Admissions Blog

University of Florida to Finally Accept Common Application

Posted on June 29, 2019 by Craig Meister

Gainesville, Florida is home to University of Florida.

Charles Murphy, University of Florida’s Director of Freshman and International Admissions has made news that is sure to boost University of Florida’s first-year application numbers, make UF more selective for first-year applicants, bring smiles to the faces of high school counselors across the country, and keep high school seniors on edge later into this upcoming year’s admissions cycle.

“Starting with the 2019-20 application cycle, the University of Florida will accept both the Common Application and the Coalition Application. As you likely know, we have exclusively taken the Coalition Application the last few years, and look forward to continued partnerships with Coalition for applications and programming aimed at promoting access and student success. We are still finalizing some internal logistics with the Common Application, so you will not yet see this information updated on our admissions website or the Common Application’s website. However, that information will be updated as soon as possible once everything is finalized.” Murphy shared.

Murphy went on to add that starting during the 2019-2020 admissions cycle, UF’s admissions notification date will move back to the last Friday of February, which for the upcoming admissions cycle is February 28, 2020. In recent years, UF has notified applicants of their admissions decisions in early February. According to Murphy, UF already enjoys “consistent year to year increases in application volume,” and with the acceptance of the Common App, UF will certainly need the extra weeks in February to review what will surely be the biggest increase in applications UF has experienced yet based on how other colleges’ first-year application numbers have increased after joining the Common App.

UF’s one first-year application deadline of November 1 will remain the same as in past years. High school counselors have not so much enjoyed having their students apply to UF in recent years, as the university has most recently been a Coalition Application exclusive college, which means it accepted no application other than the Coalition Application. The Coalition Application, while a good idea in theory (it was created to promote equity and access and to serve as a strong and more user-friendly counter balance to the Common App), turns out to be an increasingly wretched application in practice, as its functionality and usability has taken a nose dive with each passing admissions cycle. This is saying a lot because the application was never as user-friendly as behemoth competitor Common App (approaching 1,000 members) or the small but seamless Universal College App (in an inexplicable funk with only ten members). In fact, the Coalition Application is so horrible to use from the perspective of applicants (I had one student fly into an uncontrollable rage this past year when trying to navigate her Coalition Application, while another student I was working with at one point pushed his chair back from the computer where he was working on the Coalition Application and proceeded to just look out into the distance in what seemed like a catatonic state for at least four minutes after becoming completely stupefied by the application’s interface) that I purposely won’t link to it in this article for fear that doing so would encourage students to use it. High school counselors have been increasingly befuddled by how to advise students to navigate the Coalition Application, which seems filled with trap doors, dead ends, and missing links.

Sadly, University of Maryland, College Park and University of Washington will remain Coalition-exclusive colleges for the upcoming admissions cycle. Meanwhile, University of Virginia and Dartmouth College have quietly made clear that they will stop accepting the hot mess that is the Coalition Application for the 2019-2020 application cycle, though both institutions did not use those words – or any words, actually – in making the change.

With so many colleges now accepting the Common App for first-year college entry admissions, UF can expect a lot more unserious apps coming its way, which, trust me, is just fine with UF because it will allow UF to increase its selectivity (UF will get to reject a higher percentage of students than ever before) and perceived prestige (though prestige, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder). It will also allow UF to turn away more Florida residents who often get to attend the institution for little out-of-poket money because of Florida’s generous Bright Futures scholarships, which are funded by players and addicts alike of the Florida Lottery.

College Admissions and Our Love of the Obvious

Posted on June 21, 2019 by Patrick O'Connor

It’s been an incredibly wet spring here in Michigan, so bad that I’ve had three students ask me about colleges that offer dual degrees in shipbuilding and animal husbandry. To make matters worse, the cloudy atmosphere outside seems to have influenced what’s going on inside the world of college admissions, at least as far as media coverage is concerned.

For reasons that are hard to explain, the usual torrent of Colleges See Record Application Year stories has been replaced by an addiction to three story lines that have held the public’s attention longer than fidget spinners. What’s especially puzzling about the focus on these trio of topics is that, at least in the quietude of their offices behind closed doors, most admissions personnel and college counselors respond to them by asking, “What’s the big deal?”

While articles abound offering insights on what these Big Three could mean to the future of college counseling, it might be important to understand how long these issues have already been with us, before we offer any conjecture on what should be influencing the field come this fall.

