OT: Great column on current elite college admissions insanity
There is a fascinating, engrossing, and disturbing column in the NY Times today on the current state of elite college admissions.
LINK: This is Peak College Admissions Insanity
Michigan is not the focus. The column looks at the admissions lunacy in the Ivy Plus schools. (Ivy schools plus MIT, Duke, Chicago, and Stanford.) Some of the factoids are astounding. To wit,
- Those schools received 175,000 apps in 2002, and 590,000 just 20 years later, with just a few thousand more spaces for incoming students.
- There were 134 perfect ACT scores in 2002, and 2,542 in 2023.
- Early Decision is massively weighted to favor admission to those wealthy enough to pay in full. As an example, "just over 54,000 high school seniors vied to be one of only 1,750 members of Duke’s incoming class. The 6,000 who applied in the early decision round were three times more likely to get in as the 48,000 who applied later."
- Of course, the FAFSA debacle this year has made the whole process even more insane and difficult, especially for non-wealthy student applicants (and their families.)
Even though I'm a proud and thankful UofM grad, I really wonder if I would be admitted, and if I could afford to go to UofM today. As an in-state resident, my total cost in the Fall of 1977, including room, board, tuition, books, and fees, was under $3,500 for the 77-78 school year. Coming from humble means, I was able to afford it through summer jobs, some scholarships, some grants, some loans, and work-study.
I cannot imagine the anxiety and stress for students and parents today. Just shaking my head at what the system has become.
Also: I assume we are in full off-season mode, and aren't limited to Michigan sports related posts? Needless to say, don't read this if you are interested solely in Michigan sports.
I am glad there were fewer smart people when I applied at UofM (2001).
I think one of the hidden elements here is that what seems like an elevated propensity for a single applicant to apply of dozens for schools. When I applied to college (in 1993), I only applied to three universites in total. But it seems common these days to apply to 15-20 schools. So a single school that reports a 3x increase in the number of "applicants" is reflecting an increase in the number of "redundant" applications, not necessarily a 3x increase in the total applicant pool.
I don't think it's very hidden. The Common Ap exploded applications.
It is NOT the Common App that has done this. It is Test Optional that has done this.
The Common App has been around for years, but it is only more recently that we have seen the incredible spike in college applications. That timeframe correlates directly with the move to Test Optional admissions.
In a world of prevalent high school grade inflation, your test scores would "tell on you". Your inflated 3.9 wasn't what it appeared. You knew that your relatively low national standardized test score would not stand up against legit competition at an elite school, so you didn't bother to apply.
That deterrent is gone. Kids with high GPA's - inflated or not - are now taking a shot at elite schools. Why not? There's nothing that will tell on you.
And the problem is compounding on itself. As more and more kids apply to elite schools, their acceptance rates are going way down. So kids feel they need to hedge, and apply to even more schools.
Yet it is still the same number of kids as ever that are applying. It's not like there has been a surge of new high school students. This is being caused by kids now submitting double-digit numbers of applications (both my kids), versus just the two or three that kids submitted in the past (me and my wife).
My wife and I could get away with just submitting two or three because it was very predictable back than what it took to get in where. My kids had to submit double-digit numbers of applications because it is now very unpredictable who gets in where and why.
Which is why tests are coming back.
Not soon enough.
The other thing is the population of the US (and world) keeps increasing but the number of colleges and universities remains pretty much the same. There's way more high school seniors now then there were 20, 30, 40 years ago.
Not in the U.S. Our high school population nationwide is basically stagnant right now, and is projected to decrease by 2030 as the birth rate has been very low ever since the Great Recession. What’s more, college enrollment has been decreasing for a decade now as growing numbers of young people aren’t bothering with it.
At the same time this is happening, lots of flagship public universities have been increasing enrollment. UM just went from 40K in 2010 to 50K in 2020. But most of the other universities in the state have been losing enrollment.
The increase in applications is totally artificial, fueled by the Common App. Young people are getting screwed over and it’s all just because schools like to brag about how selective they are.
There's more high school students now than ever before.
