Admissions Blog

Undergraduate Admissions Uncensored

Admissions and Financial Aid Statistics to Keep Close at Hand | UPDATED

Posted on by

Stanford University

Students and parents often find transparency in short supply when navigating the US college admissions process and when trying to determine the methodologies American colleges and universities use award financial aid. Many students and parents will spend hours – if not days – trying to splice and dice statistics gleaned from various college websites and guide books in order to determine their chances of earning admission and/or aid to colleges on their lists.

Sadly, colleges and  universities themselves have done relatively little create user-friendly transparency; however, that hasn’t stopped independent educational consultants Jennie Kent and Jeff Levy from trying to bring a degree of order and transparency to the task of gauging one’s relative likelihood of earning admission to and aid from American colleges. In recent years the two consultants have put out annual lists with the latest statistics in three distinct categories:

  1. Early Decision vs. Regular Decision Acceptance Rates: Excel | PDF
  2. Domestic Undergraduate Need-Based Aid and Merit Aid: Excel | PDF
  3. Financial Aid for Nonresident Alien Undergraduates: Excel | PDF

While entire articles could be written – and one great one by Nancy Griesemer already has – about the valuable nuggets of knowledge found within these lists, of particular note are the three following findings:

– Many of America’s most selective colleges continue to have Early Decision acceptance rates that are triple their Regular Decision acceptance rates. This continues to spur the movement motivating students to apply using binding plans early in their senior years of high school. Some particularly high ED Acceptance Rate to RD Acceptance Rate ratios of note include University of Pennsylvania (3.3 to 1), Middlebury College (3.4 to 1), Claremont McKenna College (4.7 to 1), Carleton College (3 to 1), Amherst College (3.2 to 1), and American University (3.7 to 1).

– Domestic undergraduate applicants should look very carefully at the average need met by colleges and universities on their lists, especially if these colleges are public universities or somewhat selective private colleges, as they appear to have the widest range of disparities concerning how much need they meet. While hyper-selective colleges (Ivies and their immediate peers) meet 100% of domestic applicants’ demonstrated need, public schools meet between 45% to 99% of domestic applicants’ demonstrated need and selective private colleges generally meet between 60% to 100% of domestic applicants’ demonstrated need.

– International students have more need-based aid options than they did years ago, but the majority of aid opportunities for international applicants still derive from merit-based aid and not need-based aid. Public and private colleges awarded no aid to international applicants (Auburn, Clemson, Boston College, and Carnegie Mellon University among others), only merit-based aid to international applicants (Baylor University, Boston University, Cooper Union, Rice University, and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign among others), only need-based aid to international applicants (all Ivies, Colgate University, Reed College, and Villanova University among others), or both merit-based and need based aid to international applicants (Brandeis University, Bringham Young University, Grinnell College, and Skidmore among others).

AdmissionsIntel.com has included links to all three lists above and on our Resources page.

‘Early decision’ stats every applicant should see

Posted on by

Last year, Claremont McKenna filled 68% of its incoming class with early decision candidates.

Binding early decision (ED) is one of several tools colleges employ to control evaluative metrics like “selectivity” and  “yield” used by outside organizations seeking to rank or otherwise pass judgement on the quality of an institution.

By agreeing to apply ED to any one of many schools offering these plans, students are promising to attend an institution if admitted.  In other words, they are not only giving up the freedom to choose among future offers of admission but they are also providing colleges with virtually a 100 percent chance of “yielding” them into the institution.

And for colleges concerned about where they stand on the U.S. News pecking order of “best” colleges, this is a powerful device for crafting a class “to spec.”  So important, in fact, that much time is spent tinkering with enrollment management strategies to ensure optimal effectiveness of these plans.  And make no mistake.  Effectiveness is assessed by how well it works for the institution and not for the applicant.

Some of the considerations that go into deciding how to structure an early decision policy include target students (legacies, athletes, top academics) and their credentials, deadlines, percent of class to be filled, and what the competition is doing.

In other words, early decision gives colleges a great deal of control and they love it.  Even those schools publicly professing concern about the level of stress the admission process is causing high school students are quietly increasing the percent of class filled by these plans, moving deadlines around, and adding clever alternatives like ED II—a second chance to pledge undying love to an institution and guarantee a yield for the class.

So how can the average applicant regain some small part of control over a process that looks to be increasingly out of control?  First, by understanding what benefits colleges offer in terms of admissions advantage for early decision candidates. Obviously, a successful applicant will have a decision and lock in their college long before others in the regular decision pool. That’s good, but more importantly, some colleges sweeten the deal by appearing to admit a greater percent of early decision applicants. These schools might argue that the early decision pool is typically very strong and represents the best and most committed applicants.

The ED pool can also contain a disproportionate number of target students (athletes and legacies) making analysis of the admissions advantage even more complicated. But the deciding factor could ultimately be how much of the entering class is filled early decision. If that number approaches or exceeds 50 percent, an applicant electing not to go that route may be severely disadvantaged.

Other issues confuse the early decision strategy, and many of those focus on financial aid. Despite what they say, it’s hard to believe that a college that has admitted a student through early decision has much incentive to provide an overly generous financial aid package either in terms of total dollar amount or composition—balance of grant aid vs. loans and work study.

It’s only by understanding policies, gathering facts about how colleges use early decision and reviewing outcomes that students can begin to decide if applying early is in their best interests.

To help counselors as well as students and their families analyze and compare various early decision plans, Jennie Kent and Jeff Levy have assembled an amazing chart documenting early decision vs. regular decision acceptance rates at colleges and universities offering early decision.  They are making the chart available, free of charge, on their respective websites (see instructions below on how to access the chart).

