Skip to main content

More on the Admissions Arms Race

In a recent post, I wrote about the Admissions Arms Race, and who had come out victorious.  The short answer was "almost no one."  I rolled up admission rates (percent of applicants admitted) and yield rates (percent of those offered admission who enroll) and showed them over time.  These variables are pretty common parlance in college admissions; everyone with experience seems to know them.  But I showed them only aggregated by type of institution; averages often mask details contained in them.  To add some detail, I've now plotted them for every four-year, degree-granting institution that enrolls freshmen.

In that post I also introduced "Draw Rate," a term few had heard of.  It's a simple calculation: You take the yield rate and divide it by the admit rate.  So, for instance, Harvard, with a yield rate of about 84% and an admit rate of about 6% (2012) has a Draw Rate of about 14.  Given that the industry average is about .6 (not six....point six), you see the market position of Harvard, even in comparison to some of its rivals: Princeton, Yale, and MIT, for instance, all of which hover around the still formidable 8 range.

The beauty of the draw rate is that it can't be fooled: If you get more selective just by generating fake or soft applications, your yield rate is going to go down.  Try some numbers for yourself.  Reasonable numbers, please, I don't like to argue with absurdity.

Over the last couple of decades, colleges have been pursuing prestige by attempting to get more selective. It's a good example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc thinking: Prestigious colleges are selective, so if we appear to be more selective, we'll become prestigious. (And parents engage in the same behavior when they see that successful people graduate from prestigious institutions, and therefore want a prestigious name on their child's diploma.  They think the prestige caused the success, when it's often family success that generates the admission in the first place.  Read Gladwell's paragraph on selection effects and treatment effects; it's in Section 3 of this article.)

See for yourself: Select public or private; a Carnegie type; a region, and then, if you want, a state within the region.  I started with three years, but you can put in what you want.

As an aside, another thing I like about this is that is shows the problems with IPEDS data, such as missing information and obvious, erratic spikes up or down that suggest data errors. I use IPEDS data a lot and it can be very frustrating.

But mostly, it shows that there have been some winners over time.  And they're mostly the ones who have been winning all along.

You can't market your way to the top in higher ed.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

So you think you're going back to the SAT and ACT?

Now that almost every university in the nation has gone test-optional for the 2021 cycle out of necessity, a nagging question remains: How many will go back to requiring tests as soon as it's possible?  No one knows, but some of the announcements some colleges made sounded like the kid who only ate his green beans to get his screen time: They did it, but they sure were not happy about it.  So we have some suspicions about the usual suspects. I don't object to colleges requiring tests, of course, even though I think they're not very helpful, intrinsically biased against certain groups, and a tool of the vain.  You be you, though, and don't let me stop you. However, there is a wild card in all of this: The recent court ruling prohibiting the University of California system from even using--let alone requiring--the SAT or ACT in admissions decisions next fall.  If you remember, the Cal State system had already decided to go test blind, and of course community colleges in

Baccalaureate origins of doctoral recipients

Here's a little data for you: 61 years of it, to be precise.  The National Science Foundation publishes its data on US doctoral recipients sliced a variety of ways, including some non-restricted public use files that are aggregated at a high level to protect privacy. The interface is a little quirky, and if you're doing large sets, you need to break it into pieces (this was three extracts of about 20 years each), but it may be worth your time to dive in. I merged the data set with my mega table of IPEDS data, which allows you to look at institutions on a more granular level:  It's not surprising to find that University of Washington graduates have earned more degrees than graduates of Whitman College, for instance.  So, you can filter the data by Carnegie type, region or state, or control, for instance; or you can look at all 61 years, or any range of years between 1958 and 2018 and combine it with broad or specific academic fields using the controls. High school and indep

2018 Admissions Data

This is always a popular post, it seems, and I've had a couple of people already ask when it was going to be out.  Wait no more. This is IPEDS 2018 admissions data, visualized for you in two different ways.  You can switch using the tabs across the top. The first view is the universe of colleges and universities that report data; not every college is required to, and a few leave data out, and test optional colleges are not supposed to report test scores.  But IPEDS is not perfect, so if you find any problems, contact the college. On the first view, you'll see 1,359 four-year private and public, not-for-profit institutions displayed.  In order to make this as clean as possible, I've taken out some specialty schools (nursing, business, engineering, etc.) as many of those don't have complete data.  But you can put them back in using the filter at top right. Hover over any bar, and a little chart pops up showing undergraduate enrollment by ethnicity. You can also