Look again at those numbers. They say that the high school population peaked in 2022 and is now decreasing. Prior to then the rate of growth had been flattening out for years. That doesn’t explain how virtually every elite school has seen a 100-200% increase in applicants over the past 20 years.
What’s more, college enrollment in this country has been decreasing since 2010! Even before the birth rate started affecting school enrollment, young people were being priced out of college.
Demographics have nothing to do with this. This is entirely artificial, and it’s bullshit.
Sheesh … doubling down on being wrong. Guy literally posts receipts and you still won’t acknowledge the comment was correct as posted. Free to respin the numbers all you want but at least admit your error in original reply.
MGoBlog. Come for the sports; stay for the urinating contests over statistics.
I too only applied to three: Michigan, Northwestern and fall back Wayne State. Reflecting on this increase , the flood of increased applications has to add a lot of extra work, and possibly stress, to admissions offices. It would be great if there was a way for lower income applicants (i.e., those in my situation,) to apply early, with a binding commitment, to public schools like Michigan, with knowledge of the school's commitment to scholarships and financial aid. I vaguely recall that Michigan had free tuition for accepted in-state applicants below a certain income threshold. Is that true, or still true?
I applied to one school. Go Blue!
I applied to 2, Michigan and Kettering (then GMI), but in my head it was really only one. Thinking now about the ignorant naivety to assume I would get in makes me shake my head. I'm glad it worked out.
I too applied to just one school. (This is not advice for modern students)
There may not have been fewer smart people, but back then U-M didn’t use the Common Application. That’s what’s caused applications to skyrocket. You can apply to schools all over the country with that one application, so people do.
For the trivial benefit of not having to fill out separate applications per school, today’s high schoolers have to face massively more competition for spots at every elite school.
While I agree the Common and Coalition apps make it easier to apply to college these days, it's not as if you just finish the Common / Coalition apps and apply for Admission.
The schools I would describe as "more / highly selective" - all have their own sets of questions. So, an applicant may use the Common / Coalition app as the foundation - but, also have a set of questions that need to be answered for the specific institution.
Yeah, but it’s still significantly less work than 20 years ago when each school would have a totally separate application.
U-M was one of the holdouts for awhile, but finally threw in the towel and went with the Common Application crowd.
I'm so old that I wrote my applications by hand and the essays in long hand. And for the life of me, I can't remember how I got them without the internet.
For the trivial benefit of not having to fill out separate applications per school, today’s high schoolers have to face massively more competition for spots at every elite school.
Lets suppose that students that number of schools that students apply to jumped due to the ease of applying with the common app. This does not increase the overall competition.
Hypothetically, suppose there are 10 "elite" schools with 20,000 openings and 100,000 students vying to get in. If each student applies to 3 schools, there is an average of 30,000 applications per school. Now if the number jumps to each student applying to 7 schools. There is now 70,000 applications per schools. So acceptance rates at individual schools are way down. BUT, it is still the same 100,000 students going for the same 20,000 spots in the same 10 "elite" schools.
That is, the lower odds of getting into an individual school is mitigated by the fact that students are applying to more schools.
Well if nothing else it's preparing them for the future, where in the job market the same thing's happening.
You're not kidding. I applied in the early fall of 97 and there is NO WAY I would've gotten in now. These were the days of rolling admissions so the longer you waited the harder it got. Thankfully, my Mom pushed me to apply ASAP and I ended up getting in. Friend of mine with better test scores, GPA, extras, etc. waited to apply in January and was waitlisted and never made it. Early bird gets the worm, as they say - thanks, Mom.
I applied in early fall 96 and got accepted before Halloween. Was rather nice as then I didn't have to apply anywhere else, lol.
You are all youngsters...'85 (!!) For me. I got in back then with a HS GPA of, like, 3.8. These days it SEEMS like you have to be well over 4!.
1985 there was no gpa over 4.0. GPA is on a different scale now and a lot more A’s are given out
I graduated Warren (MI) HS in 1985 and we had a handful of "5 point A" classes and had some students with higher than 4.0 GPA. (I wasn't one of them, ended up attending WSU.) Weren't very many of those students as the teachers that taught those classes were notoriously difficult graders.
