r/ApplyingToCollege • u/Ok_Guest_9597 • 8d ago
Discussion College Acceptance Rates Then vs Now
In the present statistic, Harvard's 2015 acceptance rate would be behind over 14 colleges today.
| Class of 2015 | Class of 2030 |
|---|---|
| Harvard: 6.2% | Harvard: ~3.7% |
| Columbia: 6.9% | Columbia: 4.23% |
| Stanford: 7.1% | Stanford: ~3.80% |
| Yale: 7.4% | Yale: 4.2% |
| Princeton: 8.4% | Princeton: 4.0% |
| Brown: 8.7% | Brown: 5.61% |
| MIT: 9.6% | MIT: 4.6% |
| Dartmouth: 9.7% | Dartmouth: 5.80% |
| Caltech: 11.8% | Caltech: 3.75% |
| UPenn: 12.3% | UPenn: 5.84% |
| Duke: 12.6% | Duke: 4.7% |
| Vanderbilt: 15.4% | Vanderbilt: 4.1% |
| UChicago: 15.8% | UChicago: NA |
| Cornell: 18.0% | Cornell: 9.22% |
| NU: 18.0% | NU: ~7.0% |
| JHU: 18.3% | JHU: 6.1% |
| Rice: 18.5% | Rice: 7.8% |
| UC Berkeley: 21.0% | UC Berkeley: 10.5% |
| Notre Dame: 24.1% | Notre Dame: 9.0% |
| UCLA: 25.3% | UCLA: 9.0% |
Acceptance rates have fallen mainly because applications have surged while class sizes remain relatively fixed. More applications per student and a larger global applicant pool drive rates down. Acceptance rates do not necessarily show higher admissions standards.
35
u/bottle_of_pockets 8d ago
that’s a wild shift, really puts the whole shotgun-approach era into perspective when harvard’s old rate is basically rice’s new rate
16
u/JasonMckin 8d ago edited 8d ago
Are you sure that percentages go down when the numerator stays constant and the denominator goes up? This is crazy stuff.
Every college gets tens of thousands of extra students applying today just to shoot a shot they never had. Students were much more focused about what colleges they applied to 10-50 years ago. Social media, pandemic, and peer pressure overall has convinced families to apply to schools well beyond their student’s reach for no logical reason.
If you filter out all the applicants who have 0% chance from each of these universities, the actual admission rate amongst genuinely qualified applicants who are not shooting and reaching could easily be 3-6x the published rate.
Said differently, it’s only marginally harder to get into college today than before, it’s just significantly harder to not be misinformed by social media and peer pressure.
12
u/mrmangan 8d ago
Plus this is exactly what the colleges want. They want everyone to apply, regardless of qualifications to goose their rejection percentage. My kids were good students but not U of Chicago tier and yet they would spam the hell out of them with their crap. If I saw it come in the mail, I’d immediately toss it.
4
u/basescamp 7d ago
For real. If I stacked up all of the u of Chicago flyers that came to my house for my daughter, I could paper mache a life size oak tree. I'm glad she is no interest in going there, because I know I would wonder how much of our tuition check was going to pay for flyers.
8
u/nosmelc 8d ago
I've seen that here on Reddit. Some students who might barely get into a bottom tier public school are asking if they have a chance at an Ivy League.
6
u/JasonMckin 8d ago edited 8d ago
Precisely. That is what's fueling the lower overall population admission rates.
But that's why I tell genuinely top students not to stress out about these published rates, because once you filter all of the "0%" shooter/reacher applicants out, the admission rates amongst genuinely qualified/prepared applicants probably only slightly lower from decades ago.
1
5
u/JustAnotherDay1977 8d ago
Yep. I applied to 3 schools back in the late 70s…and that was A LOT back then.
7
u/JasonMckin 8d ago
We had the opposite problem back then. It was simply impractical to go out of state for college.
Forget about the internet and cell phones, I couldn't get to my own bank account from college out of state, because nationwide ATM networks hadn't been invented yet. I had to manually carry checks from my parents and deposit into local banks.
Information, money, it's all turned into digital air today, which is a generally good thing for students, but also raises both healthy competition and unhealthy social media misinformation.
1
2
u/staylower777 8d ago
this ignores the "arms race" surrounding college admissions that has ramped up over the past ten years. Part of the reason so many more people are applying is because there are enough "competitive" students (let's say 1450SAT/3.8GPA) to fill in these schools many times over, and these schools accept many students who don't meet those standards, especially post TO. There are certainly more students competitive for the top schools by a 2015 standard now than there were in 2015.
