Skip to main content

The Race Goes On

Unless you live under a rock, you probably know that colleges are, in general, interested in increasing the number of students who apply for admission.  There are a couple reasons for this, but they're all mostly based on the way things used to be: That is, before colleges started trying to intentionally increase applications.  The good old days, some might say.

In general, increasing applications used to mean a) you could select better students, who would be easier to teach, and who might reflect well on your college, or b) you as an admissions director could sleep a little better, because you were more certain you could fill the class, or c) your admission rate would go down, which is generally considered a sign of prestige.  After all, the best colleges have low admission rates, right?

Well, yes, one does have to admit that the colleges that spring to mind when one says "excellent" all tend to have low admission rates.  Lots of people want to go there, and thus, it must be good.  The trained eye might be able to spot the forgery, but what about the average person?

This week, we have another journalistic treatise presumably exposing colleges for the ways in which they attempt to increase applications.  The tactics listed in this article are nothing new: Reduce the essay, waive the fee, encourage more low-income kids.  Barely mentioned was the "Fast App/VIP app/Priority App," many colleges use that allow them to count an "applicant" as anyone who clicks an email link that says "Start your application."

However, application increases only pay off when you generate them from students who have a reasonable propensity to enroll.  Prestige can be measured by a little-used variable that punishes you when you increase applications to try to look more selective at the cost of deceasing your yield: It's called the Draw Rate, and it's a powerful indicator of market position.  It's a simple calculation: Yield rate/admit rate.

Here's a secret: For some percent of the freshman class, let's say 33%, recruitment doesn't come into play at all.  A large chunk of your enrollment is natural; that is, those students are likely to enroll no matter what you do.  The next 33% are going to enroll presuming you do everything correctly, make it affordable, and help them understand how they fit. But the last group, that final third, comes from students who have little predisposition to enroll.  Your recruitment tactics focus on them, and you spend most of your time trying to find them, get them to apply, and then to enroll.  They may make up as much as 75% of your pool.  They enter your applicant pool with a lower level of interest.

The problem is that usually, a big increase in applications comes not from the first or second group, and not even the third, but rather a fourth group, the "Ain't no way I'm going to enroll short of a miracle" group.  The bigger problem is that you don't always know exactly who these students are. This is one of the reasons demonstrated interest has become a topic of discussion.

When you artificially increase applications, and you have to cover your ass by admitting more, your yield is going to drop.  And so will your draw rate.

So, let's look at the data.  These charts start out very busy, so you should interact by selecting just a region or Carnegie type.  But even at their busy mess stage, you can see: a) applications are up, b) admits are up, and c) yield rates are down at almost every type of institution, with the exception of the big, private, research universities.  The ones you can rattle off without thinking too much.

But look at the Draw Rates, on the last two charts.  Draw rates are down across the board, mostly because capacity is relatively constant, the supply of students is down, and competition is up.  The only winners in the battle to increase prestige? The ones who were prestigious in the first place.  The money spent trying to join that club, or sometimes even just to look more like them, could have been put to better use.

Use the boxes across the top to see the six points of this Tableau Story Points visualization.  Note that the last one exposes some data anomalies which are inherent in IPEDS, often due to typos or new IR staff who count the wrong thing (my alma mater in 2010-2011, for instance.)

What do you see? And what do you think?  Is the race for prestige dooming us? Or is it just the latest evolutionary stage in the natural process of competition?




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

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

Application Fees, 2018

It's been quite a while since I looked at application fees, so I thought I'd review them again. I've never understood the idea of application fees; I suppose you can say they're not unreasonable, given that the college is offering a service to people who are not (yet) students. On the other hand, acquisition costs are a part of any business cost, and if you're into crass comparisons, imagine if you had to pay a fee of some sort before you could even try to buy a car. Anyway, this is pretty simple and shows you two views: The first view (using the tabs across the top) shows an array of college app fees, based on how much they charge. I've broken them into groups ($10 or under, over over $250, for instance.) The top bar charts aggregate the data, and the bottom chart breaks the data into individual colleges. Hover over a dot for details. If you work in admissions and want to compare your app fees to competitors or any group of colleges, use the filters