[Farm93]

If you were born in 1973 you were at the post-WW2 minimum, 3.14 million births.

That and a little earthquake enabled the classes of 1994 and 1995 to enjoy relatively easy admit rates to Stanford.  I think one of those classes had an admit rate at or above 20%.

[Farm93]

If you were born in 1973 you were at the post-WW2 minimum, 3.14 million births.

That and a little earthquake enabled the classes of 1994 and 1995 to enjoy relatively easy admit rates to Stanford.  I think one of those classes had an admit rate at or above 20%.

[oldalum]

No, it has gotten harder to be admitted to a top school than it used to be. It's not just a matter of the same number of qualified applicants chasing the same number of spots but submitting more applications. First, there was an attenuated echo of the baby boom that peaked around 2010-2012 (a statement above that the number of 18-year-olds has been unchanged for some time is incorrect). According to the U.S. Census, there were almost 2 million more Americans between the ages of 15-19 in 2010 than in 2000 (see Table 2 in http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/brief...0br-03.pdf). That's a lot more U.S. applicants applying to college in 2010-2014 than in 2000-2004. Second, the number of international applicants (and acceptances) has been steadily rising, and I believe disproportionately to the top schools. A couple of years ago I saw a video of the Harvard president saying Harvard wants to be a global school and they intend to accept more international applicants in the future. Finally, I believe the numbers of applicants that are in the "top tier" has increased because of the proliferation of AP courses and standardized test prep, as well as greater sophistication of college counseling and prep in terms of extracurricular activities, essays, etc; i.e., students who would have been "second tier" 10-15 years ago look first tier today.

I agree that the universal application is not the primary driver of more applications to top schools. The Stanford application of 2 years ago added 8 unique questions to the common app essay. That application was a be*r to fill out. All the common app does for top schools is save applicants from re-typing a lot of factual information.

[oldalum]

No, it has gotten harder to be admitted to a top school than it used to be. It's not just a matter of the same number of qualified applicants chasing the same number of spots but submitting more applications. First, there was an attenuated echo of the baby boom that peaked around 2010-2012 (a statement above that the number of 18-year-olds has been unchanged for some time is incorrect). According to the U.S. Census, there were almost 2 million more Americans between the ages of 15-19 in 2010 than in 2000 (see Table 2 in http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/brief...0br-03.pdf). That's a lot more U.S. applicants applying to college in 2010-2014 than in 2000-2004. Second, the number of international applicants (and acceptances) has been steadily rising, and I believe disproportionately to the top schools. A couple of years ago I saw a video of the Harvard president saying Harvard wants to be a global school and they intend to accept more international applicants in the future. Finally, I believe the numbers of applicants that are in the "top tier" has increased because of the proliferation of AP courses and standardized test prep, as well as greater sophistication of college counseling and prep in terms of extracurricular activities, essays, etc; i.e., students who would have been "second tier" 10-15 years ago look first tier today.

I agree that the universal application is not the primary driver of more applications to top schools. The Stanford application of 2 years ago added 8 unique questions to the common app essay. That application was a be*r to fill out. All the common app does for top schools is save applicants from re-typing a lot of factual information.

[CTcard]

First, there was an attenuated echo of the baby boom that peaked around 2010-2012 (a statement above that the number of 18-year-olds has been unchanged for some time is incorrect). According to the U.S. Census, there were almost 2 million more Americans between the ages of 15-19 in 2010 than in 2000 (see Table 2 in http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/brief...0br-03.pdf). That's a lot more U.S. applicants applying to college in 2010-2014 than in 2000-2004.

The two million change you note is 10%, and certainly the numbers of 18 year olds has fluctuated that much and more over the past 70 years. The numbers were largest from those born late 1950s to early 1960s.  There hasn't been any increase in the number of 18 year olds that approaches the more than four fold rise in the applications to Stanford and other top schools.

Here is a graphic of year by year births in the USA.

Be careful looking at that chart - zero is not included on the y-axis.

Second, the number of international applicants (and acceptances) has been steadily rising, and I believe disproportionately to the top schools.