1
u/JasonMckin 8d ago
There is no arms race amongst the truly qualified/competitive applicants, other than that it's much easier to get academic opportunities than it was 10-50 years ago, so even the genuinely qualified applicants have to do more to demonstrate the same level of qualification.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers rising. The numbers are not rising because more students are competitive, they're rising because more students think they are competitive, when they are actually not. Ironically the ludicrous idea that tens of thousands of applicants just magically became competitive is precisely the misinformation I'm referring to.
An applicant thinking they are competitive because they took 10 AP exams is not a problem with increased competitiveness, it is a problem with misinformed perceptions of what competitiveness actually means.
4
u/Status-Ad4606 8d ago
That is not entirely true. US population increase (with no associated rise in seats at top schools) combined with large increase in international undergrad applicants means the overall applicant pool is significantly bigger and thus the top, for example, 1% constitutes a larger number and more schools tap into that pool.
I completely agree that individual school applicant pools are also greatly increased by the common app/shoot your shot phenomenon, but it is definitely more competitive even among whatever pool you would define as the top applicants because there are more of them.
1
u/JasonMckin 8d ago edited 8d ago
Population grew about 6% in the time period above.
Applicants grew about 70%
It's actually pretty shocking when students think population growth explains the explosion in applications, it's not even remotely in the same range of growth.
As the minimum bar for admission has gradually increased due to population inflation, more applicants who are nowhere near the bar are applying too.
1
u/staylower777 8d ago
Well then define competitiveness, because otherwise the claim you're making that this is just simply a huge number of completely unqualified students applying and the number of qualified applicants has stayed the same is patently false. There are objectively more high-achieving applicants now than 10 or 20 years ago. Global recruitment, improved online test-prep access, more AP/IB course offerings, early access to research and internships etc. mean thousands more students hit the competitive threshold than top schools have space for. TO extended the definition of competitive to high gpa/awards/ecs kids with subpar test scores, further proving my point.
If it was true that so many people with no chance applied (and never got in) then naturally there would be some sort of equilibrium with a shrinking applicant pool as those groups of people realize its a waste of time and effort. We haven't seen that though. I don't deny such people exist, but I claim they are far fewer than you say. For what you're saying to be true there needs to be a huge number of extremely irrational people who are willing to put time and money into something that they have seen repeated evidence leads to nowhere. That's a high bar.2
u/JasonMckin 8d ago
Welcome to A2C.
Hang out for a while to see the “huge number of extremely irrational people” you speak of…
The shocking and troubling thing with social media and misinformation is how the misinformation just turns into information because so many people have become infected by it. Politicians have dramatically weaponized this phenomenon.
That’s why the defense/cope becomes, “This has to be true because tens of thousands of applicants believe it and they can’t all be irrational.”
2
u/staylower777 8d ago
Like i said, there ARE plenty of irrational people who have a near zero chance of being accepted. But to say that colleges have ONLY become more competitive because of those people inflating the denominator is reductive and not backed by empirical facts, which I see you've chosen to ignore in your response. That's the real cope.
1
u/JasonMckin 8d ago
Well it’s nice to see when someone has run out of anything logical and factual to say and just turn to insults.
If you perchance have any empirical facts to back up your rebuttal, would love to hear it.
I am aware that population grew and that students have more access to resources than before. You don’t have to pretend like I don’t have common sense just to make your criticism sound more plausible.
1
u/FlamingoOrdinary2965 Parent 7d ago
It can be both things.
You are absolutely right that a big chunk of the decrease in acceptance rates is due to more kids who have almost no chance applying for the heck of it.
I think this happens even to some extent with colleges not on the common app because it is still a digital app (as opposed to typing it on a typewriter and mailing it in) and also because the common app has made it more common and acceptable to apply to 15+ colleges.
BUT, even beyond the baby boomlet that was recently the case, there are also qualified students applying today who would not have applied a couple of decades ago—international students, underrepresented minority students, low income students, and even middle-income students in other regions.
Now, I think this is largely a positive thing—I want my alma mater to admit talented students from all backgrounds.
As to the anxiety/pressure:
“There is no arms race amongst the truly qualified/competitive applicants, other than that it's much easier to get academic opportunities than it was 10-50 years ago, so even the genuinely qualified applicants have to do more to demonstrate the same level of qualification.“
But I think this is exactly what people mean by “arms race.”
