More Colleges Engaging In A 'Race For Prestige,' Report Says

In 12 years, the number of "most competitive" and "highly competitive" colleges increased from 146 to 193, according to a new book.

A chapter of the book, called "Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College," analyzes the way college admissions have changed in the past decade.

The Washington Post reports on the morphing boundaries:

A "most competitive" college tends to admit less than one-third of applicants, reports median SAT scores between 1310 and 1600 and pulls students in the top 10 to 20 percent of their class. "Highly competitive" schools have admission rates below 50 percent, median SAT scores above 1240 and students in at least the top one-third of their class.

While that group has swelled, the list of "less competitive" and noncompetitive colleges has dwindled from 429 in 1994 to 299 in 2006. These are schools with median SAT scores below the national average that accept most or all applicants and take students with C or D averages.

Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, the researchers behind the chapter, write that colleges are carrying out a "self-defeating race for prestige" and fetishizing test scores. The Post's Daniel De Vise concludes that the more rigid requirements for entry "guarantee that students who enroll at an Ivy League school will see a great many wealthy people and a very few poor people studying beside them."

What do you think of this trend? Weigh in below.

Comments

[ulmew]

02:57 PM on 06/25/2010

"Students who enroll at an Ivy League school will see a great many wealthy people and a very few poor people studying beside them."
This could not be more true, or more of a problem. While I did not go to an Ivy League school, I went to the University of Chicago and though I am not particularly social I met very few people there who ever had to worry about money. The children of the wealthy get better grades because they don't have to work during high school (or college, for that matter). They get paid tutors in subjects they don't understand and take expensive SAT prep courses. Just as importantly, they have parents who can pay for 10 or more applications without a second thought. The result of all this is that far too many mediocre minds from the top income groups are ending up at top institutions that thrive through the diversity of experience represented by their student bodies. It also keeps many of the best minds from a given graduating year from even bothering to apply to top schools if they have not kept a perfect GPA and gotten stellar SAT scores. However, capping the number of applications a student can submit to highly ranked, low acceptance rate schools is a shortsighted solution because it would create a new, distinct class of schools to which it applies while pushing down the acceptance rates of all other highly regarded universities to which it does not apply.

[holierdandao]

08:09 PM on 06/25/2010

While I see the logic behind your point, I'll respectfully disagree. Perhaps, in order to avoid this 'distinct class' of universities, this rule could be applied ubiquitously. As I stated in an earlier post, I applied to 9 schools. Would I have applied to Michigan had there been a cap? Probably not; I would have instead chose UNC. Or would I have applied to Cornell, along with Chicago? Nope. I would have saved a spot for an applicant who otherwise really wanted to go to Cornell and focused more closely on getting into Chicago. And what about my local universities, IU and Purdue? I certainly would have applied there since, essentially, it'd be guaranteed to get in. But I didn't. Because I had the option of applying to nine schools and I knew I'd get in at least one.

[Senseid]

03:30 PM on 06/24/2010

OK...capacity at established universities has not increased nearly as much as the young U.S. population has. A growing population combined with the fact that a greater percentage of high school seniors are choosing to go to college means that those schools with flat or near flat capacity will experience lower acceptance rates. DUH.

[Leviathan21]

02:40 PM on 06/24/2010

Interesting. In England, students can only apply to five universities. And, you can only apply to EITHER Oxford OR Cambridge. You can't apply to both. The result is that people actually have to decide which university and program is best suited for them, rather than blindly submitting a bunch of applications, hoping that they'll be accepted by any prestigious university.

[lecloche]

06:11 PM on 06/24/2010

England is a tiny country with limited educational resources that is attempting to optimize the education process. The US is a behemoth that is on its way to becoming a banana republic. What's your point?

[fem56]

01:48 PM on 06/24/2010

The process is crazy and nerve racking. It is the way the schools get kids to apply. The numbers really are inflated by the huge number of applications each student sends out these days.
My kids studied to learn and did what the loved and that was good enough to get into a lot of great schools. I actually think those qualities got them accepted more than perfect grades, perfect SAT scores and perfect extra curricular. Not sure how much it really matters in the end. Finding a good fit that the parents can afford seems to be the most important thing. I think my kids found a great fit, and school happens to be in this highly prestigous catagory. Unlike their mom they are very highly self motivated and are very excited about the opportunities and their fellow students. Their counselor suggested they find a great fit, a place where they will be happy.and successful. She was in no way a prestige hound. I will guess most school counselors take this tack these days..

[formerprof]

09:44 AM on 06/24/2010

The admissions game is far too complex to discuss in a brief post. But trust me: it is a game. Nearly all schools without open admission consider several factors in making their admissions decisions: SAT/ACT scores, HS rank, HS activities, recommendations, application essay, personal interview, ethnic background (if known), economic circumstances (need for financial aid), etc. Most keep an eye on the discount rate, a ratio of tuition revenue that is redistributed as financial aid (yes, it's a Robin Hood game, but one intended to help those who could otherwise not afford college).

The problem I have is that most schools try to attract superior students who will then achieve more. Duh? What is the true value added? Personally, I get more excited about colleges that can take the victims of our secondary schools and help them achieve their life/career goals. That's what needs to be assessed and, when it occurs, celebrated.

[Fabini]

05:56 AM on 06/24/2010

I need several chapters to flesh out my feelings and ideas about this issue. First, I think its a straw man argument. What is prestige? There are nationally recognized colleges and locally recognized ones. There are well endowed schools and poor ones. At the end of the day it comes down to committed faculty and determined students. Achievers, achieve and it's a teacher's responsibility to address each student's potential.