Almost certainly foreign applications have been rising from what I have heard, though as far as I can tell nobody reports those numbers. Stanford's latest common data set lists 128 foreign undergrads in the entry class of 2014-15, or 7.6%.  My memory as one of those students from the mid-80s was that they told us we made up some similar fraction, but that could be wrong. The number from 10 years ago was 95 (vs 128). That relative increase is big (35%) but since the absolute increase is small it doesn't have a large effect on domestic applicants.

http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2014

Finally, I believe the numbers of applicants that are in the "top tier" has increased because of the proliferation of AP courses and standardized test prep, as well as greater sophistication of college counseling and prep in terms of extracurricular activities, essays, etc; i.e., students who would have been "second tier" 10-15 years ago look first tier today.

This is one crux of the matter - in particular trying to make sense of what it means.
If there has been a proliferation of resources - does that mean it's harder to get in or does that very availability make it easier? Probably means harder for some, easier for others.

More broadly, that harder for some - easier for others theme seems to be the case with respect to trends in the demographic breakdown of the student body at top schools. Apparently white, non-hispanic students make up 37% of the 14-15 class (see common data set). I cannot find numbers going back very far right now. Ten years ago that was 44%. I think 50 years ago it was much larger.
Clearly that implies harder for some - easier for others.

[CTcard]

First, there was an attenuated echo of the baby boom that peaked around 2010-2012 (a statement above that the number of 18-year-olds has been unchanged for some time is incorrect). According to the U.S. Census, there were almost 2 million more Americans between the ages of 15-19 in 2010 than in 2000 (see Table 2 in http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/brief...0br-03.pdf). That's a lot more U.S. applicants applying to college in 2010-2014 than in 2000-2004.

The two million change you note is 10%, and certainly the numbers of 18 year olds has fluctuated that much and more over the past 70 years. The numbers were largest from those born late 1950s to early 1960s.  There hasn't been any increase in the number of 18 year olds that approaches the more than four fold rise in the applications to Stanford and other top schools.

Here is a graphic of year by year births in the USA.

Be careful looking at that chart - zero is not included on the y-axis.

Second, the number of international applicants (and acceptances) has been steadily rising, and I believe disproportionately to the top schools.

Almost certainly foreign applications have been rising from what I have heard, though as far as I can tell nobody reports those numbers. Stanford's latest common data set lists 128 foreign undergrads in the entry class of 2014-15, or 7.6%.  My memory as one of those students from the mid-80s was that they told us we made up some similar fraction, but that could be wrong. The number from 10 years ago was 95 (vs 128). That relative increase is big (35%) but since the absolute increase is small it doesn't have a large effect on domestic applicants.

http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2014

Finally, I believe the numbers of applicants that are in the "top tier" has increased because of the proliferation of AP courses and standardized test prep, as well as greater sophistication of college counseling and prep in terms of extracurricular activities, essays, etc; i.e., students who would have been "second tier" 10-15 years ago look first tier today.

This is one crux of the matter - in particular trying to make sense of what it means.
If there has been a proliferation of resources - does that mean it's harder to get in or does that very availability make it easier? Probably means harder for some, easier for others.

More broadly, that harder for some - easier for others theme seems to be the case with respect to trends in the demographic breakdown of the student body at top schools. Apparently white, non-hispanic students make up 37% of the 14-15 class (see common data set). I cannot find numbers going back very far right now. Ten years ago that was 44%. I think 50 years ago it was much larger.
Clearly that implies harder for some - easier for others.

[oldalum]

yes, the majority of the historic decline in acceptance rates for top schools is due to the per-applicant increase in number of schools applied to. My point was that not all of it is that, there are real factors that are making it harder to get in.

The recent 10% bulge in US 18-year-olds is not as great as the one in the past, but it comes on top of the other trends I cited. Due to the feedback loop you mentioned, even a small increase in real (or even perceived) difficulty in getting into top schools can generate a large increase in number of applications per applicant.

For Harvard in 2014, 10.5% of admittees were international applicants.

