Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does this subject have to do with "top schools?" It has to do with accumulated debt due to education expense. It really doesn't have anything to do with the anecdotal example of some Ivy League palace bestowing their annual tuition mercy. Bottom line: There is a lot of student debt and much of it comes from private institutions.
i thought that was the subject of the OP. we weren't talking about public vs private
University of Michigan turned away quite a few 4.0 students in the past several years. However they accepted my daughter with a 3.9 or 3.89. I think she had around 27 on her ACT. In part I think it depends on the high school. The universities are onto which schools engage in grade inflation and to what extent. Also some schools have shifted to a 5.0 program by giving increased scores for AP classes. Thus a 4.0 from a school with 5.0 for AP classes is less meaningful than a 4.0 (or even a 3.8) from a straight 4.0 school. They also look at what classes you took and what outside accomplishments you achieved. I think for most top universities you now need a 3.7 - 3.8 or so and a 26 or 27 ACT to even get a look. Once you get through the computer system, they take a more specific look at your transcript and accomplishments. At some schools the computer adjusts for minorities and even for high school. I do not think they look at accomplishments or extra curricular until you get through the vetting system. However I was told that no one has a chance at getting into U-M unless they have substantial extracurricular involvements and accomplishments.
Considering that the majority of students who apply to a school like U Mich are going to be at or near the top of their class[es], it is a no brainer that even students with 4.0 GPAs will be turned away. Universities ultimately want students who will fit into their particular brand of campus "culture", not just the best of the best.
As for GPA, universities use algorithms that either weight/unweight GPA and/or do a "risk" assessment based on likelihood of turning down an offer. This is based on two premises: the idea that if you want 100 people to show up to your party you need to invite 600 (I forget the actual ratio, but it is something alone this line), and, the number of applicants, historically, who have turned down offers. So, the university only wants to admit perhaps 10-20% of the applicants total, but needs to actually offer admission to 60% in order to do so-for example. This is also true of schools that only admit 10% or less of the applicants; they know not everyone is going to accept an offer.
Going back to fit, the university wants to select the students who are more likely to accept their offer and wait-list, or deny, the rest. A student with a 4.0 GPA applying to U Mich is also very likely to apply to at least one HPSYM and/or their public equivalent (actually, probably three+). The student is more-than-likely going to attend the best (prestigious) university, and U Mich knows this.
Most universities recalculate high school GPAs. It is common to completely ignore freshman year and only focus on the sophomore and junior years. Any 4.X GPAs or courses that grade on a 5.0 scale are recalculated using a standard 4.0 scale. So those As in the AP courses with 5.0 scales become As on the 4.0 scale. Then there are the universities that convert courses to the 4.0 scale and then add 0.5 to 1.0 for every Honors and/or AP course taken. And then there are universities, however small in number, that convert GPA into a 100-point scale (percentage), so that 4.0 or 4.X GPA becomes a 96 GPA.
To add, some universities ignore non-academic courses (PE, some electives, and so on), while others include all courses taken. And then there is the whole business of some universities requiring certain courses or course sequences to have been taken not only for admission into the university but also for admission into a particular major (just because you are accepted into the university does not mean that have been accepted into your major) and some do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim04
The common application changed the marketplace and caused applications to the top schools to skyrocket resulting in more competitive admissions.
Kids that used to go to their local state college will now roll the dice to see if they can get into a top college and receive some aid, when they didn't bother when they had to type an application and write a separate essay for each school.
Access to test prep and less top students just winging the ACT/SAT, more saavy guidance counselors that won't just push regional schools, and greater outreach by elite schools to schools outside their traditional feeders has increased the size and competitiveness of the applicant pool as well. Another trend is availability to AP and IB classes has exploded in the past 10 years or so in public schools, even those in poor areas. In my high school, less than 10% of the students were in AP classes and they were only offered in core classes like Calculus, Chemistry, Biology, US and European History, English, Physics, and Languages. Now half the students are enrolled in AP classes and the offerings have tripled.
At least half of those applicants would not be accepted at those schools today. I know 100% I wouldn't be accepted to either my undergrad or grad school if I applied today.
