First we heard that there was a 15% drop in college enrollment. That made sense, given the drop in the number of students of the age to apply to college. Then, last week, we got a correction: enrollment had actually increased. The National Clearinghouse Research Center apologized for its incorrect calculation with this data:
Freshmen enrollment grew 5.5 percent this fall (+130,000). Building on last fall’s increases, the growth was strongest at community colleges, which added 63,000 freshmen (+7.1%). Overall 18-year-old freshmen also saw enrollment gains this fall (+3.4%, +59,000).
Enrollment increased across all regions this fall. Institutions in the Northeast saw a 4.7 percent increase, the first gains since prior to the pandemic. The South (+4.7%) and West (+4.6%) saw similar gains, followed by the Midwest (+3.1%).
There has also been a significant increase in the number of applications submitted per student since 2020. But colleges are banking on admitting students they believe will enroll, not those who are merely qualified. That’s called “yield.” To students who “have worked hard and done everything right,” this defies logic.
Each year, I see many of my students with the highest level of rigor, numbers, and extracurriculars from top-ranked high schools deferred by highly selective colleges, especially if they are applying to the most competitive majors (generally Computer Science, Engineering, Business). Why? There are too many applicants who look similar. Colleges receive over one hundred applications from some of these high schools!
Colleges defer these exceptional students, assuming they are applying to a range of highly-selective colleges and are not safe bets to enroll.
Who is being admitted? I’m seeing some students with lower numbers or lower level extracurricular activities being admitted to the colleges that are deferring the stronger students. These students may attend smaller high schools and/or parochial schools that send fewer applications to these colleges. Will they enroll, or “yield?” The colleges, enjoying higher enrollment, must believe they will.
High schools debate the need for two kinds of GPA (academic weighted and unweighted). Is there a preference for any of these from the college side, knowing that GPA is so locally influenced that many colleges recalculate the GPA using their own standards?
Total (9-12) GPA - includes all courses with a A-F grading scale. “Courses” like advisory/staff assistant/etc. receiving a P or F grade are not included.
Academic (9-12) GPA - includes all grades but only courses noted as "academic". Essentially, these are our A-G courses (college prep). Does not include things like PE, SPED academic support classes, weight lifting, etc.
Academic (10-12) GPA - same as above but doesn't include 9th grade. This is on there because it This is on there because it best estimates the CSU/UC (California State or UCalifornia Collges) A-G GPA, which doesn't include 9th grade in the calculation.
Verdict from Jonathan Burdick, Admissions Leader at Cornell, University of Southern California, University of Rochester over the past 38 years
"As a long-term college guy I'd say it matters, but likely a bit less than (parents?) think. All things equal the admissions reading process would initially default to looking at the reported weighted GPA, but it would still be important to label or demarcate on the actual transcript which grades were weighted (and unless it's very simple, how much weight). These two ideas are separated because the reported GPA is much more likely to enter the student's record as a data point just because it's so much easier to find. And sadly, there's a non-zero chance that that data point persists all the way through to reporting, scholarships etc. But the actual admissions read, if it's serious, includes perusing the transcript as a direct source of important information."
That means that the courses a student chooses matter at least as much as GPA.
Last week, I posted a list of Forbes’ “New Public Ivies,” relatively cost-effective (compared to private institutions) colleges that propel students toward strong salary outcomes. Forbes has also created a list of “New Private Ivies.”
Unlike those on the Public Ivy list (see last week’s blogpost), which are highly competitive but reasonable reaches for many students, these colleges are mostly “Ivy overlaps” with extremely low admit rates. Though some of Forbes’ “Private Ivies” may be slightly less competitive than some colleges in the Ivy League, their admission rates are not necessarily lower than Ivy ED admit rates. This list encourages hopeful students to add more colleges that deny 85% plus of their applicants to already too-long college lists. That's not helpful, and it adds stress to the application process.
The ED or REA rates of admission to Ivies are similar to the general admit rates of these schools. A few of these schools have somewhat higher ED rates, but like the Ivies, they get many applications from all over the world. Here’s the list, in order of selectivity:
Boston College 15% overall, 30% ED
University of Notre Dame 11% overall, REA admit rate 15%
Carnegie Mellon University 11% overall, 12.5% ED
Emory University 11% overall, 32% ED
Georgetown University 10% overall, REA admit rate 12-15%
University of South California 10% overall, Both 9% ED/EA
Rice University 9% overall, 13%
Johns Hopkins University 8% overall, 15% ED
Northwestern University 7% overall, 20% ED (record high)
Vanderbilt University 6% overall, 15% ED