 

[oldalum]

yes, the majority of the historic decline in acceptance rates for top schools is due to the per-applicant increase in number of schools applied to. My point was that not all of it is that, there are real factors that are making it harder to get in.

The recent 10% bulge in US 18-year-olds is not as great as the one in the past, but it comes on top of the other trends I cited. Due to the feedback loop you mentioned, even a small increase in real (or even perceived) difficulty in getting into top schools can generate a large increase in number of applications per applicant.

For Harvard in 2014, 10.5% of admittees were international applicants.

 

[winflop]

His counselors may have had something to do with encouraging him to apply *everywhere*...don't be so hard on the kid.

He's 17, not 7.  Plenty old enough - and smart enough - to evaluate the schools and decide where to apply and not.  When I used to do alumni admissions interviews, I would always ask candidates what other schools they were applying to and what they saw as the differences between them.  Told me a lot about whether the kid had done ANY research and given ANY thought to where would be a good fit for him/her.

[winflop]

His counselors may have had something to do with encouraging him to apply *everywhere*...don't be so hard on the kid.

He's 17, not 7.  Plenty old enough - and smart enough - to evaluate the schools and decide where to apply and not.  When I used to do alumni admissions interviews, I would always ask candidates what other schools they were applying to and what they saw as the differences between them.  Told me a lot about whether the kid had done ANY research and given ANY thought to where would be a good fit for him/her.

[Farm93]

Almost certainly foreign applications have been rising from what I have heard, though as far as I can tell nobody reports those numbers. Stanford's latest common data set lists 128 foreign undergrads in the entry class of 2014-15, or 7.6%.  My memory as one of those students from the mid-80s was that they told us we made up some similar fraction, but that could be wrong. The number from 10 years ago was 95 (vs 128). That relative increase is big (35%) but since the absolute increase is small it doesn't have a large effect on domestic applicants.

The UC system shows the number of international applications by year. The increases for the big 2 show a healthy increase in internationally based applicants.  However, it really does, to a large extent mirror the common app growth.

The more curious reality is that the less popular UC schools still accept big numbers of applicants.  The Why Not stuff really only applies to the top tier because of the unique school essays and requirements noted before.  Though seriously, a few essays is not that big of a deal in this online, electronic age.  Back in the day, you had to bust out a typewriter each time and work tirelessly to make sure everything would fit with no mistakes etc.  Mess up?  Likely time to write the school for a second copy of the application.  That wasn't a be*r.  It was much bigger pain in the ...!

Common app is big.  Most schools that joined the process expected, and then got, significant increases in applications. Since schools adopted the common app at different times over the last 10 years or so I am sure one could conduct a statistical analysis with the data available across the top 30 schools.

[Farm93]

Almost certainly foreign applications have been rising from what I have heard, though as far as I can tell nobody reports those numbers. Stanford's latest common data set lists 128 foreign undergrads in the entry class of 2014-15, or 7.6%.  My memory as one of those students from the mid-80s was that they told us we made up some similar fraction, but that could be wrong. The number from 10 years ago was 95 (vs 128). That relative increase is big (35%) but since the absolute increase is small it doesn't have a large effect on domestic applicants.

The UC system shows the number of international applications by year. The increases for the big 2 show a healthy increase in internationally based applicants.  However, it really does, to a large extent mirror the common app growth.

The more curious reality is that the less popular UC schools still accept big numbers of applicants.  The Why Not stuff really only applies to the top tier because of the unique school essays and requirements noted before.  Though seriously, a few essays is not that big of a deal in this online, electronic age.  Back in the day, you had to bust out a typewriter each time and work tirelessly to make sure everything would fit with no mistakes etc.  Mess up?  Likely time to write the school for a second copy of the application.  That wasn't a be*r.  It was much bigger pain in the ...!

Common app is big.  Most schools that joined the process expected, and then got, significant increases in applications. Since schools adopted the common app at different times over the last 10 years or so I am sure one could conduct a statistical analysis with the data available across the top 30 schools.