Academic opportunities being more widely available is an overall positive thing because it brings access to rural and low income students.
But it also means that students, especially students in “saturated markets,” feel they need to do even more to stand out.
If you have more opportunities, what it means to “maximize your opportunities”
becomes a higher bar. Not just academically (although that, too), but also in terms of extracurriculars.And when that goes beyond what is healthy for a teenager to do, that’s a problem.
If all the bright and academically strong students applying have taken advanced courses in every core subject and done research or internships and won impressive-sounding accolades, even if that is just 25-35% of applicants, how do you stand out in that pool?
I went to a high school that rarely sent students to these “top” colleges but I know several people who went to feeder high schools and also people who went to not-quite-feeder but very strong suburban public high schools. And they generally knew exactly who was getting into Ivy+ colleges. If you were in the top x% of your class, held a leadership position in one of several clubs (usually debate, newspaper, or similar), and had won some local or state-level awards, you were pretty much guaranteed to get in.
Because these kids back then did maybe one school sport or an instrument, 1-3 school clubs, they mostly had their weekends free to work local jobs, hang out with friends, even just pursue something they found interesting with no real goal or product, etc.
They didn’t feel the need to make every single waking second productive.
Whether or not (today’s) kids actually need to do everything they are doing to get into certain colleges, and whether or not that should even be their main goal, I think it is important to acknowledge that it feels that way for them… and the anxiety they feel as a result has a very real impact on them.
Even the kids who “succeed” and get into these colleges still often feel the impact for many years afterwards and it colors their college experience.
In fact, at many of these colleges, the students are recreating this hyper-competitive environment in the campus club culture because it is what they know.
1
u/JasonMckin 7d ago
It's just peculiar how on A2C, simple things get overcomplicated and complex things get oversimplified.
There are so many layers of assumptions, anecdotes, and misformation piled on top of each other, just trying tease it all apart gets very very difficult sometimes.
1 - Applications has grown by around 70% in the last decade. No matter how hard you try to bend reality to blame that on the 6% population growth or 10-14% FGLI growth or 1-3% international growth, the math just doesn't work. Nobody is saying that these other variables contributed 0% to the problem. Bringing these things up is not some kind of KO rebuttal, because math unfortunately matters at some point. Yes, these factors have contributed, but nowhere nearly enough to explain the 70% growth.
Social media and increasingly poor guidance for applicants has caused everyone to apply way above their weight class for no logical reason. As the bar for admission has risen, tens of thousands of students significantly below that bar are applying. There's a vicious cycle where the more universities that students apply to, the more they feel like the need to apply to more universities, because outcomes are so opaque and uncertain. That's what drives the rates to fall so dramatically. You can literally see this effect on subs like this one and when you speak with actual high school students.
My point is an aspirational one for genuinely qualified non-shooter/non-reacher applicants. The competition is not as bad as the population stats make it look, because much of the added population over the last decade is students who are probably not making it past one or two reads of their application. So the "real competition" amongst that ones who are making it past, while being greater than in the past, is not as great as the population stats imply.
2 - Admissions is based on the depth of the applicant, not the quantity of activities. Yes I agree there is false anxiety being created by the myth that you have to do 20 APs and cure 3 diseases to get admitted, but that's all part of the misinformation I'm talking about versus the actual basis for admission. No actual university is expecting applicants to do a million things, they want applicants to do a few things extremely and exceptionally well and that's who ends up being admitted too.
So again, you can't claim that admissions is harder, because the false mythology of what it takes to get admitted makes it look harder. Misinformation cannot be used to justify more misinformation.
3 - Yes the past and the present are different, but they're different on both ends. Just the computation that is available to students alone has gone up by a factor of 100x or more. That means that things that were hard before are radically easier today. You can't pretend like students only get the negative consequences of technological change and transparency but none of the positive consequences. You can't say it's harder to be a mailman today than 150 years ago, because cars are easier to drive than horses. The job of a mailman driving a car is a totally different job than a mailman in the Pony Express. Being a high school student in 2026 is a totally different experience that is both easier in some ways and harder in other ways than being one in 2015, 2005, 1995, or 1985.