“What we have learned from the data we compiled was that several trends in college admission are more concerning than we thought,” said Jeff Levy, an independent educational consultant (IEC) based in Los Angeles. “But we also found institutions standing firm against these trends and we were encouraged.  It turns out that the only generalization that holds true is that college advisers must really know the schools they are recommending or risk misleading students when talking to them about their chance of admission.”

The chart, based on data that is readily available to anyone taking the time to do the research, is organized alphabetically by college or can be downloaded and sorted by individual criteria.

According to Jennie Kent, an IEC working in Bogotá, Colombia, “This chart includes four main metrics:  early decision acceptance rate, regular decision acceptance rate,  percent of class filled from early decision, and the ratio of ED to RD acceptance rates.”

You won’t find anything like this analysis anywhere else. Levy and Kent meticulously research the data and spend hours putting it together. They provide an incomparable service to anyone with a need to know or desire to understand.

And some of their findings are startling.  For example, some schools give a very large advantage during early decision (ED vs. RD) include:

  • Claremont McKenna College: 32% ED to 7% RD
  • American University: 85% ED to 23% RD
  • Middlebury College: 43% ED to 13% RD
  • University of Pennsylvania: 23% ED to 7% RD

Some schools go in the opposite direction and actually have a lower admit rate for early decision:

  • University of Denver:  31% ED to 54% RD
  • Southern Methodist University (SMU): 31% ED to 50% RD
  • Virginia Tech: 47% ED to 74% RD
  • Goucher College: 67% ED to 79% RD
  • Northeastern University: 27% ED to 29% RD
  • NYU – 30% ED to 32% RD

Some schools practice a more equitable balance:

  • Carnegie Mellon University: 26% ED to 21% RD
  • Boston University: 32% ED to 29% RD
  • Brandeis University: 35% ED to 34% RD

Some schools fill a huge percent of their class early decision:

  • Claremont McKenna College: 68%
  • Bates College: 66%
  • Middlebury College: 66%
  • Carleton College: 64%
  • Others that fill more than 50% of their class from ED include Davidson, Washington and Lee, Vanderbilt, Wesleyan, Penn, Lehigh and Emory

Others—not so much:

  • Clark University: 5%
  • Goucher College: 5%
  • Northeastern University: 9%
  • Ithaca College: 10%
  • Ohio Wesleyan University: 10%
  • University of Denver: 11%
  • SMU: 17%
  • Carnegie Mellon University: 22%

And the schools with some of the lowest early decision admit rates include:

  • Harvey Mudd College: 18%
  • Pomona College: 20%
  • Brown University:  22%
  • Rice University:  23%
  • University of Pennsylvania:  23%
  • Duke University: 24%
  • Vanderbilt University: 24%

This is all enormously valuable information to use when making the decision whether or not to commit to an early decision application.

To access the complete chart, visit either one of Jennie Kent’s or Jeff Levy’s websites:

University of California Application: 10 Requirements Out-of-State Students Don’t Expect

Posted on by

UCLA

Are you California dreaming? Do you want to spend your undergraduate years on a University of California (UC) campus?

The news is good — in spite of growing protests in recent years from many Californians (who believe resident students are being squeezed out), the percentage of out-of-state (and international) freshmen across all UC campuses is at an all-time high.

Out-of-state applicants, in fact, are now admitted at a higher rate than in-state applicants — to any UC campus, including flagship UC Berkeley. (In 2017 UC Berkeley admitted 22.1 % of out-of-state applicants versus 19.7% of in-state. At UC Davis,  72.2 % of out-of-state applicants were admitted, versus 35.9% of in-state!)

And although the UC Board of Regents has approved a policy to now limit nonresident enrollment to 18% on five of the UC campuses, more latitude will be given to UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UCLA and UC San Diego, which “will be grandfathered in”  per 2017-18 enrollment results. (Considering last year’s numbers, these percentages will likely be between 20 and 25%.)

If you’d like to take advantage of the opportunity and apply to be a part of next year’s University of California freshmen class, there are some specific UC requirements you’ll need to know about.

1. You will complete the unique UC application, which allows you to apply to more than one UC campus. And no matter how many campuses you choose, you will only need to submit one official test score. Each campus you apply to, however, will require a separate application fee — $70 per school for 2017-18 applicants.

2. The only time you can submit the application is between November 1 and November 30. It’s available as of August 1, so you can carefully complete each section well before the submission window opens.

3. You will NOT send an official transcript at application, but instead, will self-report your grades. Make sure to report them directly from your transcript — if you later accept an offer of admission, your official high school transcript will be required… and must match up!

4. Do not include letters of recommendation with your application. They are not required and will not be considered.

However, some applicants to any campus this year may be given the option — or, as the UC website states, invited — via email to send up to two letters of recommendation, due by January 15. (Note: For the past two admission cycles, UC Berkeley alone has invited letters from some applicants; those who chose to take advantage of the opportunity were admitted at a slightly higher rate than those who did not.)

5. You will need to take the additional writing section of standardized tests — that’s the SAT with essay or the ACT with writing. You will select this option when you register for the exam. (Subject tests are not required, but certain programs on some campuses recommend them, so be sure to check your desired program on each school’s website.)

6. There is a minimum GPA requirement for application — and it’s higher for non-residents at 3.4, versus 3.0 for residents. (For the most selective UC campuses, both residents and nonresidents must have a GPA well above 3.4 in order to be truly competitive for admission.)

