[CTcard]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=9773.msg86998#msg86998 date=1396410167]
On the other hand, I really am starting to wonder how much of the halving of the admit rate is due to the increase of quality applicants vs common-app spammers with dreams. Hard to tell unless you're on the inside, and there's no way they're telling us that.

The fact that the early action admit rate is over 10% suggests to me that it is the latter:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/decem...21313.html
[/quote]

Overall, it certainly has to be the latter. Admission rates at almost every school in the country have been plummeting in recent years. Mathematically, this is clearly because on average kids are applying to more schools - though of course in the end they are still attending just one.
The phenomenon seems to be driven by 1) it being easier to apply to many schools as others have noted, and 2) various places that do ratings using acceptance rates as a measure of school selectivity - so schools push it.

Over the course of a few years, there is no demographic change at Stanford (or the Ivies) or in America that could have made admission to those institutions significantly tougher on an absolute scale. This despite the currently rapidly dropping admission rates that are trumpeted by so many schools right about now.

Over the course of many years (60 years a big effect, 30 years less so, 20,10 I don't know the time cutoff), there are many changes that probably have made Stanford tougher to get into, and may have made "elite schools" tougher, though it is hard to tell or even properly define the question.

Stanford has risen in the perceived pantheon of American universities - certainly over 60 years, and also continuing but for the past 20-30 years there has been much upside to move there.

Demographics have jumped around, but the size of the 18 year old cohort in America hasn't changed that much since the height of the baby-boomer years were the biggest for this.

There are also studies I have read (but cannot find right now) that have indicated that the average competence of American high school graduates hasn't changed all that much for 30 years - and just maybe has dropped. However, these were combined with some indication that the distribution has spread - with more students on the wings on both the high and low achieving side. This latter might be an indication that the applicant pool to elite universities has improved.

There are brobdingnagian changes over 60 years in just what students admissions at elite universities are targeting, though these changes were stronger over the start of that time span. There are far more minority students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds at these schools than there used to be, which by definition must mean fewer non-minority students from advantaged backgrounds. That has certainly changed the mix - and almost by definition there is a correlation between that latter group and children of alums. To the extent that is public knowledge, that might serve to bring in more top-level applicants who previously would simply not have tried.

------------------------

Somewhat more meaningful (but not entirely reliable) numbers with respect to weighing the relative perceived attractiveness of various schools is the yield rate and the head to head yield rates (i.e. of the 400 students admitted to both school X and school Y, how many choose X). Stanford has been rising on these, but still trails Harvard.

[CTcard]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=9773.msg86998#msg86998 date=1396410167]
On the other hand, I really am starting to wonder how much of the halving of the admit rate is due to the increase of quality applicants vs common-app spammers with dreams. Hard to tell unless you're on the inside, and there's no way they're telling us that.

The fact that the early action admit rate is over 10% suggests to me that it is the latter:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/decem...21313.html
[/quote]

Overall, it certainly has to be the latter. Admission rates at almost every school in the country have been plummeting in recent years. Mathematically, this is clearly because on average kids are applying to more schools - though of course in the end they are still attending just one.
The phenomenon seems to be driven by 1) it being easier to apply to many schools as others have noted, and 2) various places that do ratings using acceptance rates as a measure of school selectivity - so schools push it.

Over the course of a few years, there is no demographic change at Stanford (or the Ivies) or in America that could have made admission to those institutions significantly tougher on an absolute scale. This despite the currently rapidly dropping admission rates that are trumpeted by so many schools right about now.

Over the course of many years (60 years a big effect, 30 years less so, 20,10 I don't know the time cutoff), there are many changes that probably have made Stanford tougher to get into, and may have made "elite schools" tougher, though it is hard to tell or even properly define the question.

Stanford has risen in the perceived pantheon of American universities - certainly over 60 years, and also continuing but for the past 20-30 years there has been much upside to move there.

Demographics have jumped around, but the size of the 18 year old cohort in America hasn't changed that much since the height of the baby-boomer years were the biggest for this.

There are also studies I have read (but cannot find right now) that have indicated that the average competence of American high school graduates hasn't changed all that much for 30 years - and just maybe has dropped. However, these were combined with some indication that the distribution has spread - with more students on the wings on both the high and low achieving side. This latter might be an indication that the applicant pool to elite universities has improved.

There are brobdingnagian changes over 60 years in just what students admissions at elite universities are targeting, though these changes were stronger over the start of that time span. There are far more minority students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds at these schools than there used to be, which by definition must mean fewer non-minority students from advantaged backgrounds. That has certainly changed the mix - and almost by definition there is a correlation between that latter group and children of alums. To the extent that is public knowledge, that might serve to bring in more top-level applicants who previously would simply not have tried.

------------------------

Somewhat more meaningful (but not entirely reliable) numbers with respect to weighing the relative perceived attractiveness of various schools is the yield rate and the head to head yield rates (i.e. of the 400 students admitted to both school X and school Y, how many choose X). Stanford has been rising on these, but still trails Harvard.