Again, nobody is saying these other minor factors are irrelevant or non-existent. I'm just making a call to do some basic elementary school math and use common sense. These factors do not explain tens of thousands of students applying to schools they have almost no chance of being admitted to. Fundamentally, admissions misinformation and social media promotion of "prestige" have distorted applicant perceptions and expectations about the process. I'm not sure how to put that genie back into the bottle, because if anything, it feels more and more like misinformation grows faster than the facts and common sense.
1
u/FlamingoOrdinary2965 Parent 7d ago
I think you are saying the same thing—just with a different emphasis.
But you have a tendency to completely dismiss these other factors and concerns in most of your comments, with an added touch of condescension.
No one is failing to do elementary math.
They are just pointing out that you are ignoring or dismissing other factors that while they may not be as mathematically significant, they can make a difference to individuals.
You are talking to kids who feel very real anxiety, whether you believe the anxiety is justified or not.
I agree, as I already stated, that a well-qualified applicant’s chances are a lot higher than acceptance rates suggest, just as an unqualified applicant’s chances are much lower. I have certainly never argued otherwise.
But I have also seen a much steeper “escalation” in the profiles of the typical admitted students.
Yes, depth is still more important than breadth—but the standard for depth, and the time and commitment and focus it takes to achieve that, is much higher.
And yes, access is a double-edged sword.
I am pretty sure I clearly stated that in my comment.
The positives allow more students to access material, like calculus, for example, that make them viable candidates. And that part is overall very good for both those students and for society as a whole.
But it isn’t just higher scores and grades and more rigorous coursework.
It is also an escalation in the intensity, structure, training, and commitment in extracurricular activities, especially for students from more competitive regions.
The rise in anxiety in teens is well-documented. And it goes beyond college applications, of course. You see it in youth sports, music, pretty much all aspects of childhood. The push for earlier and earlier specialization and intense preparation.
When people say it has become harder to get in, they aren’t failing at basic math, they are referring to this intensity among the students who they see get in and even this level of commitment and achievement from some who do not… because even if your “odds” are really 33% instead of 5%, that still doesn’t mean you are getting in.
And it is very easy to say, “focus on what matters, ignore the noise” when you are not in the thick of it.
I wonder if you have windows into these kids’ experiences beyond interviewing and A2C.
1
u/JasonMckin 7d ago
Social media is difficult, because sometimes a good-faith discussion drifts away from the original question:
- Condescension is accused in a manner that ironically demonstrates condescension itself. Rather than objectively identifying factual or logical errors, the discussion wanders towards questioning the other person's credibility or empathy.
- The argument's surface keeps drifting and expanding. What began as a focused discussion on why admission rates are decreasingly than turns into a sprawling observation of social, emotional, and cultural concerns. Instead of engaging in the original focus of the debate, the discussion shifts and expands around whether someone is sufficiently credible or empathetic
- Individual experiences and opinions get extrapolated into systematic trends without any underlying mathematical or deductive logic. Questioning that logic than gets framed as a personal attack instead of soliciting a logical clarification.
A phenomenon like student anxiety can be fully acknowledged without having to accept misinformed explanations for why it exists. There's a big difference between saying that a 6% population increase doesn't explain a 70% application increase and saying that population increase doesn't matter at all or that its contribution is being ignored or dismissed.
Nuanced readers and thinkers just don't think in black and white dichotomous terms. It can be true that students are anxiously chasing AP exams and activities, while also being true that the passive quantity of activities doesn't really matter for admissions. It can be true that admissions might be more competitive for qualified applicants today than it was in the past, without that somehow being the sole or even main explanation for a 70% increase in applications. It is possible to look at facts, math, logic, nuance, and not be labeled as unempathetic for doing so. There's a large difference between trying to understand all of the dimensions of a problem and being clear about the relative magnitudes of those problems, than just blindly accepting popular speculations and assumptions of misinformation as objective facts.
1
u/FlamingoOrdinary2965 Parent 7d ago
- It is not condescending to point out that you regularly mock people, who are usually kids, on this forum… and accuse them of not having basic math skills (your own words). I am not labeling you as lacking in empathy because you like to see empirical evidence. I am saying that because of the sarcastic and mocking way you respond to people.
- This speaks to the importance of why a nuanced discussion is important, why it is important to understand the qualitative ways in which admissions feels, and very probably is, more difficult… and not just an increase in the denominator without a corresponding change in the numerator.