7. This minimum GPA is calculated using only your high school grades from the summer before your sophomore year to the summer after your junior year; and only your grades from any of fifteen specified college-prep courses. Grades in AP and IB courses will be weighted. GPAs are not rounded up; and pluses and minuses are not counted.

8. Completion of the fifteen college-prep courses, with a grade of C or better, are required for admission. Eleven of the fifteen courses must be taken prior to your senior year.

9. There are alternate ways to meet the college-prep courses requirement, such as taking a one-semester community college course (equivalent to a year-long high school course); earning certain scores on SAT, Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams; admission by exam; or admission by exception.

10. Instead of writing an essay, you will select four of eight possible personal insight questions; each response is limited to 350 words. The admissions website provides writing tips and techniques, as well as a worksheet with suggestions for each question.

There is also a step-by-step guide for completing the entire application; the guide takes you through each question to help you understand how best to present yourself.

Considering the favorable odds, the time is right for out-of-state applicants who meet the academic criteria. If you can manage the additional nonresident tuition and want to apply, California (still) wants you, too!

Bonus: Read Sandy Clingman’s University of California Application: 10 Rules about the Visual and Performing Arts Requirement Out-of-State Students Don’t Know to learn more about the UCs unique admissions requirements. 

Wisest Ivy League Major for 2017-2018 Admissions Cycle

Posted on by

It’s a question undecided applicants are always asking: what should I put down as my intended major on my college applications? The answer of course will depend on the exact colleges one is applying to and the potential majors one will consider; however, this year, 2017, as students get ready to apply during the 2017-2018 admissions cycle for Fall 2018 freshmen spots at America’s most selective colleges, there is one major that certainly deserves your attention more so than others. Drumroll please….

Questions colleges don’t always like to answer

Posted on by

The recent announcement of plans to drop four varsity sports from the University at Buffalo’s (UB)  roster of Division 1 offerings pretty much puts a face on what counselors and other admissions professionals have been warning about the impact of funding cuts on both public and private institutions.

UB recently revealed that men’s soccer, men’s swimming and diving, baseball and women’s rowing will no longer be sponsored. This decision affects 120 students currently on team rosters (30 other students on those rosters will graduate this year). Although UB’s athletes have been offered the opportunity to stay in school with scholarships intact, the reality is they won’t get to compete at the D1 level. And competition for athletes who have spent a lifetime honing skills is pretty fundamental.

For these athletes or department heads facing academic program cuts, it’s no secret that college administrators and boards are increasingly being asked to make hard choices as they struggle with demographic and economic realities in a battle for long-term survival and institutional health.

And a divide is opening between financially healthy colleges versus those that are not, making it imperative for students and their parents to understand how financial constraints affect colleges, application processes, and admissions decisions.

Given the current economic climate, here are some questions colleges don’t always like to answer:

  1. How has the admissions office been affected by budget cuts?
    Even in the face of increased numbers of applications to process, admissions budgets aren’t growing. As a result, admissions offices are making do with less. Glossy view books and travel allowances are becoming scarce, as colleges seek additional ways to trim budgets while continuing to respond to front office demands for more applicants. With tight budgets to manage, colleges are increasingly relying on enrollment management programs to guide and support the admission process, effectively allowing technology to take over recruitment and some elements of application review. As a result, students need to understand that their privacy is constantly under attack by colleges attempting to probe both qualifications and interest. Toward this end, seemingly benign third-party organizations seek to obtain and resell key pieces of information, ranging from standardized test scores to family income, to colleges hungry for data that can be fed into algorithms designed to assess credentials and guess at likelihood of enrollment. In other words, through skillful use of technology, admissions offices are not only saving money but also manipulating metrics important to ranking and outside perceptions of “quality”—both vital to long-term institutional health.
  2. Has the application process been affected?
    To gain better control over the process and factors affecting selectivity and “yield” (the percent of students accepting an offer of admission), colleges are experimenting with different early action and binding early decision plans. Rather than setting up a process that encourages a single windfall of applications late in the season, admissions offices are looking for a more even distribution of work from September to May. And the appeal of early decision candidates committed to attending at the front end of the process is undeniable for both management and yield. Some colleges find it more efficient to force hard decisions earlier by denying larger percentages of early applicants—it takes time and money to read and re-read applications. Others prefer keep all options on the table by rolling large numbers of applicants into the regular pool. And given uncertainties inherent in a process that indiscriminately recruits and makes it relatively easy to submit applications, colleges look for ways to cover all bets by enlarging and employing wait lists—secret weapons in the battle to improve yield and control investment in financial aid. Seeking an early understanding of policies and being aware of the institutional incentives behind these policies may help guide application strategies. But given the number of uncertainties affecting budgets, staffing and priorities, don’t be surprised if what you thought you knew is no longer true. It’s not unusual for colleges to make substantial changes in application procedures—sometimes late into the year. So feel free to ask the question.
  3. Are priorities changing in financial aid?
    While the new timeline imposed by an October 1 FAFSA start date and the use of “prior-prior year” income information for determining awards suggests a more sensible and timely approach to financial aid, the jury is still out as to how successful the new plan will be for both students and institutions. At the same time they are dealing with various logistical issues, colleges formerly boasting of “need-blind” admissions or “no loan” packaging are reassessing their policies to ensure adequate financial aid resources remain available to the greatest number of students. Most but not all colleges offer merit scholarships that are important recruitment tools in the process. But variations in the balance between grants and loans in financial aid packages make some colleges appear more generous than they really are. It’s not unusual for colleges to engage in “gapping” (not covering full need) when offering financial aid, but the gaps appear to be getting larger. And be aware that not all guarantee merit scholarships for four full years. To save money without harming published freshmen retention rates, colleges may not continue scholarships after two years—even if all academic requirements have been met. Although it really pays to be a savvy shopper before applying and committing to a school, keep in mind that financial aid offices ultimately hold all the cards and their incentive is to keep costs low while at the same time recruiting top prospects. Understanding the institution’s approach to financial aid from the very beginning could save disappointment later.
  4. Are budget cuts affecting programs?
    Ask Buffalo’s baseball players or Temple’s rowers or the swimmers at the University of Maryland why this may be important. While some cuts cannot be anticipated, others may be planned and colleges have a responsibility to make them public. Be aware that the question isn’t limited to sports. Responding to increased pressure to emphasize more marketable majors, colleges are re-configuring programs—cutting some and adding new opportunities. At a more basic level, colleges may be quietly increasing class size, making it more difficult to get some majors, relying more heavily on teaching assistants (TA’s), or offering specific classes less often—even eliminating them altogether. Short of finding that a program or major has been done away with, students may experience difficulty finishing in four years if classes are overloaded or simply unavailable, especially in areas where coursework is highly sequenced. And if the prospect of transferring sometime in your undergraduate career doesn’t appeal, make sure the programs (including athletic) in which you are interested are on firm footing with the institution.
  5. Will there be changes in requirements for graduation?
    Sometimes this can work in your favor. Loyola University of Chicago reduced the number of credit hours required for graduation from 128 to 120. But because AP/IB or other outside college credits earned during high school can mean significant money both to you and the institution, take the time to see how these credits may be applied (toward graduation or specific majors) and ask if the college anticipates changes in these kinds of arrangements. For example, Dartmouth no longer grants credit for AP or IB examinations. Placement and some exemptions may be offered instead. In other words, Dartmouth can now count on four years of tuition payments from undergrads. And the questions can be even more complex involving credit for internships, co-ops or research. If the goal is to graduate in four years or less, it’s worth investigating if there are plans under consideration that might affect your ability to graduate on time.
  6. What is the impact on student services?
    Applicants don’t always take into account the real value of the student services component when considering colleges. As schools discover they can make money from room and board packages, students may find themselves limited by restrictive housing policies and meal plans. For lots of different reasons—including financial—colleges are limiting students to on-campus housing for more years. The more captive the audience, the less risk involved in building glamorous new facilities. But beyond day-to-day living, services also include everything from library or gym facilities and hours, to tech support, career advising, health/mental health services or academic support for writing centers and math labs. These should be “growing” operations, and if they aren’t, budget cuts in these areas might be concerning.

