Skip to main content

National Trends in Applicants, Admits, and Enrolls, with Draw Rates

If you read this blog regularly, you'll know I'm interested in the concept of the Draw Rate, a figure seldom used in college admissions.  Many people, when thinking about market position in higher education use selectivity or admit rate (the percentage of applicants admitted), or yield rate (the percentage of students offered admission who enroll) by themselves.

But in the market of higher education, these two variables often fight against each other. (BTW, if you object to the use of the word "market" in higher education because you think it debases our profession, see what Zemsky, Wegner, and Massy have to say about that here.)

Colleges, driven by market expectations, have for a long time tried to increase applications, believing that what the market wants is greater selectivity in the institution they choose, based on the Groucho Marx effect. Except that in order to enroll the class you want, you have to take more students when apps go up (at least in the case of the bottom 90% of colleges).  That's because your incremental applications almost certainly have a lower propensity to enroll.

So, Draw Rate (yield rate/admit rate) helps account for that.  Higher Draw Rates are generally a sign of higher market position.  Think about it mathematically: A very high numerator (high yield) coupled with a very low denominator (low admit rate) is the thing many colleges pursue.  If you pursue greater selectivity and don't account for the lower yield, you won't be in enrollment management too long.

The problem, of course, is that, in general, people who were not born 18 years ago don't apply to college.  And the number of people who will turn 18 in any given year continues to drop going forward.  So no matter how many applications each student makes, they can only go to one college next fall.

Over the past several years, the "Winner Take All" mentality has driven demand at the most selective institutions.  The need to keep up trickles down to each tier below, and the annual "We received a record number of applications for this freshman class" shtick gets old fast, even if colleges have not gotten that message yet.

The take away: Colleges have been spinning their wheels, working harder and harder to generate more applications just to stay even.  The national psychosis weighs heavily on the minds of parents and students, and they respond by hedging their bets, applying to--guess what--more colleges.  And the spiral spirals out of control.

Here are five views (using tabs across the top) to show the data.

Dashboard 1 is a high level overview of applications, admits, and enrolls at four-year public, and four-year, not-for-profit institutions (open admission institutions do not report application activity to IPEDS).  You can use the control at top to show all institutions, or just public or private.  Top view is raw numbers; bottom is percent change.

Dashboard 3, the next tab, shows the same data on bar charts, with the draw rate as a brown line hovering over the bars.  Note how it's dropped over time: This is the effect of soft applications.  You can look at any region, or any single institution if you want, but the really interesting filter is at top right: Compare colleges by their 2016 selectivity.  You see that the only institutions who have collectively increased their draw rates are exactly the ones who had the strongest market position already: The most selective colleges.  Step down from Most to Highly to Very, etc, and watch the trend on the brown line.

Next comes Dashboard 2, showing Applications per Seat in the Freshman Class, and draw rate by region.  This might explain why we in the Midwest are fascinated with the obsession with college admissions by East and West Coast media.  Y'all are welcome to come to the Midwest and chill, if you'd like.  You can use the filter to select groups of colleges by Carnegie type.

Dashboard 4 shows four key metrics to reinforce the relationship between and among them.  Again, select by 2016 Selectivity to see how they make a difference.

Finally, Dashboard 5 allows you to compare individual institutions.  I've put Harvard, Stanford, and MIT on to start, but you can choose any colleges you wish.  (I recommend no more than three or four at a time.)  To remove a college, hover over its name in the filter and X it out.  To add, type any part of the name and hit "Enter" on your keyboard.  You'll be presented with all possible matches, and just choose the ones you want.  I recommend choosing similar institutions for scaling/charting purposes.

I hope this is interesting to you; let me know what you see, and if you spot any problems.




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

On Rankings, 1911, and Economic Mobility

If you're alive today, you have lived your whole life with college rankings.  Yes, even you.  You may not have knows you were living in the time of college rankings, but indeed, you have been, unless you were born before 1911 (or maybe earlier.)  If you're interested, you can read this Twitter thread from 2020 where I discuss them and include snippets of those 1911 rankings as well as those from 1957, written by Chesley Manly. You can read for yourself, or you can trust me, that in fact the rankings as we know them have been surprisingly consistent over time, and most people would have only minor quibbles with the ratings from 1911.  Perhaps that's because they have always tended to measure the same thing. But what if we did different rankings?  No, not like the Princeton Review where they make an attempt to measure best party school, or best cafeteria food, or worst social life.  Something more quantifiable and concrete, although still, admittedly, a hard thing to get rig

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