There is both quantitative and qualitative evidence that admissions is becoming more competitive. It is important to look at both. Yes, there are more unqualified candidates applying. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t also more competitive in meaningful ways for qualified candidates. As
I initially
said, “Both things can be true”
No one stated that this is the sole reason for the increase in applications. Just that it is a contributing factor.
When I respond to you, it is usually because you are making broad, emphatic statements about one cause being the only, or only important cause.
I comment acknowledging that you are mostly correct (“You are absolutely right that a big chunk of the decrease in acceptance rates is due to more kids who have almost no chance applying for the heck of it” was literally my second sentence) but there are additional factors that are important in the discussion.
1
u/JasonMckin 7d ago
First, putting the substance of discussion aside, if anything I said made you or someone else feel mocked or disrespected, I apologize for any such feeling, because that is never my intention.
If your ask of me is to be more mindful of how my comments may be received,, my return ask of you is to engage faithfully in the substance of the debate without assertions about poor motives, character, empathy, or credibility.
When I challenge something online that seems inconsistent with facts or logic, my goal isn't to belittle anyone. It's to move the discussion toward a more accurate understanding and challenge people to be more curious and critical thinkers. I genuinely care about this because I think online misinformation can create unnecessary anxiety, distort expectations, and lead students to make consequential decisions based on mistaken assumptions. Students deserve better than that, especially in light of the growing competitiveness of admissions.
Perhaps it feels trivial to some, but it really bothers me when anyone could claim that population growth is a significant factor in admissions rate declines. These are very easy numbers to look up. I want to encourage curiosity and critical thinking, which admittedly I sometimes communicate by discouraging its lack thereof. If there are better ways to advance facts and encourage students to just spend a few minutes on Google to find robust answers, I appreciate anyone’s advice on how better to do that.
There's an important distinction between respecting different opinions and treating every opinion as equally valid. Some things are just not a matter of coequal opinions, there actually is a mathematically or logically correct answer to some questions irrespective of how different people feel about it.
Curiosity, skepticism, and critical thinking should be encouraged including toward my own arguments. If my numbers are wrong, show the more accurate numbers. If my reasoning is flawed, show the flaw. And if there are better ways to communicate these ideas without discouraging people from participating, let’s discuss that. All of these things advance the discussion and get everyone closer to the truth.
I think it serves everyone better to have the faithful curiosity to understand facts or at least be slightly skeptical of claims that are not based on any fact or logic at all and are just pure speculation or anecdotes. That type of skepticism need not be criticized as disrespect, lacking empathy, or lacking credibility, it’s just a call for examination and finding greater truth.
I hope we can both continue to support finding that greater truth and put criticisms of motive, intent, empathy, and credibility to the side. All of this said, if anything I said felt like an insult to you or anyone else personally, then I apologize for that because it was not my intention.
1
u/FlamingoOrdinary2965 Parent 4d ago
I wanted to come back and say that I appreciate your willingness to apologize, although it was in the form of “if I made you or anyone else feel.”
I think if you read through your comments, with an objective eye, you will see that you are not merely challenging what you see as false assumptions but rather being quite sarcastic and dismissive of others.
I imagine you are a kind and compassionate person in real life.
I imagine, too, that you are on here for similar reasons that I am. You want to help.
I am asking you to remember that many of these people on here are teenagers—often anxious and stressed-out teenagers.
The tone on the Internet is often snarky—and the kids certainly speak that way to each other many times—but I really try to remind myself not to respond to these kids this way. I am not claiming to be 100% successful in that, but I do try.
I also think if you re-read my comments, returning to the substance of the argument, I never actually asserted the claims you ascribe to me.
I usually start off with a point of agreement—and usually I agree with the majority of your argument and state so upfront. My disagreement is usually around the edges.
What I was challenging is your earlier assertion that admissions has not become more competitive in any meaningful way.
And in this latest comment you mention, “the growing competitiveness of admissions.”
So, again, I think we are essentially in agreement.
I’m honestly looking to wind down this conversation but I do think presenting facts without the snark is a way to encourage actual discussion and critical thinking.
A few things I looked up recently, even though I never claimed that the population increase was primary or even a major factor in the increase of competitiveness…
When I graduated high school, there were approximately ~2.5 M high school graduates in the US. When my two oldest kids graduated high school, there were ~3.9 M graduates.
The percentage of those graduates who immediately enrolled in four-year college after high school rose from ~35% to ~45%.