Because colleges won’t always volunteer the information, it’s important that you do some in-depth research and ask the questions necessary to understand potential game changers.

Make it your mission to test whether the college “experience” promised today will be there four years from now, and make sure the process by which you get there is clear.

Waitlisted in 2017—you have lots of company

Posted on by

For the admissions office, it’s a critical tool used to control the flow of students admitted to the institution. But for the applicant who has waited six long months for a decision, the wait list feels like a one-way ticket to nowhere.

And for students manipulated by enrollment management systems designed to attract thousands only to admit a select few, all we can say is, “Welcome to purgatory.”

The wait list scenario is particularly frustrating for the subset of applicants who were organized enough to submit early—Early Action, Early Action II, Single Choice Early Action, Restricted Early Action, Early Decision I or even Early Decision II—only to find themselves sitting on one or several wait lists.

And despite what “experts” might say, waitlisted students can only rely on anecdotal evidence as to what has worked in the past to move an application from wait list to admit.  What may have been successful last year, won’t necessarily work this time. There are just too many factors at play.

But hope springs eternal.

For the most part, colleges are unapologetic about using the hopes of waitlisted students to further enrollment goals designed to fill freshman classes with the best, brightest and most highly qualified high school students.

And those familiar with the game know the wait list is used to shape a class profile that aspires to be balanced between males and females, is geographically and racially diverse, meets legislated residency requirements, fills the needs of obscure departments or sports teams, and still covers some part of the college operating budget.

“Essentially, the wait list exists to accommodate for demographics that were not met in the initial round of admission offers,” explains Richard Clark, director of undergraduate admissions for Georgia Tech, in a blog post titled, The Wait List Sucks. “If you have the right number of deposits from the West coast, you go to your wait list for more East coast students. If you have enough Chemistry majors, you may be going the wait list for Business students. Ultimately, the job of admission deans and directors is to make and shape the class, as defined by institutional priorities. Meeting target enrollment is critical to bottom line revenue, creating a desired ethos on campus, proliferating the school’s brand, and other factors.”

For the record, wait lists are almost never prioritized and are almost always unpredictable.

And all too often, schools promoting “needs blind” admissions quietly convert to “needs sensitive” when it comes to plucking a few lucky students from the list. Consequently, most bets are off for financial aid if you come through the wait list.

In other words, there’s no ranking, no money, and not much hope.

Sometimes, the list is hardly more than a thinly disguised public relations scam designed to keep agitated parents, alums, and other interested parties at arm’s length. It represents a political solution to an uncomfortable situation.

We can all agree that waitlisted is not a great place to be. If you’ve been accepted or rejected, your status is clear. You can move on with your life. But waitlisted is living with uncertainty.

And at the end of the day, very few waitlisted students are invited to the dance.

