May 2014 

For more insight, we've linked a good article from the Washington Post in which a reporter was allowed to sit in on some of the admission committee's deliberations at George Washington University.  And finally, to add a dose of healthy perspective and encouragement, we refer you to an opinion piece in the New York Times, which underscores that it's not "where you go to college, but what you do while you are there" that really matters!

How the Rules of the Admission Game Have Changed

The recent college admission season, especially in the regular rounds, was, in the words of one Dunbar colleague, "unpredictable."  While the large majority of our students were accepted at one of their top choices, and while our predictions of admission as a group remain quite accurate, some of our results-and the current conversation among peers and in the media-have led us to two major conclusions.

1.    The most selective colleges and universities became even more selective and shifting priorities in their classes' composition are impacting the admission of certain groups of students.

 While the Early Decision pools behaved much as we expected them to, several highly qualified students who could have reasonably expected admission to one or two of these most selective colleges in the Regular Decision pools did not receive those acceptances this year.  What happened? One significant factor has been the continued growth of applications to these institutions, facilitated in part by the Common Application and in part by the growth of international applicants.   In 1990 only 9% of college applicants applied to seven or more colleges, according to the National Association of College Admissions Counseling; as of 2011, that number had risen to 29% and most admissions professionals are certain it has risen since then.  The number of applications to the Ivy League continued to rise this year by 2.5% to 253,472 applications.  It is therefore not surprising that the overall acceptance rate for the Ivy League dropped from 9.3% last year to 8.9% this year - ranging from 5.9% at Harvard to 14% at Cornell.

Additionally, in January of this year, many of the most selective colleges unveiled plans at a White House summit on college costs to focus more attention on recruiting and enrolling low income and first generation students.  Colleges including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Middlebury, and Wesleyan introduced initiatives to boost enrollment from these under-represented groups.  This year, we believe we saw the impact of these new priorities in composing the freshman class in many of those admissions offices.

When one piece of the accepted applicant "pie" gets larger, some other piece or pieces are forced to get smaller.  Many parts of the freshman class "pie" are not as likely to shrink as others.  For example, the numbers of recruits for artistic performance majors, athletes, legacies at private colleges, prospects for less-populated majors, disadvantaged minorities, etc., are difficult to reduce. It is logical to assume that colleges will expand the number of low income and first generation students by reducing the number of spots available for straight academic admits who are not in these "preferred" pools.

What does this mean for students beginning their college search process?  It means understanding that we are seeing the impact of a shift in colleges' priorities for admission, and we need to adjust expectations, college lists, and application strategies accordingly. It will be critical to explore beyond the most selective colleges to discover the many great options out there, and to develop lists with plenty of colleges where you have a good chance of being accepted. For example, if your high school uses Naviance and provides scattergrams with the admission results and credentials of past students from your high school, keep in mind that these generally contain three years' worth of data and anything older than this spring may understate the difficulty of admission.  It may be advisable to select an Early Decision application conservatively and strongly consider an Early Decision 2 program because an ED application can significantly enhance chances of admission at realistic college prospects.

2.     Many colleges did not accept even above-profile students if they didn't feel those students were actively interested, and Internet activity is becoming key to demonstrating that interest.  

More so than in recent years, this year we saw students waitlisted at colleges where they were strong applicants as admissions offices used every tool they could find to protect their yield numbers - the percentage of students they accept who choose to enroll with them. Patrick O'Connor, the associate dean of college counseling at the Cranbrook Kingswood School in Bloomfield Hills, MI, and a highly respected voice in the college admissions community, had the following to say:  "Many seniors were surprised when they were waitlisted at their 'back-up colleges.' As the year went on, a pattern emerged; students with high grades and test scores were waitlisted at a 'sure thing' college because they never visited campus, didn't attend the information program offered at a local hotel, or never talked to the admissions representative who visited the student's high school."

In a more disturbing development, the Chicago Tribune claims that some colleges are data mining (tracking via students' IP addresses to see where they are spending their time online) as a means of judging interest and managing yield:  "Many testing companies, along with the Common Application, forward personal information to colleges. That, along with an IP address, is usually enough to pinpoint identity and track online behavior, experts said. Such software can aid in the courtship but is also a trade-off, . . . . What is missing here is the awareness. Just know that you are being watched . . . and the standard of consent is using the Internet."(Chicago Tribune, Bonnie Miller Rubin, March 17, 2014-"Colleges' Admissions Offices Mine Data on Prospective Students" -- no longer available on line, but here is an article that quotes from it.)

What does this mean for our students?  It means paying more attention to demonstrating interest than ever in all of the colleges on your list, and paying attention to your online and social media footprints as well.  Just as colleges are using every tool to determine interest, you must use every tool to demonstrate it, on top of the traditional means we have always recommended.  While we have always spoken to our students about demonstrating interest, we have focused on encouraging campus visits, attending meetings with admissions reps at their high schools, and interviewing.  We are now cautioning students to track the incoming email from colleges closely. Open emails, participate in online admissions activities if invited, be discrete when mentioning colleges on social media, contact admissions officers when you have questions about their college and send thoughtful thank you emails to them, and do some real online research on the colleges you are applying to.  We are also advising students not to post early non-binding acceptances on social media - if you have pending applications, you don't want those admissions offices to assume you aren't interested because you are posting about an acceptance somewhere else.

We take very seriously our mission to advise our families and students and help them find and gain acceptance to colleges where they will thrive.  We will continue to monitor the changing college admission landscape and will let you know when the shifts can impact student admission decisions.  In the meantime, it is more important than ever for families to be open-minded about falling in love with some of the wonderful colleges out there beyond the same list that everyone else is pursuing.

Sneak Peek:  Inside the Admissions Office at George Washington University
                   

It is always helpful when college admission offices throw back the curtain and allow writers to observe and report on the actual deliberations of an admission committee.  Here is a very helpful account for applicants to any college from the Washington Post:

The Name on a Diploma is Not What Defines You