A flip side of this is what effect "prestige" has on academics themselves. I counseled a newly hired professor yesterday for depression because s/he thought the tenured track position accepted was not prestigious enough. My personal view is two fold: first, students attending one of the "299" schools deserve a committed faculty and two, our middle and high schools are failing to educate and must be revamped.

This is a bigger issue than "prestige."

[LightShadow62]

12:14 AM on 06/24/2010

Higher 'Prestige' translates to higher tuition without the pesky bother of improving standards. Education by corporate committee.

[Senseid]

10:31 PM on 06/23/2010

LOL...well when you have more and more applicants every year mixed with flat capacity at established universities, is it really surprising that admissions rates are going down? I mean...seriously?

[ChiKevin]

11:22 PM on 06/23/2010

Most schools' capacity increase. However I agree, those that remain flat certainly get a boost.

[runfellow]

08:53 PM on 06/23/2010

Unfortunately much of this is due to counselors at schools telling their kids some totally ludicrous things when it comes to getting into college. You have to take all advanced classes, be the president of something, do fifteen things, etc., ad nauseum. They told me that if I took senior off (equivalent to a period of the day off, I'm sure everyone has their equivalent) then it would hurt my chances. Absurd.

Schools look at SAT scores first, then class rank, and make 90% of their decisions based off of those two things. The SAT is the best indicator (though not perfect by a mile) of success in college.

My advice: pay attention in school, learn to be learning (not to get As), and do one extracurricular activity very well, good enough to hopefully get some money for college from it.

[lt1-gt]

09:09 PM on 06/23/2010

this is true! my high school counselor made all the "advanced" students do a bunch of pointless and expensive things by telling them it would help them get into college. meanwhile they tell the C average kids that they better go to trade school.

Instead of going to Virginia's "boys state" or paying a fee and doing "community service" for the National Honor Society, i worked part-time and didn't take two classes my senior year to sleep in like a normal teen should.

what do we have to show for it? im in the same school or one of equivalent status as my HS peers, the treasurer of a club that i actually care about, and am doing a Thesis, Internship, AND Senior Seminar simply because i want to...not cause it "looks good" on my application

[AFP]

12:21 PM on 06/24/2010

Nope, counselors only advise students based on college admissions guidelines. Do you really think counselors just make up stuff to cause you pain?

[OldSkooler]

10:39 AM on 06/25/2010

You are absolutely right to "own" your life and do it your way. You demonstrate the kind of initiative that will stand you in good stead throughout your life, whatever college or university you go to. That is worth a thousand times more than those ubiquitous "mission trips to Costa Rica" and all the other gewgaws these desperate kids try to add to their CV.

Do what's important to you; not what "looks good", or you'll be scrambling to be superficial and step-n-fetchit all your lives.

Good on ya. I wish you all the best.

[holierdandao]

08:36 PM on 06/23/2010

Having just gone through this years admissions cycle, I can totally verify that this is true. Even though I did get into a "most competitive" institution, I, in the process, got turned down by about 8 others schools. Straight A student, honor society, SGA vice president, etc. etc. (Also, I am a under-represented-minority, so the whole thing about Ivy League institutions doing what is "politically correct" is untrue.)

[FatherWolf]

11:34 PM on 06/23/2010

You applied to NINE colleges?

No wonder all these colleges are so "competitive". They're getting a flood of applications.

The "race for prestige" is among the applicants.

[holierdandao]

12:06 AM on 06/24/2010

Sad but true. Nearly every student with my profile--high gpa, high sat's, ton of extracurriculars, etc.--is, essentially, FORCED to do this. Because, as you suggested, the flood of applicants is unnecessarily driving the admissions rates down--we are like crabs in a bucket, trying to pull each other down so the next one can't get out, but we just don't realize it.

Personally, I think it would be nice if the U.S. adapted a system similar to the British system: applicants have to make a choice to either apply to Oxford or Cambridge, you cannot apply to both in the same year. It would be nice if students could apply to only 1-2 ivy leagues and only 2-3 "elite" private and public universities. Before we know it, we're going to end up like Japan, and we're going to have kids jumping off of skyscrapers come every spring, when decision letters come in the mail.

[deridaa]

08:16 PM on 06/23/2010

Absolutely untrue. The Ivy's ignore ability and go after the politically correct formula.

[alexandracabot]

09:35 PM on 06/23/2010

Ignore ability? Seriously? You clearly have no idea about how Ivy admission works! The average SAT score is in the 99th percentile nationally, almost all are in the top 5% of their class...don't know what other indicator of "ability" you're looking for. They at least look for the ability to pluralize the word "Ivy" correctly.

[Ridicter]

01:44 AM on 06/24/2010

Says the guy who went to a tier 3 institution.

[OldSkooler]

12:09 PM on 06/25/2010

My spous'es boss went to a 3-tier institution.

He's worth about $100 million, but that's not what's important about him, or the fact that he's taken two companies public.

It's that he created two companies with a great and useful product, that had a great and fair working environment, and that provided many families with good lives. My spouse was home for dinner every night, which was such a difference from all other workplaces.

His boss quietly gives tons of money away and supports his community in countless ways. There are a number of social service providers who can count on him for their ability to continue to provide for the less fortunate in our community. He believes in this kind of "redistribution of wealth" that's gone out of fashion. That to whom much is given, much is expected. And he derives great satisfaction from helping.

He's a mensch, and a mitzvah.

So take your snarky remarks about tier 3 institutions someplace where somebody might care about it.

What has this world come to? You get the Republicans and Tea Partyers screaming about "elitists" yet everyone wants to go to an "elitist" institution so they can become Republicans and Tea Partyers.

It's like people who have to wear designer clothes, carry designer bags, drive designer cars - slaves to brands because they can't think for themselves and know real quality when they see it. Same with the Ivy League colleges.

Stupid.