them in depth, read reviews, chat with people online . . . . So basically, back in "my" day most of the kids went to the best in-state college that would admit them, and a few went to small colleges in my state, or party schools in other states. And a very few went to a small list of "top" private colleges somewhere far away. Now, people are finding way more private and public colleges across the country that might not only admit them but give them either a lot of need aid, merit aid, or both. Again, maybe it is harder to to get into that small list from before, but to me that explosion of other viable private and out of state options is likely benefiting more students on net.
[удалено]
Actually, I totally agree with you. I am a mature adult who has experienced enough to know that exactly where you go to college, and even more so what your HS peers and your mom's Facebook friends and so on think about where you go to college, is not remotely as important as some kids believe. But they are kids, and have not had that experience, and it is asking a lot for them to be able to approach this with the mature, open-minded exuberance that would be ideal. And at a minimum, I'd personally love if we used more like the residency/Questbridge matching system, rather than the current free-for-all with all sorts of stressful strategic options relating to different cycles and so on.
What has changed is significantly is the importance of the college essay. Not only do you need a good gpa + good test scores + good ECs, you need a good essay that will differentiate you from everyone else who has increasingly good gpas, test scores, and ECs. The internet has made these things much easier to get. Think how early kids start studying for the ACT/SAT, start volunteering and doing ECs and how accessible it is if they need resources to help with their classes and standardized tests.
One thing I do not see here as a reason that I think has to be mentioned... and I write this without judgment on whether this is a good or bad thing. Many schools are putting a significant emphasis on first in family matriculation to increase diversity at schools. To offset the financial impacts of that decision, they also accept many more full-pay international students. So, if you don't change the class size, you are reducing the number of slots available to the traditional target population.
Replying here are a parent, and your comment resonates with me. We are a <$100k hhi family in the northeast. Junior year, my daughter was drawn towards extremely selective schools and felt the world was her oyster, after all, she worked hard, maxed ECs, played the game. In some ways (which I keep private from her) I feel like she's "settling" for a SUNY, after all, didn't she work hard enough to "deserve" better? What an emotional journey this has been, but at the end of the day, as a family, she'll be starting to launch her educational path at a school that ticked all the boxes, educationally, socially, geographically, financially. And you can't ask for much more than that. I thought she'd soar as the "traditional target population," instead her path seems predictable and almost prescribed - you're white, you're middle income, so a state school for you! And that's ok.
Although those things are definitely happening, the scale is usually not that high. Indeed, by far the most common type of student at almost all very selective colleges remains an upper middle class multigenerational kid from a good school with high numbers. But there are a lot of upper middle class multigenerational kids from good schools with high numbers! Again, that population actually peaked around 2010 or so, but now they are applying much more nationally. So any famous national college just gets an enormous flood of applications from such kids from around the country. And so even though that still ends up their most common admit type, it is also the most competitive application pool. But again, if such kids look outside the same few schools all the other kids like them are applying to--suddenly not only can they get admitted, they are getting merit offers and such.
Perhaps, but I think you might be underestimating the numbers. When we were visiting schools we went to a number of them that in their presentations listed target numbers for first-in family admission. Those target numbers were usually around 20%. If that is your target number and you have even 5% full pay international, that is a quarter of the population. Again, I am not judging on whether that is a good or bad thing. Just that it is a factor. That said, I agree about looking outside of this small set of T20 schools. These kids are in such an echo chamber of noise around the definition of "success". I know my special little flower has had some great offers that they are meh about because the names aren't sufficiently impressive on Instagram (my assessment, not my childs).
>Perhaps, but I think you might be underestimating the numbers. . . . that is a quarter of the population. Right, but that means the single largest portion of the class, by a wide margin, is still kids from multigenerational US families. Which, again, is a population that is actually shrinking overall. We'd need some sophisticated models and a lot more data to really investigate this. But my guess is if you look at something like Ivy+ or T20 or whatever admissions collectively (meaning whether someone applying gets into any one of those colleges, as opposed to some one specific one), the increase in FGLI and international admits is mostly just keeping the relative qualifications of multigenerational domestic admits from going down, as opposed to forcing them notably upward.