[FarmBoy]

And if you had asked my 17-year-old self what the big differences were in Northwestern, Syracuse and Stanford -- the three I really hoped to get into -- I doubt if I would have had a very good answer. Most kids don't turn the college application process into a thesis-level project. They maybe ask a teacher or two for advice, then couple that with what they pick up from the college websites and what they've heard, if anything, from other kids who attended them.

I think the college application game has changed since you your time on The Farm. The lengths kids go to nowadays to research schools and apply is amazing. I interview Stanford applicants. The kids I talk to have done a lot of research, can speak to specific programs, identify professors they want to study from and in some cases, have actually talked with some of them. Granted, I think a lot of that is for show because it's what you're "supposed to do", but I do think kids do a lot more investigation now than they did "back in the day."

Still, given the very low acceptance rates, I have no problem with a kid applying to all of the top tier schools he or she can. I think advertising the fact that you got it to all of them can be "douchy". I remember how meek I was in admitting I'd been accepted to Stanford because I knew several people who were not so fortunate. In this case, though, I can envision this kid's mentor learned about his success and wanted to make a big deal of it for the kid, for the school, and to set an example of what can be achieved for others. At least, I hope that's what happened.

It's also funny that people would slam a kid for being public about choosing Stanford over other great schools considering that's what happens in Football and Basketball ALL THE TIME. I hate the fact that kids hold news conferences to put on a hat. But that's the way of the world. Why should it be worse for a kid who's been accepted for non-athletic reasons to be held to a different standard?

[FarmBoy]

And if you had asked my 17-year-old self what the big differences were in Northwestern, Syracuse and Stanford -- the three I really hoped to get into -- I doubt if I would have had a very good answer. Most kids don't turn the college application process into a thesis-level project. They maybe ask a teacher or two for advice, then couple that with what they pick up from the college websites and what they've heard, if anything, from other kids who attended them.

I think the college application game has changed since you your time on The Farm. The lengths kids go to nowadays to research schools and apply is amazing. I interview Stanford applicants. The kids I talk to have done a lot of research, can speak to specific programs, identify professors they want to study from and in some cases, have actually talked with some of them. Granted, I think a lot of that is for show because it's what you're "supposed to do", but I do think kids do a lot more investigation now than they did "back in the day."

Still, given the very low acceptance rates, I have no problem with a kid applying to all of the top tier schools he or she can. I think advertising the fact that you got it to all of them can be "douchy". I remember how meek I was in admitting I'd been accepted to Stanford because I knew several people who were not so fortunate. In this case, though, I can envision this kid's mentor learned about his success and wanted to make a big deal of it for the kid, for the school, and to set an example of what can be achieved for others. At least, I hope that's what happened.

It's also funny that people would slam a kid for being public about choosing Stanford over other great schools considering that's what happens in Football and Basketball ALL THE TIME. I hate the fact that kids hold news conferences to put on a hat. But that's the way of the world. Why should it be worse for a kid who's been accepted for non-athletic reasons to be held to a different standard?

[Stymie]

I think we should be celebrating young Mr. Readus rather than trying to find his nits and then try to pick them.

From what I have read he is exactly the sort of person that Stanford should be admitting.  And if he can kick, well then this is brobdingnagian!

[Stymie]

I think we should be celebrating young Mr. Readus rather than trying to find his nits and then try to pick them.

From what I have read he is exactly the sort of person that Stanford should be admitting.  And if he can kick, well then this is brobdingnagian!

[yvonne]

The nit is not with Mr. Readus, who should go into publishing, but with CardBoard posters.

[yvonne]

The nit is not with Mr. Readus, who should go into publishing, but with CardBoard posters.

[stupac2]

Of course, it's also true that relatively few of them are pursuing MIT or Harvard or Stanford, and that could make a difference.

I think it makes a brobdingnagian difference. I follow the stanford subreddit, and something like 1/4 of all posts are some flavor of "how do I get in???" I saw one of those that saw posted by someone who was a freshman in high school.