Here are some 2016-17 Common Data Set statistics (Question C2) published by a handful of colleges and universities:

Amherst College
Waitlisted: 1269 (582 accepted places on the wait list)
Admitted: 3 (33 in 2015; 61 in 2014; 49 in 2013)

Barnard College
Waitlisted: 1615 (1340 accepted places)
Admitted: 59 (6 in 2015; 21 in 2014; 41 in 2013)

Carnegie Mellon University
Waitlisted: 3809
Admitted: 7 (4 in 2015; 73 in 2014; 87 in 2013)

College of William and Mary
Waitlisted: 4115 (2037 accepted places)
Admitted:  154 (187 in 2015; 59 in 2014; 96 in 2013)

Cornell University
Waitlisted: 4571 (2874 accepted places)
Admitted:  61 (81 in 2015; 96 in 2014; 168 in 2013)

Dartmouth College
Waitlisted: 2064 (1194 accepted places)
Admitted:  16 (129 in 2015; 0 in 2014; 87 in 2013)

Dickinson College
Waitlisted: 810 (238 accepted places)
Admitted: 29 (0 in 2015; 0 in 2014; 10 in 2013)

George Mason University
Waitlisted:  1218 (839 accepted places)
Admitted:  200 (350 in 2015; 684 in 2014; 252 in 2013)

Georgetown University*
Waitlisted:  2184 (1249 accepted places)
Admitted:  149 (114 in 2014; 82 in 2013)
*2016-17 data is not being made available

Goucher College
Waitlisted: 102 (46 accepted places)
Admitted: 20 (7 in 2015; 8 in 2014; 2 in 2013)

James Madison University
Waitlisted:  2560 (1585 accepted places)
Admitted:  205 (500 in 2015; 166 in 2014; 405 in 2013)

Princeton University
Waitlisted: 1237 (840 accepted places)
Admitted: 18 (39 in 2015; 41 in 2014; 33 in 2013)

University of Michigan
Waitlisted: 11,197 (3970 accepted places)
Admitted: 36 (90 in 2015; 91 in 2014; 89 in 2013)

University of Richmond
Waitlisted: 3209 (1236 accepted places)
Admitted:  60 (151 in 2015; 12 in 2014; 95 in 2013)

University of Virginia
Waitlisted: 4987 (2871 accepted places)
Admitted:  360  (402 in 2015; 42 in 2014; 185 in 2013)

Villanova University
Waitlisted: 5452 (2677 accepted places)
Admitted: 26 (50 in 2015; 464 in 2014; 350 in 2013)

Virginia Tech
Waitlisted:  2118 (1544 accepted places)
Admitted:  0 (750 in 2015; 110 in 2013)

Washington and Lee University
Waitlisted:  1529 (652 accepted places)
Admission offers: 48 (193 in 2015; 72 in 2014; 96 in 2013)

Williams College
Waitlisted:  2343 (864 accepted places)
Admission offers: 24 (53 in 2015; 70 in 2014; 44 in 2013)

Numbers vary by year depending on how accurately the admissions office pegged its “yield” or how desperate the need to control the composition of the freshman class. For colleges with unfilled seats after May 1st, the pool of waitlisted students is like a candy jar from which they can pick and choose depending on wants and needs.

“The wait list is a reminder that I’m not very smart,” continues Clark.  “If I were better at my job, I could predict exactly how many students each year would accept our offer of admission.”

Sure there are steps you can take to try to get off the list—write a letter, get another recommendation, meet with an admissions rep—but there is an emotional cost which must be factored in.

“This is probably the toughest decision to get from a school,” explains Dean J, in her UVa admission blog. “For now you need to look at your other options and think about which one feels right to you.  Some of you will want to hold on and see what happens with the waiting list and others will want to fully invest themselves in another school.”

There is no right or wrong here—only what is right for the individual student.

But is the list generally worth the wait?

Sometimes, but not usually.

Top schools continue to see more ACT scores

Posted on by

Despite whatever feelings he has about the ACT, Georgetown’s admissions dean Charles Deacon concedes that the highly-selective university saw an increased number of students taking and submitting ACT scores this year. According to The Hoya, Georgetown’s student-run newspaper, the number of students submitting ACT scores was about even with those submitting SAT scores among this fall’s early applicants.

And this is a relatively new phenomenon.

For more than a half century, the ACT ran a distant second to the SAT in the high-stakes college admissions race. It was the “We Try Harder,” entrance exam—popular in the Midwest and the South but hardly worthy of notice on either coast.

But that all changed several years ago, as the ACT pulled ahead of the SAT in terms of test-taking popularity.  And since then, the ACT has continued to widen the gap.

It’s not that the College Board is hurting for customers. In fact, more test-takers completed the new SAT from March through June of 2016 than took the old SAT during the same period in 2015, according to a report published by the College Board last fall.

But the number of high school graduates taking the ACT soared to a record 2.1 million students—nearly 64 percent of graduating seniors. From 2012-2016, the number of ACT test-taking high school grads increased by 25.5 percent, while the estimated overall number of graduates has increased by only 1.3 percent, leaving the College Board with something serious to think about.

In all fairness, a significant percent of the growth experienced by the ACT is a direct result of the adoption of the ACT for statewide assessment. For the graduating class of 2016, the ACT was administered to all public school graduates in 20 states. These students were pretty much required to take the ACT—like it or not.

But the good news for the ACT doesn’t end there. Not surprisingly, the number of tests submitted for admissions purposes shows a similar trend.  Colleges are definitely seeing way more ACT scores than they did a decade ago. And it appears that many more students are taking both tests and submitting both sets of scores for consideration by colleges, particularly uber-selective institutions.

According to the New York Times, there appears to be a real “shift in the behavior of top high school students,” as many more choose to work toward high scores on both tests.  And that’s okay with top colleges.