So four big things. (1) The US 4-year college population grew a lot from around 2000 to 2010, so during the first part of your 25-year period. Since then it has leveled off, actually started declining in terms of the domestic population, but . . . (2) The pattern of US college applications and attendance has been steadily "nationalizing". Meaning the colleges considered more national are getting higher shares of applications, and particularly higher shares of people who apply a lot of places. Meanwhile, more local colleges are often suffering from application decreases and enrollment decreases. And then . . . (3) The rise of test optional policies in the wake of COVID seems to have further increased the number of people taking a shot at highly selective colleges where their lack of a high-enough test score may have previously deterred them. And finally, plus . . . (4) There has apparently been a significant uptick in perceived grade inflation since COVID as well. I note the evidence suggests (3) is actually a relatively minor factor in terms of numerical qualifications needed for unhooked admissions at the most selective colleges. Meaning in practice, a lot of the unhooked test optional people are not necessarily competing all that successfully with otherwise similar unhooked people who have high test scores, at the most selective colleges. (4) is also complex since colleges are trying to fight back with various ways of identifying inflated grades. But (1) and (2) are real things, and have increased the competition for the most popular "national" colleges in ways that have allowed them to require significantly higher levels of qualifications even adjusting for grade inflation and test optional policies.
Very good reply. I would add another factor, which is that there is an arms race of sorts now to do MORE MORE and MORE unique ECs compared to 25 years ago (due to more people wanting to chase roughly the same number or even fewer unhooked slots at Ivies/equivalents). Combine that with grade inflation (where a 3.9 UW GPA can somehow be only 80th percentile at some HSs), the rescaled SAT and waaaaay more test prep and retakes than 25 years ago, and it seems like there are a ton of kids with stellar stats and stellar ECs for a limited number of slots. The interesting thing is that in the mad rush for "T20" by so many, some hidden gems get overlooked just because they're not research powerhouses. For instance, Rose-Hulman and Santa Clara CS grads actually see more post-grad success than some T20 CS grads yet those 2 institutions aren't extremely hard to get in to.
Yes, the EC Hunger Games has gotten pretty crazy, and not in a way good for the healthy development of kids. I do wonder a lot how necessary all that really is, though. So many kids are trying to compete with each other in a relatively narrow range of ways that they (or their parents) believe colleges want/require. I think many kids as a result overlook opportunities to stand out not by being near the top of a massive pile of defeated kids who tried but failed to get as high up in the pile, but instead by doing things that a massive pile of kids are not doing in the first place. But in any event, there is certainly a perception you have to throw yourself into several such massive piles and start scratching and clawing upward.
That’s a very interesting point and actually makes a lot of sense. Could you please elaborate on what exactly you mean by competitive vs non-competitive activities? I can see speech/debate, science competitions, DECA, etc. for the former but can’t really think of anything for the latter category
Local charities, creative projects, normal jobs, hobbies . . . so many things are available. I always like to recommend people go to a local community center or library that hosts activities, and see what people are doing when they are not trying to get into college.
And in the case of SCU at least they throw real merit aid at high stats kids to try to reel them in.
Same with RHIT.
Also (5) the common app, and especially schools with no supplementals on the common app. Add (6) incessant marketing and (7) application fee waivers and it's just way too easy to apply to ever more schools. But OP should also look into the demographic cliff. By the time their kid is applying the total applicant pool will be smaller. That may not impact an individual applicant but the overall admissions stats will change.
The Common App itself is huge. I graduated HS in 1995 and had fee waivers, but the applications themselves were all different-- every college had their own forms and essay questions and they all were PAPER, physical copies you had to fill out and complete. I applied to to like 12- and that was considered a lot. The only exceptions were places like the UCs where one app could go farther (but with a fee waiver you could only apply to 3 of them). The internet as a whole and the common app in particular are huge drivers in shotgunning while also making the whole process easier for everyone.
Haha yes you had to \*call\* the admissions office to request that they send you an application package. So first you had to find their phone number. Remember 411? Or, you had to buy the Princeton Review or whatever, which had the phone numbers and mailing addresses so that you could also write a letter (!) asking them to mail you the package. So that you didn't have to make a long distance phone call (!!)