Story Line 1: Rich People Use Their Money to Get Special Treatment

When it comes to themes the media jumps on, what more could you ask for than a story that involves money, movies stars, and college admissions? This could explain the lingering fascination with the Varsity Blues/Aunt Becky story, but the real issue behind the story isn’t really news at all. From opening night tickets on Broadway to neighborhoods with the best schools to the best time and tables at Michelin restaurants, the wealthy and famous are always using their leverage and reputation to get advantages the rest of us simply can’t access.

This has been just as true in college admissions for years, and that’s not even close to being the secret the media is suggesting it is. When explaining how his alma mater builds an admissions class, an alumnus admissions representative unabashedly told me about twenty percent of the seats at his school automatically goes to children of alumni, “children of US Senators, and (people like) Tom Hanks’s son (NOTE—no, this is not the college attended by any of Tom Hanks’s sons). We do this, because we can.” Having recently paid many times more than the face value for Hamilton tickets, the effect of the wealthy on limited resources isn’t lost on me, and any college that has more applicants than seats is a limited resource.

Story Line 2: Colleges Think About Where Their Applicants Come From

The fallout of the Aunt Becky story had mercifully faded from the public’s radar right around the time College Board announced it has been developing an additional measure for colleges to use that aims to provide context about applicants’ backgrounds. Labelled as an “adversity index”, the score uses public data based on things like zip codes and crime rates to offer insights into where students were raised, and where they went to high school.

Once again, the response of most veteran admission officers to this news was “been there, done that, and have the spreadsheets to prove it.” College admissions officers have used socioeconomic factors for years when dealing with the tricky issue of evaluating applicants across different schools, including intangible factors that defy measurement. Since this has long been part of the art of college admissions, the notion that this is a new addition to the soup of decision making is specious. Adopting the College Board scale may lead to some changes in admissions decisions, but that’s more of a rearrangement of data than incorporation of new data. Not much to see here.

Story Line 3: Students Who Do Dumb Things Can Get Kicked Out of College

The only real question raised by Harvard’s removal of Kyle Kashov from next year’s freshman class for racist remarks on social media is how much the media would have covered this story if a) Kyle wasn’t a survivor of the Parkland shooting, or b) if this action had been taken by Southeast Michigan Tech rather than Harvard.

The admissions offer of every college—that’s every college—reminds the student that the offer is tentative, and can be revoked for any number of reasons. If your last semester as a high school senior shows your A-B average is now in the D-F range, we’ll wish you well. If it turns out you didn’t really write those admissions essays and we find out two years after you’ve been with us as a student, you’ll finish college somewhere else. If you make public remarks questioning the right of some of your fellow students to simply exist, that just won’t sit well with us. This really, really, isn’t news.

Real Issues for Next Fall

My hope is that the two months of sunshine will melt away America’s fascination over the last three months with admissions stories obsessed with the obvious, and we can move on to tackle issues that can move our profession, and our society, forward. Do highly selective colleges really spend less time recruiting urban and rural schools, simply because they’re harder to get to? Since there is no such thing as “free” college, what can really be done to get more students into and through college without a mountain of debt? How in the world does any student qualify for full cost of attendance aid and still have to choose between buying books and eating? These may not make for the most tranquil topics to consider whiling away a summer’s day in a hammock, but they remind us our work has ample purpose beyond board reports, yield ratios, and social media hits.

Vanderbilt Class of 2023 Early Decision Stats Released

Posted on February 20, 2019 by Craig Meister

John O. Gaines, Director of Undergraduate Admissions at Vanderbilt University, announced some interesting tidbits of information that should be of interest to students and others who want to learn more about the selectivity of Vanderbilt’s overall Early Decision first-year student admissions process for its Class of 2023. The highlights include:

The middle fifty percent of students accepted into Vanderbilt’s Class of 2023 via ED I and ED II who reported their SAT scores had SAT Evidence Based Reading and Writing scores of between 710 and 760.
Meanwhile, The middle fifty percent of students accepted into Vanderbilt’s Class of 2023 via ED I and ED II who reported their SAT scores had SAT Math scores of between 770 and 800.
Of those students accepted to Vanderbilt’s Class of 2023 ED I or ED II who reported their ACT scores, the middle fifty percent had ACT composite scores of between 33 and 35.
No statistics were given regarding GPA averages of accepted students, which is not surprising because GPA scales different from school to school and some schools are ditching GPAs all together. A significant percentage of high schools also do not rank students, and an even greater percentage of high school counselors severely guesstimate students’ ranks in their counselor evaluation reports to colleges; yet, that didn’t stop Vanderbilt from reporting that of those students accepted ED I or ED II this admissions cycle who attend high schools willing to give a decile rankings for their students, ninety-seven percent of accepted students were in the top ten percent of their graduating classes.
Overall, Vanderbilt’s average ED acceptance rate for its Class of 2023 was 19.8 percent.