“I don’t know all the pieces of why this is happening, but I think more students are trying to make sure they’ve done everything they can,” said Janet Rapelye, dean of admissions at Princeton University, in an interview with the Times. “And for us, more information is always better. If students choose one or the other, that’s fine, because both tests have value. But if they submit both, that generally gives us a little more information.”

And applicants are getting the message.  Those with top scores on both tests want colleges to have the benefit of knowing they did well on both.  On the flipside, those who did significantly better on one test or the other tend to only submit the better set of scores—depending on the specific rules of the particular college or university.

It will be interesting to see how this trend evolves as “new” or redesigned SAT test results make their appearance among this year’s admissions decisions, particularly as the SAT has transformed itself into yet another curriculum-based test and blurred its differences with the ACT.

Regardless, based on test-submission patterns easily tracked for colleges posting Common Data Set information, the College Board has a very real challenge making up for ground lost to the ACT.

Here is a sample of test-submission statistics for the freshman class entering in 2005 as compared to the classes entering in fall 2016 (note that yearly totals exceeding 100% indicate colleges considered both the SAT and the ACT for some students):

Amherst College
2005 SAT:          87%                         vs.          2005 ACT:          13%
2016 SAT:          52% (53% in 2015)vs.          2016 ACT:          51% (49% in 2015)

Auburn University
2005 SAT:           31%                        vs.          2005 ACT:          69%
2016 SAT:           12% (14%)             vs.          2016 ACT:          87% (85%)

Carnegie Mellon University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           17%
2016 SAT:           78% (84%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           41% (37%)

Case Western Reserve
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           58%
2016 SAT:           50% (57%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           66% (62%)

College of William and Mary
2005 SAT:           97%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           3%
2016 SAT:           77% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           44% (44%)

Cornell University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2016 SAT:           69% (75%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           51% (45%)

Dartmouth University
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           11%
2016 SAT:           53% (59%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           47% (41%)

Georgetown University*
2005 SAT:          95%                         vs.           2005 ACT:            7%
2015 SAT:          78% (84% in 2014)vs.           2015 ACT:          47% (40% in 2014)

Lehigh University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.          2005 ACT:            2%
2016 SAT:           58% (63%)             vs.          2016 ACT:          42% (37%)

Princeton University
2005 SAT:           100%                      vs.         2005 ACT:           N/A
2016 SAT:           73% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           45% (36%)

Stanford University
2005 SAT:           97%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           23%
2016 SAT:           77% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           51% (51%)

Swarthmore College
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           14.9%
2016 SAT:           67.5% (73%)          vs.         2016 ACT:           48.7% (46%)

University of Michigan
2005 SAT:           55%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           66%
2016 SAT:           26% (27%)             vs.         2016 ACT            82 (83%)

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           22%
2016 SAT:           71% (76%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           78% (74%)

University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh campus)
2005 SAT:            99%                       vs.         2005 ACT:           20%
2015 SAT:            80% (85%)            vs.         2015 ACT:           50% (47%)

University of Virginia
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           14%
2015 SAT:           77% (82%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           50% (44%)

Vanderbilt University
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           53%
2015 SAT:           37.6% (41%)          vs.         2015 ACT:           67.2% (63%)

Virginia Commonwealth University
2005 SAT:           95%                        vs.         2005 ACT:            15%
2015 SAT:           81.1% (87.4%)       vs.        2015 ACT:              26.4% (26.9%)

Washington and Lee University
2005 SAT:           80%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2015 SAT:           37% (46%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           63% (53%)

Wesleyan University
2005 SAT:            94%                       vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2015 SAT:            58% (61%)            vs.         2015 ACT:           41% (38%)

*The most recent Common Data Set posted online is 2015-16

UVa admits 9,957 for Class of 2021

Posted on by

Hours before Associate Dean of Admission Jeannine Lalonde (Dean J) posted her usual heads up to applicants that the University of Virginia was getting ready to post decisions, gizmo18 let the cat out of the bag on College Confidential: “Decisions come out today!”

Seven hours later, Dean J confirmed that applicants could expect to see one of three decisions—admitted, denied or waitlisted—sometime in the next few hours. And by 5:00, the wait was over.

“I can’t believe it! I got in,” crowed one happy applicant.  “After straight rejections from Northwestern and GaTech I thought it was over. Words cannot describe my excitement.”

Another reported, “Didn’t expect much after rejections from Northwestern and Uchicago last week. But I’m happy I was proven wrong!!!! I was worried that writing my essay about Nike and Adidas in the sneaker industry was weird, but I guess not!!!!!!!!”

And from KingUU: “I got accepted! I’m so happy! Dreams can be real! UVA was my number 1 choice.”

But the news wasn’t universally happy.

“Deferred then waitlisted in state,” moaned another applicant. “Bruh just reject me already.”

Others were more philosophical, “Deferred EA, rejected RD. It was a long shot, but I definitely learned a lot about myself through it. Congrats to all who got in and good luck to everybody!”

To give the decisions context, Dean posted preliminary numbers for this year later in the week and recommended that admissions junkies with a real “need to know” could research numbers using a new tool devised by the UVa assessment team for presenting data in Tableau.

But the simple comparison with 2016 is interesting enough. Last year at this time, UVa reported receiving 32,426 applications (this number tends to jump around a little)—a significant increase from the previous year—and made initial offers to 9,416 students.

For this year’s class, the total number of applications soared to 36,807, with the number of in-state applicants increasing from 9,653 reported a year ago to 10,942 for the class of 2021.