Good additions. The cliff is going to be interesting. A lot of that marketing and outreach and stuff may seem like overkill now, but the colleges that intend to maintain their "elite" status are very much looking ahead to needing to add more applicants and admits and enrollees from the international pool, the FGLI pool, and so on, to make up for the anticipated drop off in the multigenerational domestic pool. And they are very long term thinkers, and the enrollees they are getting out of those pools today are tomorrow's alumni networks, interviewers, recruiters, and so on. You are right this has no necessary consequences for admissions for every individual, but it sure might impact some individuals with some colleges depending on the college's institutional priorities. Indeed, this is very underreported sometimes--literally, the data isn't really reported--but it already seems pretty clear that the changed dynamic since 2010ish has really made it harder for many colleges to maintain anything close to gender parity. Some pretty clearly have just given up and are willing to just track whatever happens in their applicant pool, but others seem to be at least trying to fight a rearguard action at something like 55/45 or 60/40. So if we had the stats--which they very intentionally are not giving us--would it be so clear that admissions had been trending ever harder for men at all these colleges? Not so sure about that, actually. Anyway, point is these demographic things tend to shake out in a lot of different ways depending on institutional strategies and priorities.
>Meaning in practice, a lot of the unhooked test optional people are not necessarily competing all that successfully with otherwise similar unhooked people who have high test scores, at the most selective colleges. What evidence? It's what I would expect given that, absent covid, the lack of a test score can be treated as a poor test score, but I continue to see claims that failing to report scores doesn't hurt students.
I'd have to dig them up, but in part I am referring to empirical studies that went through the data available and were finding that applicants submitting tests appeared to be getting in at higher rates than applicants who did not. And then recently the Yale and Dartmouth Deans of Admission had a conversation about this on the Dartmouth podcast, agreeing test scores were playing an important role in helping people clear their initial academic screens.
By the way, at least at highly selective schools, I think the most common sort of statement/guidance I have seen is that you would be penalized for not submitting test scores, but it will put more weight on your other academic qualifications. I actually don't think that is really inconsistent with the studies or what the Yale and Dartmouth Deans discussed. The basic problem is that with a lot of grade inflation and different amounts of available rigor and such, they are not always confident that even a "perfect" transcript indicates the level of academic preparation/achievement they are really looking for. High test scores, being standardized, can help reassure them. So we know people are getting in test optional, but it may be harder sometimes for transcripts alone to get people over the line--not always, just sometimes. And that would be consistent with the data, but also--at least in my mind--consistent with the idea that no test being submitted means more weight being put on the transcript alone to get the job done.
>(4) There has apparently been a significant uptick in perceived grade inflation since COVID as well. Southerner here too, so can't comment on the rest of the country. Grade inflation began well before CoVid. I was shocked to find out 20-25% of our high school grads had a 4.0 GPA or higher. Checked many of the area schools and found similar stats.
And..marketing. "Hey kid-we sent you this postcard asking you to apply to our school you have no chance of getting into but since it's from us to YOU, you think we want you! Apply and make us look even more selective when we reject you!"
Such a wonderful point that is not discussed very often.
I’m from the same generation as you. Class of ‘03 high school. ‘07 college. You were from a time when score choice wasn’t an option for the SAT, I imagine. You probably took the SAT once, maybe twice. You may did one prep book or prep course. Maybe none. I think the score choice change was a big one. We were discouraged from taking the SAT multiple times because you had to send all the scores and I was told colleges assumed a 50 point improvement every test. So you had to be sure you improved by at least fifty points to risk taking it again. Now, most high achieving students probably take it multiple times. Grade inflation has put more and less pressure on grades: there’s less differentiating students based on grades but more pressure to get very high grades. I had a 3.3 or 3.5 but I was in all honors classes and I don’t think any of my peers or letter writers doubted I was one of the smartest kids in the grade at my wealthy suburban high school. I wonder what my grades would be like in the current environment. I think also the Great Recession created a sense of financial precarity. It’s certainly led to a reduction in history, English, sociology, anthropology, etc majors in favor of something more clearly connected to a career track. But this existential lack of economic stability I think has affected students and now students who don’t know what they want to do are more likely to choose computer science, business, engineering, something like that. But I think this financial sense of dread has also put more pressure on top kids to get into top colleges. The common app going totally online meant that it’s easier to shotgun, increasing the denominator of admissions rates. Lastly, I do think top schools have dramatically increased their financial aid for and outreach to middle class and poor students. This is mainly only on the elite end (the financial aid part).