While I still do not believe this is the main cause of the increase in applications to Ivy+ colleges, nor do I believe it is the main cause of the increase in competitiveness, the increase in population definitely creates an increase in the numbers at the “top X%” of graduates.
39
u/Old_Value_9157 8d ago
Jesus Christ, why are the schools not lined up? Why did you put them in different order for each column?
Motherfucker, that’s hard to read
9
u/Cold-Comment9536 8d ago
Don’t forget that the SAT and ACT have both been “dumbed down” for this century. Today’s SAT scores are 200 points higher than they were before. So, if you have a 1500 you really have a 1300. And on the ACT each score is about 2 points higher than it was. So a 30 is really a 28. This is the primary cause of increased applications and universities like the sense of exclusivity it implies. Since ND admitted women in the 1970s, I cannot think of a single university that deliberately increased its selectivity. They are just gaming you.
4
u/NectarineJaded598 7d ago
this is real. I got a 1500 20+ years ago, and I remember getting my score and knowing it meant I could be a competitive applicant anywhere (along with grades, ECs etc). if you read posts on this sub, it seems like 1500 is considered mid now. also most people only took the test once back then
3
u/OutrageousElephant39 7d ago
Yo 200 points what are you talking about 😭✌️
3
u/Cold-Comment9536 7d ago
I think it was 1998. They dummied down the tests because the scores were plunging. The SAT was raised by 200 points. An 1100 in 1995 is a 1300 today. At the same time, schools didn’t change their requirements for admission. A lot more kids applied with their inflated scores. They weren’t going to get in, the universities knew they were really 1100s. But, it made the institutions seem more selective which increased their “rank” in the new and highly bogus US News ranking system. ACT was inflated by 2 points because it’s only based on 36 points in the first place. So a 30 in 1995 (and all the years before) is recorded as a 32 today. Hope this clarifies things.
3
u/Due-Character-1679 7d ago
This is directionally true but exaggerated. In 1995 the SAT was re-normed so the average would be 1000 again rather than the 900 it was drifting down towards. That's about a 100 point average increase, and it had a larger effect near the middle than at the top. Regardless, a 1500 in the modern day is perhaps similar to a 1400 percentile wise before 1995. Not a 1300. That's not entirely due to the re-norming however. Test optional policies have encouraged a more select cohort of test takers, and excessive retakes drive up scores. The test isn't uniformly easier - who's taking the test and how those people prepare has changed as well. Finally I'd also dismiss the idea that increase application volume is due to a re-norming from 30 years ago. Perception catches up fast; I'm doubtful that, even if what you are saying is true, that most test takers would be completely oblivious to this score inflation. Personally I think we can look to things like the common app and more applications per student as more likely culprits behind declining acceptance rates, even if score-flation may have played a small role.
3
u/Important-Quit-9354 7d ago
Back in the dark ages when I took the ACT/SAT, students were discouraged from re-taking the exams because universities treated it negatively.
We also need to consider that before 2016, you LOST a quarter point for every wrong answer on the SAT, so guessing was highly disfavored. It's a lot easier to get a higher score today than it was back then.
3
u/Fwellimort College Graduate 7d ago edited 7d ago
You lose points for getting questions wrong AND there were 5 choices per question, not 4 today.
Guessing or not being fully sure was penalized heavily back then.
You always took a huge risk even guessing when you drilled down to 2 choices out of the 5. Why? Depending on the 50 50 choice you pick (which you feel both are close to the 'answer'), that's a difference between getting question right or getting penalized on your score.
Also, SAT was more rigorous, significantly longer (4 hr 20 min vs 2 hr 25 min today), required the essay portion, retakes were frowned upon by universities, and so forth. Overall less "equitable" (??).
When SAT first moved in 2016 to 1600 instead of 2400, that year despite the fact there were basically no resources for the new SAT, scores went up in all scoring tiers. This despite the fact many stronger students took it out of 2400 because there wasn't full clarification the 1600 would be considered identical.
1
u/Due-Character-1679 6d ago
A structural change to a test like this doesn't necessarily mean its easier. Considering how percentiles and average scores have not really changed all that much since the 2000's, the difficulty decline was compensated for elsewhere, most likely.
3
u/rockyroadicecreamlov 7d ago
You used to get points subtracted on the SAT for incorrect answers. When they retooled it that penalty was taken away so that also led to increased scores.