The biggest contributing factor to the overall increase in applications, however, was the bump from out-of-state students who submitted 25,865 applications—up from 22,773 during 2015-2016.

To account for a steadily decreasing yield (percent of students accepting offers), which dropped from 53 percent in 2005-06  to 38 percent in 2016-17, as well as a need to continue growing class size, admissions increased offers to 9,957—about six percent more than last year. Of these offers, 4,276 went to Virginians (4,019 last year), and 5,681 went to out-of-state students (5,397 last year).

Early action admits accounted for 5914 of total.  And the initial admission rate decreased to about 27 percent from 29 percent last year.

According to information provided by UVa to the Common Data Set, 4,987 students were offered spots on the wait list last year, and 2,871 accepted the offer.  Of those students, 360 were eventually admitted.

In any event, here are all the “unofficial” numbers released by the UVa admissions office:

Total number of applications: 36,807 (up from 32,426 last year)
Total number of VA applications: 10,942 (up from 9,653 last year)
Total number of out-of-state applications: 25,865 (up from 22,773)

Overall offers: 9,957 (9,416 this time last year)
Total VA offers: 4,276 or 39% of resident applications (4,019/41.6% last year)
Total out-of-state offers: 5,681 or 22% of nonresident applications (5,397/23.7% last year)

Note that the offers of admission for nonresidents are higher because historic yield for nonresidents is generally lower than that for in-state student.

In a press release, UVa reports that of those admitted, over 1,000 are first-generation college students and more than 35 percent identify as members of a minority group. They come from all 50 states and 89 countries around the world.

And they present outstanding credentials. For those admitted who submitted new SAT scores, the middle 50 percent range was 1330-1490 (Dean J notes that “way more” students submitted the new SAT than the old, so she dropped the stats about the old exam). The middle 50 percent ACT composite was 31-34. And 93.4 percent of admitted students were in the top ten percent of their high school class, for those who attend schools that report rank.

Admissions data visualized

Posted on by

Once again, self-described “tableau dabbler,” Jon Boeckenstedt, associate vice president for enrollment management at DePaul University, has come up with easy-to-use tools for visualizing basic college admissions data.

Drawing from information compiled in Peterson’s Undergraduate database and the Peterson’s Undergraduate Financial Aid database, both copyright 2016 by Peterson’s-Nelnet, Boeckenstedt has created a series of ten “views” or charts showing test scores, male and female admit rates, early decision vs. regular admit rates, need data as well as some general international student information to be used with caution.

And the colorful “optics” can be very revealing as well as educational for anyone putting together a college list.

For example, by looking at “SAT Math distributions,” it’s very easy to see that an applicant to Caltech with less than a 700 Math SAT has nearly no chance of admission as 98.9 percent of the freshman class entering fall 2015* (the teal-color bar) had math scores over 700 (exact numbers can be found by hovering your mouse over the bar).  Judging from ACT Composite distributions, the student with less than a 30 Composite ACT score had no chance of admission to Caltech.

Using the same database, Boeckenstedt lays out 25th and 75th percentiles for SAT CR and Math scores as well as ACT Composites. Looking at the ACT view, for Stanford University, the 25th percentile of the distribution was 31 and the 75th percentile was 35—not too promising for a student with an ACT Composite below 31.

“While test scores are not the primary factor in admissions decisions, these charts can give you a good sense of where you might stand in the applicant pool,” explained Boeckenstedt. “And while you might not eliminate yourself from consideration if your scores are close to the border between one range and another, it’s clear that high scores are an important consideration at many of these institutions.”

Admit rate data, or the percentage of applicants offered admission, is equally interesting.  The chart illustrating the difference between admit rates for men and women shows exactly how wide the margin can be. For example, in fall 2015, the admit rate for men at Vassar College was 35.4 percent and for women was 21.5 percent—a significant difference easily visualized by the distance between the purple and orange dots. At Harvey Mudd College, the admit rate for men was 9.4 percent while the admit rate for women was 21.4 percent—the dots are reversed!

But it’s the chart documenting the early decision (ED) and overall admit rates and their difference that could possibly suggest application strategies.  In fall 2015, the admit rate for ED candidates at Tufts University was 39.2 percent, but the overall admit rate was only 16.1 percent, suggesting a huge advantage for ED applicants. This is confirmed in the light blue bar to the right of the chart showing the difference between the two rates.

Boeckenstedt warns that it’s important to be realistic about admit rates. “A 15% admission rate does not mean that your chances are one in seven; your chances may be better or worse based on any one of many factors in your file.”And, “if you’re a top student in the applicant pool, your chances are probably better; if not, and if there is nothing else to get your application noticed, your chances are almost certainly worse.”

He goes on to add, “…it’s clear that Early Decision makes the choice about where to apply, and under what plans, even harder.”

All of Boeckenstedt’s charts may be filtered by state. And to navigate the various views, simply click the gray boxes or arrows along the top. Use the scroll bar to move down the view, and hover over any data point to show details.

For the record, all the score information is given in terms of the “old” SAT and not the “new” SAT.

*3/17/17 Correction

Save

Save

The Common Data Set Part 2: Colleges by the numbers

Posted on by

Connecting with the Common Data Set (CDS) for a particular college or university will provide you with a wealth of information to kick-start your college search.

And, the information found on these pages may be more current and complete than what’s posted on college search websites or that contained in college guides.

Check this out: the 2017 College Board College Handbook was printed in June, 2016 and is based on data provided to the CDS for 2015-16. The 2018 edition with 2016-17 data won’t come out for months.

But many colleges have already posted their 2016-17 CDS survey responses, with more up-to-date information. So why not get a jump on the 2018 handbook and go directly to “source documents” found on institutional research pages?