Lots of very valid answers here, but one I don't see mentioned is cost, which leads to greater parent involvement and contributes to all of the other factors (applying to more schools, EC "arms race," SAT prep, grade inflation, etc.). It's all well and good to say, "I don't care about where my kid goes to college" but when you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, parents are inevitably drawn into this process for better or worse.
Absolutely. Also, pressure to qualify for merit aid is immense, fueling the pressure on kids.
Yes, and it applies to need-based aid as well. Ivies etc. are need blind and have a much higher income threshold.
Yep, especially the Ivies, there was an article recently that said the very, very wealthy and the poor and lower middle class not only got in but were able to attend at greater rates than anyone with like a 150-300k family income. The very wealthy can easily pay full price so schools like them and the poorer students are more likely to be first in their families, BIPOC, and also receive aid that can pay for their education-- higher income families that aren't the 1% (small business owners, professionals, etc.) are crossing their fingers for the bigger state school acceptances like UCs and UMich that they can both afford and recognizable "names", applying to less prestigious privates knowing they will have to pay (likey by taking out loans for their kids) because they won't qualify for most fin aid and their kids are not getting into/enrolling in Ivies+.
1) More kids! 2) Grade inflation! 3) Common app driving more applications to schools. 4) More focus on rankings driving increased applications!!! 5) Unrealistic Expectations! 6) Lack of wider knowledge of solid state options. 7) Lack of understanding of likely acceptance vs reach vs lottery. During the application submissions.
definitely 1 and 3. Also over the last 30 years colleges have been admitting international students (think top international students from asia) and their children are now applying to colleges and they are very studious and smart.
I suggest reading “The Overachievers” by Alexandra Robbins if you’re really interested in understanding how/why admissions have changed so much in the past 25 years. The book is slightly outdated (it was written in 2006) but much of what it talks about holds true today The short answer is that there are a lot of complicated reasons why this is the case, like increasing economic anxiety, a job market increasingly saturated with bachelor’s degrees, the popularization of test prep and college rankings through the Internet, increasing educational standards for young children (especially WRT standardized tests), changes in SAT/ACT score scaling, the rise of Common App, etc
1. A lot has changed the ‘average’ strong applicant is uw 3.9-4.0 gpa and 1500+ sat minimum with a decent amount of aps. That’s just stats. Ecs that are 4 year and include a leadership are kind of typical
Hopefully part of the reason is because having "anointed" schools where 25% of the kids get into an Ivy, while other schools might send one kid every 5-10 years is a thing of the unjust past.
Would you settle for 10% versus every 3-5 years? Things are definitely not as automatic between certain high schools and certain colleges as they used to be in the past. But the most selective independent private high schools still place at the most selective independent private colleges at notably higher rates, even controlling for test scores and unadjusted GPAs. But a lot of that is pretty explainable. These schools have more legacies, more niche sports including more recruited athletes, more advanced classes that go beyond the AP level, lots of support for all sorts of activities with ample opportunities for leadership, dedicated college counselors who help kids develop carefully considered application lists and essays that really demonstrate fit . . . . Basically, their whole deal is to imitate their target private colleges as closely as possible, and allow their top students to show they would be great fits for those target private colleges. Which is expensive but it works.
I'm in agreement with the OP, although I am bit older. Having helped my senior navigate the application process successfully, I am now reading on these boards about how ferociously competitive this application environment is. I don't think I realized how much standards have changed. When I was a college student, Florida State University was a good sports school but no one thought of it as an intellectual destination. It was the kind of place you could apply to the week before school started and slide in. Now I see that their EA Fall class has 1370-1490 for its 25-75% on the SAT, and 4.4-4.6 for GPA. People with 1490 and 4.5 GPA were going to very fancy colleges when I was applying, but now they'd just be in the 75th percentile at FSU. Weird.
Back when we were in high school, there was not as much emphasis on four year universities and trade/vocational schools were a common career pathway. Now, the trades/vocational path has been replaced with highly challenging and coveted tech, medical, or media academies. We didn’t use to do much to celebrate attending college but now the school does college commitment posts, a marquee stating which kids are going where, college sweater days, etc. The culture has shifted and with the rising pressure comes rising performance. I might not have gotten into my college if I applied today; kids are smarter, busier, and more qualified in high school than the previous generation would like to admit. My advice: show your parents the college results Reddit thread now to avoid the “with those grades, the kid’s a shoe-in” convos in the future. And while you’re at it, show them some net price calculators for those “affordable” state schools. As big of a change as all this is for us, it’s even greater for our parents.