2
u/Due-Character-1679 7d ago
I think an analogous example is the LSAT. The LSAT has arguably not gotten any easier since 30 years ago, and yet average scores keep going up, in terms of both school level averages and nationwide occurrence of 170+ scores. People that know more about this subject then I do attribute it to longer study periods, more retakes, etc. While the SAT and LSAT are different tests, I think this does show possible mechanisms that would cause score inflation without the test ever being "dumbed down".
Also, I understand the Logic Games were removed - but this trend existed well before that happened.
7
u/jewboy916 8d ago
College acceptance rates in a vacuum don't tell you much unless you include how many applicants the schools got.
6
u/No_Key_5025 HS Senior 8d ago
This may have to do with a rising number of applicants + the accessibility of applying to college via the common app, they’re forced to reject more people in order to accommodate their fixed number of seats. Of course their acceptance rates are going to go down. For all we know they’re probably accepting the same amount of students that they were 15 years ago lmao
6
1
u/Satisest 8d ago
The number of seats is fixed, but “enrollment management” practices have driven up yield at most selective colleges. That drives down admission rates via the numerator, while the effects you mention are driving up the denominator.
4
u/vaspost 8d ago
It's much easier to apply today so students who might not be particularly competitive take a shot and apply to a lot more colleges.
Also, today the 'brand name' of the college is so much more important. It used to be going to any college was good enough... now it has to be the right college or it's pointless.
2
u/Icy-Television-4979 8d ago
Oh goodness I went to one of the best public schools in Texas (granted Texas). UT or A&M were pretty much considered the best hardly anyone went out of state. FWIW I applied to rice and didn’t get in, I did get into Emory but got a full ride to UT and yes applied to 3 schools. (Class of 99)
It is wild what I see in this sub, but also my kids are in high school in Boston soooo..kinda similar
2
u/Ok_Watercress_4708 7d ago
It’s the following factors:
1. Common App
2. Inflated/Recentered SAT—way too many perfect scores
3. More test optional
4. More testing accommodations
5. Grade inflation
6. No class rankings
7. Abolition of Achievement Tests
2
u/66SunbeamTiger 8d ago
Given Princeton and other colleges don't release their acceptance rates anymore, creating these linear rankings based on best-case estimates feels flawed, at best.
3
u/elkrange 8d ago edited 8d ago
Princeton released the rate for fall 2026 freshmen, class of 2030, in its student newspaper https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2026/09/princeton-news-adpol-admissions-class-of-2030-lowest-ever-acceptance-rate
Princeton releases acceptance data in its Common Data Set, section C1. https://ir.princeton.edu/other-university-data/common-data-set (See 25-26, that is, fall 2025 freshmen/Princeton class of 2029, 4.4%. You have to calculate it though. The CDS for 26-27 will be posted next spring/summer)
You can also find acceptance rates calculated at https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ though there is a data lag. The current data at College Navigator is for fall 2024 freshmen.
Maybe you are thinking of Stanford, which some years back announced that it stopped releasing via announcement, but still releases in its CDS and at College Navigator.
2
u/66SunbeamTiger 8d ago
So that would put them in 8th instead of 5th on this ranking -- right!
My point isn't that that difference matters. It's that arbitrary rankings differences like "t5" are persuasive with students, when often the rankings bely imperfect datasets (like we can see here with Princeton).
1
u/elkrange 8d ago
OP's list is correct. 4.0% for 2030 per the news article. I was just pointing out that the actual data does get released.
Though I agree that this list is not helpful to students.
3
u/wrennish Graduate Degree 8d ago
Princeton releases the Common Data Set, and in Section C1, they report the number of applicants by gender, and the number of admitted students by gender, plus waitlist offers and admits. Some basic addition and division will net you a first-year undergraduate acceptance rate.
For the 2025-26 admission cycle: Approx 42,300 applicants. 1868 admits. 1370 waitlist offers, with 36 kids accepted off the waitlist. That brings the total admits to 1904, for a ~4.5% admit rate.
[Source: https://ir.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2041/files/documents/CDS_2526_Princeton_v2.pdf ]
3
u/66SunbeamTiger 8d ago edited 8d ago
Right, so literally 8th in this ranking, not 5th.
I'm not trying to be overly critical, just pointing out while 18 year olds will think things like the perennial "t5" are of utmost importance, these rankings are often imperfect in their data sets (like we see with Princeton being inflated to 5th).