Double post deleted
The Ivy League schools in particular --- they have the resources and expertise to double or even triple their enrollment (could we not have a branch of Yale somewhere in the Midwest - and the South - in addition to New Haven?) if they wanted to. They couldn't do it overnight, but they could do it in a generation.
Will that ever happen? I doubt it. And that goes into a whole other discussion - why don't they do it? I'd argue it's because they prioritize exclusivity, pedigree and prestige more than they prioritize more true attempts at leveling the societal playing field.
I'm sorry, not meaning to get political, but the private elite schools, I feel they could do a lot better. The more elite public schools (like U-M), they walk the walk more in this regard.
-------
(on a side note, but tangentally related: there's some crazy fact that almost EVERY recent Supreme Court Justice in the last 30-50 years is either a Harvard or Yale Grad. Damn near all of them!)
If the Ivies were really dedicated to the reform they keep claiming, they'd do 3 things:
1) Put everyone in the same pool of applicants, no legacy;
2) Set a floor for those who are acceptable, that is, who are literally considered capable of being accepted;
3) Then from that smaller pool, choose by lottery.
That way you'd have some exclusivity for school & student bragging rights, but make entry available to more people. And fewer wealthy people.
The entire point of the Ivy League is perpetuating a caste system of graduates and that is impossible to do if you do not admit legacies. You also shoot your fundraising in the foot.
University of California system basically runs by the model you proposed. You apply to the system with a campus preference and they kinda assign you a school. A friend applied to UCLA but ended up with Davis as their admitted school
What are you, a commie or somethin'?! Oh, yeah. I guess so.
You're also right. Elite schools have perpetuated a caste system. As NittanyFan noted above, virtually a half century of the Supreme Court comes from either Harvard or Yale. That's reprehensible, and innately undemocratic.
However, I have a slim hope that pressure is building to reform things.
They’re also dumb. Like, really dumb. Dangerously dumb. I’m seeing Harvard grads everywhere turning everything they touch to shit, and that’s because you don’t need to study if legacy is your qualification. The ones who get in the hard way are sharp as razors but they’re a vanishingly small minority that serve to legitimize the American Habsburgs.
It’s to the point I consider Harvard a degree mill now, except no one’s caught up to reality. That's terrifying, and visibly damaging the country.
By the way, I believe the financing/donation issue is mixed.
On one hand, opening admissions to a broader pool might diminish donations.
On the other hand, the Ivies are in an arms race with endowments far beyond solid fiscal management.
Yep, great post and great solution. Legacy preference is terrible IMO.
To their credit, there ARE some elite private colleges --- Amherst, MIT, NYU and JHU among them --- that have recently eliminated legacy preference. And legacy preference is beginning to get SCOTUS scrutiny too (the scrutiny coming from both ends of the judicial spectrum).
But the Ivys, unfortunately, are only going to go down that road kicking and screaming.
As a graduate of Wharton (UPenn) for MBA (no legacy) and an Ivy for undergrad (no legacy), I feel you nailed 50% of the equation - the schools want exclusivity because it helps further the prestige of the school; however, the other half of it is that schools such as Harvard and Wharton want the majority of their graduates to land "prestigious jobs" (i.e. Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, KKR, McKinsey, etc.) and there are only so many of these jobs to go-around every year. If you have a plethora of Wharton grads working at second and third tier consulting firms the perception of the degree falls and thus the value of the degree to potential enrollees. I was willing to pay $250K for my Wharton MBA b/c I knew the degree would guarantee me one of these high-powered jobs; if those odds were drastically reduced I wouldn't have enrolled.
Name checks. Congratulations on your degrees.
+1. I'm not begrudging you and your success ---- I'm not. And hopefully I don't sound bitter.
But your post speaks to another thing: simply getting admitted to an Ivy makes one less likely to experience the pain of struggling or even failing and realizing your dreams aren't necessarily achievable. Graduate from an Ivy, and those prestigious and powerful jobs, the networks of folks you meet, the connections, they are there for you throughout life.