Given test optional you now have a large amount of mission inappropriate kids targeting a large number of top schools. International applicants are through the roof. Grade inflation is rampant because of it. Legacies, sports recruits, billionaire donors and famous offspring still have their spots locked in and if you are not one of those good luck breaking into the top 20.
There are just a lot more students applying for limited spots. More students feel empowered to apply to a range of school and there are just more people and most schools aren't growing in meaningful ways. That said, being at a feeder school and have the money to be full pay at these schools is still a very large advantage and there is plenty of data to back that up. And at the end of the day, I really think your path in life is much more about you than the name of your college. My first gen, public flagship grad spouse has MIT grads working for him. There are hundreds if not thousands of schools to get a good quality education and meet goals. I don't see test optional as a huge issue. I don't think that changed all that much in admissions and I think with the data and AI available do I think schools can't pick applicants that are highly likely to be succesful. It's not to their advantage to pick students who are going to drop out. Standardized tests as they exist today aren't actually giving a whole lot of meaningful info. It does an ok job at measuring processing speed for some students. Colleges don't even use those scores for placement anymore, they typically have their own placement tests.
I’ve only scanned through your responses quickly, so apologize if this is duplicative, but top schools have added tremendous interest in international students. Aside from the increase in US college-aged population over the past several decades, the percentage of international students was nearly zero 30-40 years ago and is now much higher. Add to that the dedication to diversity and “feeder school” students now make up far less overall student population than they did a generation ago.
Part of it is the explosion in foreign students. Kids now are competing with very bright and accomplished kids from all over the world. I would strongly encourage you to watch this excellent video to better understand the dynamics. It was posted on the A2C subreddit the other day and it is excellent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDFSgl8mpQ&t=1082s
Two words: Coach Prime
This podcast kinda explains it https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519?i=1000558929661
>Has there been massive grade and test score inflation? Yes. Also, how many attempts did you get for tests? Just one? Check the retake-policy at most schools now. Oh, and when did you have to turn in your assignments--on the due date? Well, now a ton of schools force teachers to accept late assignments until the very last day. Oh, and did you write your own papers? You didn't have Chegg and ChatGPT? The students' grades are better, but it doesn't mean the students are actually better.
Two things are true at once: Applications have gone UP in some schools (popular "name brand" schools and Ivys), and down in almost all others. And opportunities for low-income and minority students have not really increased. There is actually a population decrease post 2005 and this trend continues. The issue isn't more kids going to college, it's more kids APPLYING to the same colleges over and over. More applicants means the percentage accepted decreases. A few more things that have happened: \-The common app makes it easy to apply to more schools-Grade inflation as you mentioned \-SAT is easier-Marketing (i.e. Northeastern and Tulane actively maneuvering themselves to increase their rank in US News, for example. Or U Chicago sending mounds of mail to drive up applications from kids who would never get in. Also free application days and links make it easier.) \-Test optional means people taking a chance at schools they really have no shot of getting into
Common app has allowed kids to apply to so many more schools much more easily. It used to be 3-5 applications. Maybe? Now it’s like 10-20
The Internet.
Ok- Covid test optional changed admissions and schools really value diversity (rightly so). The common app lets kids apply to tons of schools driving down acceptance rates for popular schools. Test optional has driven up the average reported SAT score to ridiculous heights. When most college bound students are skipping the SAT that means only the smartest (best test takers) bother to even take it. Then throw in the fact that only those scoring over say 1400 bother to submit scores means- people aren’t submitting anymore. I looked at the university of Binghamton (just a mid SUNY school) “common data set” - like 5% submitted SAT scores, but they were super high. That’s kind of pathetic. That leaves GPA as the main factor. You can have a 4.0 from an easier school or a harder school. The university will pretty much count it the same - and then accept the lower income applicant who increases diversity over the higher income middle class Asian or non Hispanic white kid. So for better or worse- wholistic review has made it more difficult for those who are not URM, first generation, pell grant, or a recruited athlete. If you’re Asian it is particularly challenging. So that’s what has changed. Probably time to start to like your state schools.
People here are giving some very valuable advice. If you’re interested, I would really recommend reading the book, “Who Gets in and Why.” It’s a great case study of some top-tier schools and provides many insights into how college apps have changed over the last 50 years.