In your research, you’ll find that not every website or guide uses all the information available through the Common Data Set. Not all will provide details on wait lists or transfers. But once you get familiar with CDS questions and format, you’ll discover these details are usually there and very accessible.

In addition, you can research trends by looking at CDS data over a series of years. That’s a plus when looking at retention or graduation rates, where you always want to see improvement. The College of William and Mary is extraordinarily helpful in this way, posting full Common Data Sets from as far back as 1997-98.

Keep in mind that the CDS is a voluntary project in which colleges “self-report” information with little or no centralized technical support or oversight.  In other words, the data can be inaccurate or slanted in ways that favor the institution.

Note that you can always cross reference the CDS with College Navigator. But even then, the data is only as good as that which colleges may be willing or able to provide, and it sometimes lags the most recent CDS posting.

In the way of an introduction, here is a tour of the basic Common Data Set:

  1. Enrollment. Questions B1 and B2 provide the size of the institution as well as provide you with a breakdown of what the campus community looks like in terms of race and ethnicity.
  2. Graduation Rates. Questions B4 through B11 address “persistence” or what percent of students graduated within a specified time frame. You can easily compute 4-year graduation rates by dividing B7 (completions within four years) by B6 (the total class size). For example, the University of Virginia graduated 87.8 percent of the class beginning in 2010, within four years. Question B11 simply states the 6-year graduation rate of 94.1percent.
  3. Freshman Retention. Question B22 provides the freshman retention rate based on the date an institution calculates its “official” enrollment—a number subject to some manipulation depending on who is counting and on what day.
  4. Admissions. Using the answers to C1, you can get male/female as well as overall admit rates (selectivity) by dividing the number of admitted students by the number of applicants. This can extremely interesting when trying to determine the level of admissions difficulty for men vs. women or your basic odds of getting in. For example, in the fall of 2016, the College of William & Mary admitted 43 percent of its male applicants but only 32 percent of the females who applied.
  5. Yield. Once again using the responses to C1, yield may be computed by dividing the total number of enrolled students by the number admitted. Because of the sensitivity and importance of this number in college rankings, the definitions of “admitted” and “enrolled” can be different at different institutions.
  6. Wait list. The answers to C2 speak to the use of the wait list and the likelihood of admission from the wait list. In the spring of 2016, Dartmouth College offered 2064 students places on the wait list for a class eventually totaling 1121. Of those, 1194 accepted spots on the list. From that group, 16 were admitted.
  7. Other Admissions Factors. C7 outlines the relative importance of academic and nonacademic factors in admissions decisions. This may be a good place to see if interviews are available and how important they may be. Wake Forest University and Carnegie Mellon University consider the interview “important,” while Johns Hopkins and William & Mary simply note that the interview is “considered.”
  8. GPA. C12 provides the average high school GPA of enrolled freshmen. Because it’s hard to know if the number is weighted, unweighted or recomputed, the GPA response is left out of many college guides. It’s also a question that’s frequently left blank by colleges.
  9. Early Decision Advantage. Question C21 covers early decision and early action plans. This is where you can discover how much of an advantage it might be to apply to an institution early decision. For example, for fall 2016, the College of William and Mary received 1003 early decision applications and admitted 519 or 52 percent. Going back to question C1, a quick computation shows the overall admit rate to be much lower—37 percent. At Dartmouth, 26 percent of the early decision candidates were admitted according to Question C21, while only 11 percent were admitted overall.
  10. Transfers. D2 indicates how many transfer applications were received, how many students were admitted, and how many eventually enrolled. Other basic information on the transfer process includes the terms during which transfers may enroll (D3), minimum credit units required for transfer (D4), the need for an interview (D5), and a minimum college grade point average a college wishes to see for a transfer (D7).
  11. Residency. Under the “Student Life” section (F1), you can see the percent (and number) of out-of-state students (excluding international students) enrolled. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill enrolled 16 percent out-of-state students in fall 2016, while the College of William and Mary enrolled 34 percent.
  12. Annual Expenses. Questions G0 through G6 lay out undergraduate tuition, fees and room and board. More current data for the coming year would probably be found on an individual school website and if you’re interested, G0 gives a direct link to an institution’s net price calculator.
  13. Financial Aid. The H section is devoted to financial aid, including scholarships/grants and “self-help” awards. Question H2A provides information on non-need-based scholarships and grants, including athletes. And for international students, H6 answers the question of whether or not institutional aid is available to “nonresident aliens.”
  14. Percent of Need. Question H2i provides the percent of need a college claims was met for students awarded any need-based aid. For the 2016-17 reporting period, Temple University met 69 percent of need for incoming full time freshmen. Towson University met 54.8 percent and Bucknell University met 91 percent of need, while Stanford University and UVa claimed to meet 100 percent of need (keep in mind the “need” is a pretty subjective term).
  15. Faculty and Class Size. Questions I1 through I3 cover the range of territory relating to student-to-faculty ratio and average undergraduate class size. This is a complicated area full of definitional issues, but since colleges make a point of bragging about how small their classes are, you may want to take a look.

If this kind of analysis gives you a headache, feel free to use comprehensive college search websites and guide books that aggregate and re-work the data into more user-friendly formats.

But if you can’t wait until mid-summer and like the idea of going directly to the source, visit the CDS webpages for colleges you are researching.

This is the second in a two-part series on the Common Data Set. For sample links to CDS webpages, go back to Part 1.

Save

All content © 2019
Tactical College Consulting, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service
+1 410-526-2558 | Connect