I suppose that's what draws many folks towards sports. In the long run, it is so MUCH MUCH MUCH more of a meritocracy than other segments of life. If you're the son of a $400MM net worth Yale legacy and you dream of getting into business, your future is fairly assured. But if you're the son of a $400MM net worth Yale legacy and you dream of playing in the NHL, that doesn't mean anything at all if you can't skate well enough.
And if you're Mario Lemieux's son and your genes and elite exposure don't get you to NHL level of skill, Penguins ain't drafting you (maybe ur Assistant GM).
And then Mario looks at his wife and shakes his head at her non-athletic genes....
You make a good point about the issue of prestige jobs.
However, broadening the scope to a more philosophical level shows two faults:
1. Prestige schools and prestige jobs do not necessarily equate to quality. (Them ain't sour grapes. No legacy—unless my dad's Nebraska degree counts—I got into Ivies undergrad but, paying my own way, couldn't afford them. Then after my UM degree, I picked up graduate degrees.)
2. Over-reliance on prestige schools is innately anti-democratic.
I'm with you. I really don't think I could get into Michigan today.
And with younger kids, its giving me anxiety on how to prepare for the college, both from an academic and financial standpoint. And my kids are POC, which helps tremendously, but still gives me anxiety.
My one controversial opinion on this topic is that we really need to assess and minimize the need for college at all. This could solve a lot problems IMO.
My son chose to take the skilled trade route and is almost through his second year of electrical apprenticeship. He was a very good student in school, but wasn’t interested in college. Given the current cost of a college education I think he made a good decision. The skilled trades are in heavy demand as the workforce ages out.
I think he made a good decision too!
My other complaint about college is that beyond the educational experience, it is viewed too much as a status symbol. For example, my wife has several 40-plus year old single girlfriends who will not go out with a guy unless they went to college. I think that is BS IMO.
Great decision. Average annual power load growth has been ~1% for 30 years. But it's now forecast to be 4% per year for many years, a level not seen since the 60s. All things electrical and power are going to have component and labor bottlenecks. It's like building the pyramids - nobody remembers how to do it! Huge opportunity. Community colleges can't even get people to teach classes because demand is so high and they can't pay enough compared to job site work premiums.
Yep. My kids couldn't go to Michigan, but they turned out ok. We toured the campus, but out of state tuition and costs were not a real option for someone living in Illinois.
- My eldest daughter joined the Navy, and was an Aegis Computer Network Technician (ran the weapons system computer network on a destroyer.) She now is with Lockheed Martin at their Aegis headquarters, and doing very well professionally and financially.
- My 22 year old son finished an associates at a community college, is finishing his BA this year, and has been working full time at a NAPA Auto parts store in the greater Chicago area, all while getting his degrees. He has been a store manager almost a year, and already is making 6 figures, so not doing bad without a Michigan degree.
I mourn a bit that they didn't have the great experiences I had at Michigan. But there was no way to make that happen.
Community colleges are a key part of the puzzle.
I am 90% sure I would not make it in to Michigan in this day and age, and would now be borderline at State, which is crazy (applied in fall 97 and got in early notice for fall of 98).
I have 4 kids that are bright. I am worried about the stress of school and possibly missing out on college due to costs, or admissions restrictions. When I was in high school, I took physics, and math and biology, and literature, but also took home and auto, and jazz band, and had a free hour my last year as a senior so i could work.
I hope my kids all get to enjoy their time as students and be young and have fun. College is a great soft landing place for kids to grow. Heading out of the house at 17-18 to go live in the dorms where there is one bill, is a good transition. Living in a big house with a bunch of other 20-21 year olds and going to classes, sports, parties, and having a dumb college job are all great experiences I hope my kids get.
I feel like everything is overly competitive and costly. Everyone seems stressed, including kids. I hope that we can shift away where kids can be kids (including in college). Sorry, incoherant rant.
According to recent news, we will be all be paying for someone's tuition whether our kids go to college or not
"I really don't think I could get into Michigan today."
I had a good friend that was on the Admissions Committee at Wayne State 10-15 years ago and made the same statement to him. He told me that I probably would have been admitted, as, given the state of high school academia these days, my grades would have been higher and my test scores would have been higher as well (1971). A good student then would be a good student today.
Good point. Grade inflation is certainly a thing.