In recent years, Vanderbilt has filled more than fifty percent of its first-year classes with students accepted Early Decision. Also in recent years, Vanderbilt has become a college that has an ED acceptance rate that is at least twice as high as its Regular Decision acceptance rate. With that in mind, it would not be surprising to see Vanderbilt announce later this spring that its Regular Decision acceptance rate has fallen to seven percent or below. We’ll keep you updated.

In closing, we know we shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth and all, but what’s up with colleges combining their Early Decision I and Early Decision II admissions statistics for public dissemination? What we didn’t learn today is how students accepted to Vanderbilt ED I compared to students accepted to Vanderbilt ED II. If Mr. Gaines would like to fill us in on how Vandy’s ED I admits compared to Vandy’s ED II admits, he is respectfully invited to contact us here, and we will happily and thankfully share his response with our loyal audience.

In the interim, congratulations to Vanderbilt and to those students accepted to Vanderbilt ED I and ED II during this admissions cycle.

Washington University in St. Louis sees 70 percent increase in applications

Posted on February 18, 2019 by Craig Meister

Ronné P. Turner, Washington University in St. Louis’ Vice Provost of Admissions & Financial Aid, informed counselors on Thursday, February 13, 2019 that inclusive of the university’s two Early Decision rounds and its QuestBridge rounds during this admissions cycle, the selective private Missouri university, “reviewed over 3,000 applications – a 70 percent increase from years past.”

For more clarity and context, last year during its one Early Decision round of admission, Wash U. reviewed 1,850 applications.

Wash U. has been selective for a long time, but this was the first year that Wash U. offered ED II. With the university accepting 250 students on Thursday when its ED II decisions were released, Wash U. anticipates that 60 percent of its first-year class – the Class of 2023 – will be populated by students who were accepted before Regular Decision. Last year only 40 percent of students enrolling in the university’s Class of 2022 were accepted ED. Turner did not provide any specific breakout information regarding Questbridge applications or acceptances.

This year, as in past years, students who applied Regular Decision will get their decisions by April 1, 2019.

Interestingly, despite being a hyper-selective university with an overall acceptance rate in the mid teens, some of those students accepted to Wash U. so far in this year’s admissions cycle will be required to attend the university’s First-Year Summer Academic Program from June 8, 2019 through July 13, 2019. According to Turner, “this is solely to help with the transition from high school to college. Their admission is contingent upon attendance/successful completion of this five-week program.” The First-Year Summer Academic Program “gives a select group of students the opportunity to ensure their readiness for STEM and pre-med coursework as well as to improve their critical reading, writing, and study skills. Students attending FSAP may be among the first in their family to attend college or coming from high schools with limited AP/IB offerings,” according to the university.

College Applicant Stress and the January 1 Deadline

Posted on January 20, 2019 by Patrick O'Connor

The world of college admissions ended 2018 with a rash of articles focused on student stress and the college application process. The themes were familiar—the pressure of applying is great, the expectations are high, the effect of rejection is too extreme—but this recent spate of articles differed in the sheer number of them. In a year when even the federal government felt compelled to examine the role of mental health in student safety, it seems the world of college admissions may be willing to rethink some of its most cherished beliefs, all in the interest of supporting the sanity and healthy growth of the students.

If that’s really the case, I’d like to suggest a pretty easy jumping off point for change—end the January 1 college application deadline. I’m not exactly new to the world of college admissions, and this deadline has never made sense to me. High school counseling offices aren’t open on January 1, so we can’t send any documents to support applications. Even worse, high school counseling offices aren’t open from December 24 through at least the first of the year, so we can’t offer students any meaningful help with essays, activity lists, or other application logistics during crunch time. That may matter little to applicants whose parents started an Ivy League college, but to the students we say we’d like to create more opportunities for, this last-minute help is a big deal.

This deadline also gives counselors the annual moral dilemma of offering to check email during the holidays, or coming in and holding application workshops on their days off, but that puts their mental health at risk—and if you think that has nothing to do with the well being of students, you clearly haven’t seen a high school counselor working on their last nerve.