Most universities use the Common App, including all the Ivies (note, I believe that only Harvard College, not Harvard University as a whole, uses the Common App), which is basically just a clearing house for the main portion of the application. Each school typically has their own unique supplemental packages that must also be filled out that generally include more essays and/or information. I don't think it is necessarily easier, just a little bit more organized.
I agree about kids these days applying to many reaches "just because, you never know". However, these kids are obviously not paying the application fees with their own money (okay, perhaps one or two), so the question is why are parents allowing their kids to apply when even their own children shrug their shoulders over their own chances? When I graduated from high school it was common for the top students to go to the local State University or to join the Military to learn engineering, nursing, etc. Some did go to prestigious universities, however, there was absolutely no shame in going to a "no-name" college. And those that did apply to non-local universities only applied to perhaps, maybe, five total. I occasionally participate in college con., and the number of posters who say they are wanting to apply to between 11 and 20+ universities is insane, and a lot of money!
I also participate in a similar forum aimed at potential grad students, and I see the same thing there: young 20-something hopefuls applying to 11, 16, 20 grad programs. Wow!
I dunno, I think a lot of those students from back-in-the-day would still have a shot today. For one, I don't think a high school education was as watered down back then as it is now. When I was in high school, we had to be formally invited into an Honors course and/or AP. The invitation was based on either (top) grades in the particular subject areas and/or maturity in "thinking" about these subjects. I read so many instances about how high school students are now allowed to take AP courses simply because they want to, it is a shame.
And yes, there is also the whole aspect of test-prepping. Back in my day, test prep definitely existed but it was primarily only used by the more wealthy students who were aiming for the Ivy League.
I will be the one to say that college admissions at the top (most selective) schools is no harder today than it has been in the past thirty years. The percent of kids accepted has indeed dropped dramatically at many top schools, both private and public. But the advent of the common app has meant that more less-qualified students are applying to the IVies, Stanford, MIT, etc. The importance of the U.S. News ranking has also meant that top colleges fnow draw from a national marketplace rather than a more regional or local one, and that adds more applicants to these schools.
But the share of truly tip-top students (in the holistic, not just the test scores/GPA sense) has remained the same, or at least the same share of the HS population. And the top schools have the experience to know who those students are after examining their packages. If you apply and you're one of those kids, your chances now are really not a whole lot worse than they were a generation ago.
If there is any actual crunch I think its mainly because these top schools have not expanded their enrollment as quickly as the college going population has grown. But even that is offset somewhat, as schools that were not especially hard to get into, prestigious, or prominent a generation ago now are just that. The top students that aren't accepted into the Ivies or MIT, e.g., are going to places like Duke, U Chicago, NYU, UCLA, Washington U in St. Louis, MIddlebury, and others, making them more competitive and selective.
If there is any actual crunch I think its mainly because these top schools have not expanded their enrollment as quickly as the college going population has grown. But even that is offset somewhat, as schools that were not especially hard to get into, prestigious, or prominent a generation ago now are just that. The top students that aren't accepted into the Ivies or MIT, e.g., are going to places like Duke, U Chicago, NYU, UCLA, Washington U in St. Louis, MIddlebury, and others, making them more competitive and selective.
Having lived in and attended school in Boston, I know that Harvard and MIT only admit a number of students that is equal to the amount of beds they have available, that is; every admitted student to these two schools are guaranteed a bed in one of their dorms. I believe that the universities with higher proportions of commuter students generally have room to grow....and students fighting over courses. Honestly, I believe that is why online courses are becoming more prominent. It is a way to allow for more students without having to physically add classrooms, labs, dorms, dining, etc.
Having lived in and attended school in Boston, I know that Harvard and MIT only admit a number of students that is equal to the amount of beds they have available, that is; every admitted student to these two schools are guaranteed a bed in one of their dorms. I believe that the universities with higher proportions of commuter students generally have room to grow....and students fighting over courses. Honestly, I believe that is why online courses are becoming more prominent. It is a way to allow for more students without having to physically add classrooms, labs, dorms, dining, etc.
Harvard accepts around 2000-2100 students each anticipating about 1600 to actually matriculate....