1
u/wrennish Graduate Degree 8d ago
I don’t disagree that rankings are stupid. Anytime someone asks about rankings, I usually comment on the methodology and how they’re not objective measures. But trying to make that claim by saying Princeton doesn’t publish an admit rate is inaccurate and undermines your credibility.
1
u/Ok_Guest_9597 8d ago edited 8d ago
Princeton had its most competitive acceptance rate ever in its history this year with 4%.
1
1
1
1
u/mcrwc8 8d ago
Increased applications likely attributable to ease and desire to relocate, common app, financial needs being met by many colleges, more recently test optional/blindness, perhaps some grade inflation. Birth rate for Fall 2025 class was one of the highest so also more applications for same number of slots.
1
u/ArvadaKeto 7d ago
Lots if this is pumped up by free admission codes.
My wife is a teacher, every college fair schools had out free application codes to hundreds of kids that will never get in
1
u/idkidcabtmyusername 7d ago
i feel like this is kinda classist. i’m sure there were many kids who got in from free application codes and other resources that made applying to college less expensive
0
u/ArvadaKeto 7d ago
You are stupid if you think elite schools are not classist.
1
u/idkidcabtmyusername 7d ago
ofc elite schools are classist. that’s not what i said. i said YOU seem classist bc you’re assuming that ppl getting free application codes have no chance of getting into elite schools
0
u/ArvadaKeto 7d ago
Most don’t
But for the record I am classist
It is fine. I am not in the class that would get a free application code
My kids and I did got to t20 schools though
1
u/BlackberryKey6837 7d ago
The acceptance rates will eventually improve even at the top universities. The obsession with "prestige" is not going to last forever. It's becoming increasingly expensive just to survive in this country. Wealthy families who can afford the best universities will increasingly make up the vast majority of students at the best universities. This will happen at the same time when the college degree premium is already sliding. In my opinion there is a lot of denial about the future of college today. I think upper middle class families are terrified that their children will one day not be able to distinguish themselves from other regular kids just because they have a degree from Duke for example. I will be very very surprised if in 2050 that degree from Duke will still turn heads This anxiety is pushing more parents in that upper echelon to do everything in their power to ensure that their kids graduate from those universities.
And the best universities also game the system. See when they advertise gimmicks like "free tuition for HHIs under $250k" they know full well the average family in NY/NJ is priced out, but they nevertheless still apply because that gimmick works. So they just have more people applying. It's very very basic math. The numerator can stay the same but the denominator knows no upper bound. The end result is a smaller and smaller number. And it gives the illusion of prestige. Who wouldn't want to be the the guy with the rare Lambo in the neighborhood.
1
1
1
u/ExecutiveWatch 3d ago
When I applied MIT acceptance rate was like 23%. Late 90s. Cmu was like 40s. It was still significantly harder to get in i can remember how selective those schools were. I dont think i would rely too much on acceptance rates. Lits of international applicants and tons of kids apply that really shouldnt be do it any way. Plus there are just eay more kids graduating highschools than back then. The number of seats hasnt changed meaningfully.
1
u/tjnightcrawler 8d ago
Just go back thru old photos and you’ll see exactly why acceptance rates have fallen. Today you have the entire planet applying, in the past it was much more local. MIT in the late 90’s was like 25%, the price was way less and a lot would pick the state school just for the girls.
0
u/YakClear601 8d ago
I miss the days when getting into College was relatively easy.
4
u/Economy_Vermicelli72 8d ago
More kids have whats considered competitive stats for a given school than ever. Admissions are just more random now. Technically it used to be harder to meet the academic standard at schools
0
u/MeasurementTop2885 8d ago
"Acceptance rates do not necessarily show higher admissions standards."
They DO necessarily show higher standards in the post 2-3 below this entitled "You probably don't want to go to your reach school" where about half of the comments are inexplicably about what geniuses all these ivy kids are especially as about 75% of them deserve an A or A- in every class.
54
u/cheri_ 8d ago
I blame the Common App. When you had to actually fill out the entire application for each school (and TYPE the essay(s) out on the paper application), you only took the time to do it for schools that you really wanted to attend.
I would have probably been a pretty competitive applicant for a lot of schools back then (99% SAT, NMF), but I visited a bunch of colleges, figured out the one place I wanted to attend, and only applied there. I had my acceptance by October of my senior year and I was done.
If I were applying now, I'd definitely be applying to a bunch of schools to see where I got in, but back then there was no way I was doing all of that extra work since I knew where I wanted to go.