What’s even more mystifying is that college admissions offices themselves aren’t open on January 1. Stories float up here and there about a handful of admissions offices requiring their junior staffers to come in for a few hours to take phone calls, but by and large, students waiting until the last minute to apply are left to their own resources. If it’s really so important to have applications in by January 1, why aren’t any of the applications that meet the deadline touched in any way until at least January 2?

This is where the old school, nudge-nudge-winkery of college admissions comes into play. The only response I’ve ever received from colleges that could be considered a defense of the January 1 deadline is a logistical one: the reason we ask for the materials by January 1 is so we know we’ll have them when we really need them, which is more along the lines of January 10.

This argument made tremendous sense in the days when college applications were mailed (even though the US Post Office is closed January 1), but the digital age assures us that anything needed at the end of the day on January 10 can be sent an hour before the end of the day on January 10, and get there.

The only argument left for this “send it before we really need it” strategy is the vagaries of a 17 year-old’s understanding of deadlines—colleges argue they are doing students a favor telling them they need applications before they really do. But if high school seniors don’t know it’s OK to be late—and what high school counselor in their right mind wants to ever send that message to a student—this “favor” becomes a major source of stress, where students sacrifice the last long December holiday of their youth to meeting a deadline that doesn’t really exist. Wouldn’t their stress level be better served gathered ‘round the big screen, imbibing in the traditional family ritual of watching that penultimate holiday classic, Die Hard?

It’s easy enough for a high school counselor to point out all the things colleges can do to support the mental health of applicants, and there’s plenty we high school folks should be doing as well. Still, when I think about the low-hanging fruit that can dramatically change the tone of the college application process, the January 1 deadline is the first, but not only, thing that comes to mind. It’s worth a review.

12 Reasons Scattergrams Lull Students Into a False Sense of Security

Posted on August 18, 2018 by Craig Meister

Scattergrams, the ubiquitous x/y axis graphs that have caught on like wildfire over the last twenty years because of their inclusion in Naviance Student, the online college counseling tool used by thousands of American high schools, purport to show a student’s chances of admission at different colleges and universities by plotting previous students from a particular high school on an x/y axis graph based on such students’ GPAs on one axis and their test scores (ACT or SAT) on the other.

Below is an example of a scattergram for a particular high school showing current students (and parents) at that high school how alumni from that high school fared when applying to University of Maryland College Park from 2010 through 2014.

Note that the below scattergram plots the SAT on the x-axis using the old 2400 SAT scale; however, the SAT is now scored out of 1600. Similarly, the high school in question clearly plots GPA based on a 4.0 scale, but some schools’ scattergrams will have very different numbers of the y-axis because scattergrams can have any sort of GPA scale on them (100, 20, 6, etc.) depending on a school’s grading scale.

The typical student seeing the above scattergram assumes, if he or she has a 3.6 GPA and an SAT score of 1860 he or she is definitely going to get into University of Maryland College Park. Most of the rest of students with that combination of grades and scores would assume, after seeing the above scattergram, that Maryland is at least a huge safety college for them. After all, all students from this high school in the past few years who land in that GPA/score range got into Maryland, as illustrated by all of those green squares.

STOP RIGHT THERE!

The problem is a student with this GPA/score combination could easily get rejected from University of Maryland College Park for any number of reasons that a scattergram will not be able to display. The most common reasons scattergrams lull students into a false sense of security are as follows:

Many selective colleges get more selective every passing year, rendering antiquated past years’ admissions statistics.
Scattergrams don’t show the quality of past applicants’ extracurricular resumes.
Scattergrams don’t show the quality of past applicants’ essay writing skills.
Scattergrams don’t show past applicants’ demographics (rich, middle-class, poor, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, International, etc.). College admissions officers for American colleges – especially selective institutions – often care quite a lot about their applicants’ demographics.
Scattergrams don’t show incredibly important (again, in the eyes of college admissions officers) background information about past applicants’ beyond their demographics. Here we are talking about characteristics like an applicant’s legacy status (Did a past applicant’s mom or dad attend the same college?), athletic prowess (Was a past applicant a highly-sought athletic recruit?), and/or his or her parents’/grandparents’ proclivity for giving money to the college on the scattergram in question.
Most high schools set their scattergrams to hide from current students/parents whether or not past applicants to the college in question applied Rolling Decision, Early Decision, Early Action, Priority Admission, and/or Regular Decision. That’s important information! This is because colleges that offer different admissions plans/deadlines often have very different standards for each such plan/deadline. You can also forget about a scattergram showing whether a past applicant applied for and/or was accepted to the college for fall, spring, or winter term (if such varied options exist at the college in question).
Scattergrams don’t show the quality of past applicants’ teacher and counselor recommendation letters/evaluations.
Scattergrams likely don’t account for whether or not past applicants submitted their ACT scores, SAT scores, both, or neither (in the case of test-optional colleges) to the colleges’ scattergrams on which they are plotted.
Unless the scattergram’s GPA axis is a weighted GPA, the GPA axis is not capable of communicating to students and parents the past applicants’ curricular rigor.
Scattergrams don’t show past applicants’ grade trends in high school (colleges care so much about this).
Scattergrams show past applicants’ final GPAs in high school, not their GPAs when they applied to college (usually in the beginning of a student’s senior year). Senior slumps in the final months of past applicants’ senior years often slightly (and sometimes greatly) deflate their final GPAs relative to what their GPAs were in October of their senior years.
Directors of college counseling (the leaders of college counseling offices) can be applicants’ best advocates or worst enemies depending on whether or not these directors have written a strong and compelling high school profile and done everything else they can do to encourage particular colleges to accept their students. Scattergrams don’t note when certain directors’ regimes began and ended; therefore, in a field where many directors of college counseling only stay in their roles for a few years before moving on, a five- or ten-year scattergram could be capturing admissions statistics for students applying from a particular high school under very different college counseling regimes. Some directors write bang-up high school profiles (which are sent to all colleges to which students apply in a particular admissions cycle) and some don’t. Sadly, at some schools, the high school profile is written and designed by the communications team and/or individuals in the admissions, advancement, development, head of school, principal, and or central office! The further removed from college counseling the writers of the high school profile are the more likely the profile will not provide college admissions officers the information they are looking for in a high school profile. Meanwhile, some directors of college counseling make calls for their students or their colleagues’ students, others simply don’t. Some are on a first-name basis with Ivy League admissions officers, some don’t know any. Some act as PR agents for their students, others are real in their recommendation letters, which leads to such letters carrying more weight with admissions officers than those that only share glowing reviews. Scattergrams lull students and parents into thinking (just like point #1 above) that each student plotted on the scattergram had the same college counseling team behind him or her and faced the same college admissions rates from year to year. The fact is, high schools change and colleges change, and as a result, scattergrams fail at capturing subtle or quite large subjective changes to students’ chances from year to year based on how high schools and colleges change.

In summary, so much of what colleges will ultimately base their admissions decisions on is NOT captured in scattergrams; therefore, don’t use them as the end all be all when it comes to determining whether a particular college on your list is a Safety, Possible, or Reach. Any college counselor, student, or parent who tells you otherwise has no idea what he or she is talking about.

I frequently get irate parents telling me that I am too pessimistic about their student’s chances at a particular college or university based on what the family sees on a particular college’s scattergram on Naviance Student. I remind them that I often know the back story on each applicant on the scattergram and/or that there are at lease twelve reasons why the scattergram is only part of the story – especially at the country’s most selective colleges and universities. Sadly, this does not often calm the parents down, and as a result, a few parents hold months-long bouts of resentment towards me – usually until all admissions decisions are released in April, at which point reality sets in – for good or ill. With that said, I am happy when I have a student get into a college that I classified as a Reach that the parents and student thought I should have classified as a Possible or a Safety. It’s my job to help turn all colleges on a student’s list into offers of admission; yet, I need the student’s cooperation and effort if I can make this happen. Sometimes that happens, and sometimes it doesn’t.

Scattergrams are trustworthier for colleges that primarily base their admissions decisions on applicants’ grades and scores only. Theses types of colleges are usually those that accept over 50 of applicants and/or large state universities that ask for the perfunctory essay and extracurricular list but which don’t have the actual manpower to review these subjective aspects of students’ applications. Such colleges usually simply default to determining whether or not to accept a student based on his or her scores and grades. Yet, even in such cases, a student who is quite deficient or exceptionally strong in one or more of the twelve areas listed above could easily become an exception to the rule that the scattergram seems to convey.