While freshman are required to live on campus, if all 2000 accepted students chose to matriculate Harvard officials would likely have to become very creative to find those additional 4-500 beds....
I will be the one to say that college admissions at the top (most selective) schools is no harder today than it has been in the past thirty years. The percent of kids accepted has indeed dropped dramatically at many top schools, both private and public. But the advent of the common app has meant that more less-qualified students are applying to the IVies, Stanford, MIT, etc.
I agree with statement. There are more applicants today due to the common application, but the number of "beds" available has not increased fast enough (does the institution even want to?) to accommadate the growing number of "qualified" students and thus driving the acceptance rates down.
As for school admittance rates directly relating to the available number of "beds", that is partially correct. However, no school actually admits the number of student equal to the number of "beds" available. There is admittance rate and a matriculation yield. Each school has an algorithm to estimate how many admitted students will actually enroll.
UCLA was well aware that a good portion of their admitted students were also admitted to and would enroll at Berkeley, USC, HYPS, Cal-tech, MIT, or NYU, among others, instead.
You make some interesting points. I agree that the common app had led to more students applying to more top schools and this is a big part of the reason why admissions % are lower. I disagree that it is no harder to get in to the top schools today - the fact that it is so much easier to apply means there will be an increase in both qualifed and unqualiifed applicants to these schools. And the increasing population of college age students means more of them are "top 5%" and 1400+ SAT or whatever is needed to be competitive at the top schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101
I will be the one to say that college admissions at the top (most selective) schools is no harder today than it has been in the past thirty years. The percent of kids accepted has indeed dropped dramatically at many top schools, both private and public. But the advent of the common app has meant that more less-qualified students are applying to the IVies, Stanford, MIT, etc.
I agree the common app has to be considered when looking at the admission percentages:
1. Marginally qualified students may throw out a bunch of applications to "reach" or "snowballs chance" schools since the marginal cost of doing so is relatively low.
2. Qualified students may apply to a larger number of schools to increase their chances of getting in one of their top choices or to see where they get a better financial aid offer. So instead of applying to one or two ivies, they apply to all of them plus a bunch of other top schools like Stanford, Chicago etc. If this is going on you'd expect to see the "yield" or percentage of applicants who accept drop somewhat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101
The importance of the U.S. News ranking has also meant that top colleges fnow draw from a national marketplace rather than a more regional or local one, and that adds more applicants to these schools.
Agree, but doesn't this mean it is harder to get in to these schools since there are more applicants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101
But the share of truly tip-top students (in the holistic, not just the test scores/GPA sense) has remained the same, or at least the same share of the HS population. And the top schools have the experience to know who those students are after examining their packages. If you apply and you're one of those kids, your chances now are really not a whole lot worse than they were a generation ago.
I think there is some truth in this. The difference, I think, is parents and students are savvier consumers than they were even a decade ago before so much information was easily available. What this means is that top students who in the past might have set their sights on a flagship state universitity are now applying to many more top national schools. As an example, many of the top students in my high school class only applied to, and attended, the flagship public school in our state, even though they could have gotten in to some of the ivies or other prestigeous "national" schools. Today, many more of those students are applying to the top universities and this inherently makes admissions more competitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101
If there is any actual crunch I think its mainly because these top schools have not expanded their enrollment as quickly as the college going population has grown. But even that is offset somewhat, as schools that were not especially hard to get into, prestigious, or prominent a generation ago now are just that. The top students that aren't accepted into the Ivies or MIT, e.g., are going to places like Duke, U Chicago, NYU, UCLA, Washington U in St. Louis, MIddlebury, and others, making them more competitive and selective.
The demographic trends definitely make it harder to get in to a top school - more students chasing the same number of beds. Doesn't the fact that these schools are "more competitive and selective" mean admissions are harder than in the past?
Harvard accepts around 2000-2100 students each anticipating about 1600 to actually matriculate....
While freshman are required to live on campus, if all 2000 accepted students chose to matriculate Harvard officials would likely have to become very creative to find those additional 4-500 beds....
Harvard had a 3.7% regular decision acceptance rate this year, with over 35,000 applications
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
