I recently wrote an article published in Word In Black about the different ways colleges go about the business of evaluating applications and even though it was long as hell, I couldn't get in everything I wanted. So let me highlight a few bits that got left out. This is part of my periodic series on this blog called Cutting Room Floor (the first one is here).
This article was actually inspired by conversations with my wife about the college admissions process. She sends me lots of great articles and has a great different take on some things than I do. The paradigms that came out of our conversations are described in the article. I also reached out to some great friends and colleagues who gave me great advice, suggestions, insight, and feedback. Shout to Sean and Mark.
From the Admissions Trenches
Adrienne Oddi, Vice President for Strategic Enrollment at Queens University of Charlotte, said:
"When I'm looking at a student's academic preparation, I'm thinking, simultaneously, about what the student has taken in high school and about the courses we offer at Queens. I've worked for 5 different universities, and we recalculated GPAs in 5 different ways. A lot of the calculations are driven by the coursework a university provides. In all cases, we were looking for students whose coursework and grades give us great confidence that the student will succeed in our classrooms. At some universities, this means looking for students who have accessed the toughest courses offered in their communities and ace those courses. At most universities, including Queens, being academically qualified is something much broader."
There is so much great information there, but I'll highlight one thing: at 5 different universities GPAs are recalculated (meaning the GPA the student submits is not the GPA the school uses to determine admissibility) in 5 different ways.
Adrienne also nearly brought me to tears with this:
"Ultimately, for so many of us in admissions at schools that have more inclusive admissions practices versus exclusive (or rejective) admissions practices, we start reading applications from the position of 'yes!' to the student. I love that I get to read applications with a 'yes' mentality that is largely affirmed throughout my reading. I've read literally tens of thousands of applications this way, and I so wish students and families knew how empathetic the readers are at schools like mine. We're with the students in the disappointments and challenges they share with us. And we're sending high fives and congratulations when we see students really shining."
I stan Adrienne.
Most Colleges Are in Paradigm 1 or 2
Jay Jacobs, Vice Provost at University of Vermont, replied too late for me to put this into the article but it's worth your time:
"I think your paradigms are on point. And as you know, the number of institutions in each paradigm, starting at 1 are a large volume and decreasing as you move down. The amount of press each paradigm gets is opposite, with all the press for paradigm 4 (and maybe 3) and fewer for 2 and 1. I guess what I'm trying to say is that most of us (institutions and students) are in paradigms 1 or 2."
This is really important for families to remember: national news outlets like to focus on national brands. The sports-lite, less rich, less rejective colleges that give great educations tend not to get as much attention. Here's a reminder of what the actual distribution of colleges looks like:
| Admission Rate | Number of Colleges | Percent | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| 75% – 99% | 917 | 55.1% | Southern University at New Orleans, University of Illinois Chicago, Ithaca College |
| 51% – 74% | 482 | 28.9% | Auburn University, University at Buffalo (SUNY), Purdue University |
| 26% – 50% | 168 | 10.1% | SUNY Stony Brook, Dickinson College, Emerson College |
| 25% or less | 98 | 5.9% | College of the Ozarks, Babson College, Hamilton College |
What Colleges Think Is Important
I cut from the article the two images showing the criteria that IPEDS and the Common Data Set ask colleges to rank. Section C7 of a Common Data Set response from a college shows how it ranks the relative importance of various admissions factors. The factors colleges say they weight most heavily rarely match the narrative you read in the press.
Sentences I Cut (That I Wish I Could Have Worked In)
- The perception of the impossibility of getting in has been caused by a growing echo chamber between reporters, rankers, and the other businesses that profit from families seeking an edge in admissions. These groups generate and promote a never-ending stream of claims that success in life passes exclusively through the halls of a small set of institutions. This false impression is further muddled by magazine rankings that give the impression of objectivity and science but are truly subjective assessments of quality.
- Admission rate does indicate popularity and in many cases institution size. Applications have spiked at many colleges in the past generation while the size of the first-year class hasn't, especially at the most selective places, leading to plummeting admit rates. It is popularity and size: the greater the popularity, the higher the selectivity, and the smaller the college, the more likely space restrictions will drive selectivity.
- The businesses that sell tests, consulting, admission advice, swag, news, extracurricular experiences, and essay guidance add to the complexity and misinformation by making it more difficult to find the line between marketing and reality. Not acknowledging the vast array of colleges in discussing admissions is like talking about grocery shopping and only ever mentioning Erewhon, Whole Foods, Harris Teeter, or Acme Markets.
Yield and Draw Rate
I wanted to delve into yield and draw rate but again it was too much. Yield is the rate at which admitted students actually enroll. Draw rate is yield rate divided by admissions rate, and as Jon Boeckenstedt explains here, it gives a better sense of how popular a college is than admissions rate alone. Here's a sample of how much yield rates vary:
| College | Admit Rate | Yield Rate | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wellesley College | 14% | 50% | Women's college |
| Spelman College | 34% | 20% | Women's college |
| College of the Ozarks | 21% | 76% | Free tuition |
| University of Miami | 19% | 25% | |
| Berea College | 25% | 65% | Free tuition |
| Brigham Young University | 67% | 76% | |
| Baruch College | 50% | 21% | Big M/F gap (25%/17%) |