Bottom line: strong college counselors always explain this important, complex, and as you can now see, somewhat time-consuming information to students and parents. Such college counselors tend to lean towards being more conservative with their Safety, Possible, and Reach classifications for colleges on their students’ lists than those college counselors who take a relatively two-dimensional approach (x,y axis, anyone?) to college acceptance/rejection prognostication. If you are a student or parent going through the college application process now or in the future, please remember to be skeptical of scattergrams. Though they have valuable data on them, scattergrams only capture some objective data, and they certainly don’t capture the subjective strengths or weaknesses of past college applicants or their college applications.

Penn’s Class of 2022 Acceptance Rates

Posted on June 8, 2018 by Craig Meister

Eric J. Furda, University of Pennsylvania’s Dean of Admissions, provided high school counselors with a June update today, and in it he shared Penn’s three acceptance rates for the just-concluded admissions cycle.

Penn in the city of Philadelphia, PA.

Penn’s overall acceptance rate for this year’s roughly 44,500 applicants was a hair above 8 percent. Yet, this number tells only a small part of the story. Over fifty percent of Penn’s Class of 2022 was accepted Early Decision, and Penn’s Early Decision Acceptance rate this cycle was 18.5 percent. This meant that Penn’s third and final acceptance rate, it’s Regular Decision acceptance rate, was a paltry 6 percent.

In terms of ratios, this year’s numbers track well with Penn’s proclivity for having an Early Decision acceptance rate that weighs in at roughly three times as size (percentage-wise) as its Regular Decision acceptance rate (18.5:6).

Furda also shared information on the importance Penn places on fit it its applicants while also informing counselors that last year, 46 percent of Penn undergrads received financial aid. The average aid award last year was an impressive $50,348.

College Counselor to Bloomberg: It Doesn’t Work That Way

Posted on June 4, 2018 by Patrick O'Connor

It didn’t take long to realize that the College Admissions Cycle of 2018 was an utter failure. No sooner was the last article published on Waitlists That Run to The Moon and Back, but Bloomberg thought they’d try and cheer everyone up by telling us that the birthrate in the US is declining at an alarming rate. Their conclusion? Fewer teens means fewer students applying to college— all colleges– making the process that much less stressful for everyone.

It may have been another long admissions season, but it didn’t take the Twitterverse long at all to respond with a collective, “What?” Several respondents pointed out that a vast majority of colleges have had empty seats on the first day of fall classes for years—according to James Murphy of Princeton Review, that number is about 78% of all colleges.

The next round of rebuttal came in the form of witty repartee, including remarks like “Well, Harvard should just become an open admissions institution,” and, “What will those poor admissions officers at Penn do with all their free time?” Bloomberg may be able to count babies, but their abacus counting the ever-rising number of Ivy League applications is apparently in the shop.

The Bloomberg piece may have come as comic relief to admissions officers who had a busy April, but it also points to a reality that has long plagued the college application process. Using national newspaper coverage of college admissions as their North Star, nearly a full generation of college applicants have had to deal with the “high stress of applying to college.” What was once viewed as a fairly simple process that took less than an hour is now viewed as a gut-wrenching, life-altering experience that makes waterboarding seem like a date with your rubber ducky. The hyperbole about the stress of applying to college is so bad, I have actually had to guide students through stress management strategies because they finished applying to college and never once felt worried about it. It was the lack of stress that was stressing them out.

The attention-grabbing headlines equating the odds of admission to college with getting hit by lightning overlook the realities school counselors know. A vast number of students will apply to four colleges or fewer, all of them within 150 miles of home. Most of those colleges will admit 75% or more of their applicants, and—to Mr. Murphy’s point—most will still have seats open in classes on the first day of the fall term. For these students, the greatest stress is how they will pay for this opportunity, but that has nothing to do with birthrate, and much to do with the times we live in.

None of that will make the front page of a single national newspaper, since it isn’t exciting or controversial. Neither will the damage that’s done by the national media’s obsession with a handful of colleges with single digit admit rates. There’s a little bit of stress involved in any college application, just like there’s a little stress involved in driving a car on the freeway; it helps you pay attention. Suggesting that a life-altering amount of stress is involved in applying to college if you’re doing it right places a burden on our children, and keeps first generation students from applying in the first place. They deserve a better, and more accurate, picture of the process.

Each year, I somehow hope this will be the time Southwest Michigan College’s need for more students will find its way to my newsfeed, and change the way America sees college. Perhaps an admissions officer from Brown will write an op-ed about this in the coming years, making it interesting enough to make coast-to-coast headlines.

After all, they’re going to have all that free time on their hands.