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

Another 1000 Words and Ten Charts on First-generation, Low-income, and Minority Students

I have always enjoyed writing, and I consider this and my other blog like a hobby.  Usually, I spend no more than 45 minutes on any post, as I don't make my living by writing, and my blogs are not "monetized." But once in a while, an opportunity presents itself to write for a wider audience, and that's when I see what it takes to make a living putting words to paper. That happened this week.

You may have seen my opinion piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education. If not, you can read it first, read it last, or not at all; I think both this and that stand alone, despite their relationship.  In the end, we ended up with about 40% of my first draft, which is what happens when you write for a print publication. And of course, a print publication makes interactive charts, well, difficult.

I think there is more to say on the topic, because the similarities in recruitment challenges for first-generation, low-income, and minority students tend to look a lot alike, and the mo…

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 choose to…

Yes, your yield rate is still falling

In 2015, I wrote this post on falling yield rates.  It was pretty obvious to many of us in the profession that this trend was widespread, and largely driven by a dramatic increase in applications against a more modest increase in actual students who could or would enroll.

It apparently wasn't so obvious to everyone.  Response was much stronger than I thought it would be, and I never had seen so many requests from people who wanted to share it with their trustees (btw, this is public; you never have to ask permission to share).

So I redid it, using trend data from 2005 to 2018.  First a couple of definitions:


Admit rate is the percentage of applicants who were offered admission (admits/applicants).Yield rate is the percentage of admitted students who enroll (enrollers/admits).Draw rate is not commonly known, and I wish I remember who first mentioned it to me in the 1980's.  It stuck with me and is a valuable metric, I think, as we attempt to measure market position.  It's Y…