I was a counselor for a Stanford summer camp called EPGY, and pretty much every single one of the attendees was there to try to boost their chances to get in. The kids are 8th-11th grade and from all over, many are local-ish but some are international. It seems to me that there's a large amount of anxiety around getting into these colleges, if you're on the upper end. If your someone whose "reach" school is Florida? Probably not so much.

[stupac2]

Of course, it's also true that relatively few of them are pursuing MIT or Harvard or Stanford, and that could make a difference.

I think it makes a brobdingnagian difference. I follow the stanford subreddit, and something like 1/4 of all posts are some flavor of "how do I get in???" I saw one of those that saw posted by someone who was a freshman in high school.

I was a counselor for a Stanford summer camp called EPGY, and pretty much every single one of the attendees was there to try to boost their chances to get in. The kids are 8th-11th grade and from all over, many are local-ish but some are international. It seems to me that there's a large amount of anxiety around getting into these colleges, if you're on the upper end. If your someone whose "reach" school is Florida? Probably not so much.

[jacketree]

Maybe people read the headline but not the story?  He doesn't come off as egotistical, but confident in his own abilities, which is pretty amazing with every excuse in the world not to be. This is not some douche from a typical Stanford prep feeder bragging about college acceptance letters as trophies.  This was a pretty big deal at his Memphis high school. The guy wants to get going on a start up while in college and make Bill Gates jealous. Good for him!!

Readus turned up on the collective radar last fall when a minister in a food line talked to him long enough to note his promise, then told him to call Memphis Challenge, a group working since 1989 to identify talented minority students, get them to college and then back to Memphis to work.

Readus and his mother, who’s been blind from birth, live on food stamps in a rundown apartment at Mississippi and Kerr. To contribute to their income, he tutors in math.

He also wants people to know the rumor-mongering about Melrose and Memphis in general is more toxic than people know.
“I have seen people at Melrose High, worse off than me, go on and do great. The things we are doing right — going to school and graduating — are not being understood.”

His advice to other students is to find someone to help. “You never know how much easier things can get if you have help. You may think no one can help, but you are wrong.”

[jacketree]

Maybe people read the headline but not the story?  He doesn't come off as egotistical, but confident in his own abilities, which is pretty amazing with every excuse in the world not to be. This is not some douche from a typical Stanford prep feeder bragging about college acceptance letters as trophies.  This was a pretty big deal at his Memphis high school. The guy wants to get going on a start up while in college and make Bill Gates jealous. Good for him!!

Readus turned up on the collective radar last fall when a minister in a food line talked to him long enough to note his promise, then told him to call Memphis Challenge, a group working since 1989 to identify talented minority students, get them to college and then back to Memphis to work.

Readus and his mother, who’s been blind from birth, live on food stamps in a rundown apartment at Mississippi and Kerr. To contribute to their income, he tutors in math.

He also wants people to know the rumor-mongering about Melrose and Memphis in general is more toxic than people know.
“I have seen people at Melrose High, worse off than me, go on and do great. The things we are doing right — going to school and graduating — are not being understood.”

His advice to other students is to find someone to help. “You never know how much easier things can get if you have help. You may think no one can help, but you are wrong.”

[Papa John]

Amen, garvin.

[Papa John]

Amen, garvin.

[jacketree]

Papa John, to let a thread quietly die people have to stop posting.  Saying "Amen" keeps it alive :P

[As does this post, but I've taken my shoes off, so no one will notice.]

[jacketree]

Papa John, to let a thread quietly die people have to stop posting.  Saying "Amen" keeps it alive :P

[As does this post, but I've taken my shoes off, so no one will notice.]

[CornFed]

So what does everyone think about the Civil War?

[CornFed]

So what does everyone think about the Civil War?

[Papa John]

Papa John, to let a thread quietly die people have to stop posting.  Saying "Amen" keeps it alive :P

[As does this post, but I've taken my shoes off, so no one will notice.]

Well, I typed it quietly.

[Papa John]

Papa John, to let a thread quietly die people have to stop posting.  Saying "Amen" keeps it alive :P

[As does this post, but I've taken my shoes off, so no one will notice.]

Well, I typed it quietly.