Skip to main content

How Admissions Has Changed, in One Chart

I frequently hear that the interactive charts I publish are too confusing or time-consuming, and that it's hard to get the story out of them without some work. So today, I'm making it easier for you, for two reasons: First, this is real student data, not summaries: Each dot represents a student who applied for financial aid, so I'd never publish that data on the web; this is just a good, old-fashioned picture of a chart.  Second, in this case, one chart tells the whole story.

The population here is all freshman financial aid applicants who completed a FAFSA but did not have need.

Each column is one year, and each dot in that column represents a student; higher positions in the column show higher income, from zero to one million dollars in parental AGI (adjusted gross income).  This is arrayed in a box-and-whiskers, or box plot.  The yellow boxes show the limits of the middle 50% of the distribution (the "box") with the color break representing the median.  The top whisker (the black horizontal lines) represent the 75th percentile.  In other words, 25% of the applicants have incomes above that line.  The bottom whisker is the lowest 25th percent. Yes, there are people with very low incomes who do not qualify for need-based aid, usually due to large asset bases.

Note the way the black line rises over time, from about $430,000 in 2007 to almost $600,000 in the last two years.  There are several possible explanations for this, all of which are probably valid to some extent.

  • It's a buyer's market, and college recruitment activities have brought in people who are shopping in more places
  • People who never would have applied for aid in prior years are doing so, because the crisis of 2007 has evaporated many assets, like home equity, that people might have used to pay for college
  • Other colleges are requiring a FAFSA for merit aid consideration so we get the FAFSA as a residual.  No one, it seems, is opposed to trying to get a lower cost
  • Colleges are so afraid of losing someone due to price considerations they encourage everyone to "give it a shot" and see if they are eligible.
One note: In 2014 we had 31 applicants whose income was $1,000,000 or more who are not shown here, and who would have brought the distribution up. These people used to show up in prior years as $999,999 dollars, so I took them out for equal comparisons. And, in anticipation of the next bump, we did have one family who reported an AGI of $9,999,999 for 2014 when they completed the FAFSA.

This post shows Financial Aid data, but the title says it's about how admissions has changed. What do you think? How are the two related?




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs

Yes, your yield rate is still falling, v 2020

I started doing this post on a regular basis several years ago, in response (if I recall) to a colleague talking about their Board of Trustees Chair insisting that "all we need to do" to bring enrollment back to its former level is to get the yield rate up.   That's the equivalent of saying all you need to do is straighten your drives and cut ten putts from each round, and you'll be a great golfer.  Moreover, it's based on the assumption that a falling yield rate is based on something you're doing or not doing.  The challenge is much larger, and a lot harder to address.  It's not a switch you flip. So we've got this: A look at applications, admits, and enrolls over the last twenty years, and three key ratios that are based on those numbers: Admit rate, or the percentage of applicants offered admission; yield rate, or the percentage of those offered admission who enroll; and the lesser-known draw rate, which is calculated by dividing the yield rate by t