Seventy-eight years ago it was much simpler. I made a single application, to Purdue university. The tuition was $50/semester ($725 in today's dollars); Purdue had an extension in my home town, making board and room much cheaper; the public library was a good place to study; and it and the school were within easy walking distance.
I do not envy today's HS graduates or their parents.
Super interesting write-up! I think we definitely see prestige as factual or natural when it's really a marketing tactic (I'm looking at you, BU, which was my dream school in HS & crushed me when I didn't get in). I'm an admissions counselor at a decidedly *not* selective, small, private college. These trends are really brutal to smaller universities without crazy endowments to rely on. Not only are students applying to 20+ schools, but they often enroll at multiple and then cancel later on. This really affects schools like the one I work at, which has declining enrollment. Not to mention this upcoming cycle will be the first of the "demographic cliff"-- less kids were born in 2008-2011ish because of the recession. There will simply not be enough 17-18 year-olds to fill all the seats available. Schools with the prestige factor don't have to worry about this, but it may be devastating to smaller universities.
Thanks so much for the note! So interesting and that makes sense about less selective schools. Has there been a push for a centralized body to control the application craziness? Like cap applications to 10 or something? I guess early decision is one solution but obviously hasn’t solved it
Not to my knowledge! There have been smaller efforts. My school now has nonrefundable enrollment deposit fees in order to deter depositing at more than one school. Something more centralized would be tricky as, in many ways, changes like the Common App have made the process more equitable for students. So there are pros and cons both ways
I hate the discourse on undergraduate university selection. It's all based on meaningless rankings rather than the things that matter. The value of your degree is based on the strength of the program you studied under and the name recognition of your major professors who are going to write you letters of recommendation. Studying at a big-name school that has nobody expert in your field is a terrible decision (though the Ivies try really hard to cover everything). And studying at a state school under an up-and-coming professor who gets hired away to teach at Harvard or Yale is a great way to not pay the latter's prices. But all this depends on knowing your major early on, educating yourself on who's important within the field, and making strategic choices.
Yes, I wrote this for someone going on to grad school. But a modified version of the same advice applies for someone who's looking for corporate, government, or non-profit work immediately after undergrad. As an undergraduate student you want either an internship with whoever you want to hire you after undergrad, or to be a research assistant helping your professor do work that is funded or otherwise affiliated with the corporations for government entities that you'd like later like to work for.
Duke doesn’t need the publicity! They get plenty every spring.
I’m not sure how much universities think like this, but it’s interesting to think that a lower profile school like WashU would be willing to be riskier in its PR than duke
Didn’t go to Wash U, but I remember it was the first university to send me something in the mail my junior year of high school. Didn’t know much about them besides I saw them everywhere and assumed (incorrectly) they needed enrollment numbers. Interesting read !
Acceptance rates alone are a poor data point. Many parents coach their high school children to "prestige shop" when doing applications. Meaning applying to "top 20" schools in majors that have way less comptetion or applicants to boost chances of acceptance. Many parents/high schoolers would rather be accepted to a top 20 in a major that has zero career opportunities and no scholarship then be at a low ranked school with an in demand and challenging major and scholarship dollars. This is what leads to the un/under employed massively in debt graduate still living at home. Well at least they got into Duke or whatever. The practical advice is to pick an employable major and go to a state school in the state you live in or the school that gives you the most scholarship dollars out of state. No scholarship means they just want you to fund the students they are giving money to.
The UK solved the problem years ago with a national admissions system that caps the number of colleges you can apply to or accept offers from, which you have to do before you take your A levels. Nearly all offers are conditional on grades and must be accepted before you have taken your exams. The offers are steep at the top end.
Very interesting.
Seventy-eight years ago it was much simpler. I made a single application, to Purdue university. The tuition was $50/semester ($725 in today's dollars); Purdue had an extension in my home town, making board and room much cheaper; the public library was a good place to study; and it and the school were within easy walking distance.
I do not envy today's HS graduates or their parents.
And you learned a lot!
Super interesting write-up! I think we definitely see prestige as factual or natural when it's really a marketing tactic (I'm looking at you, BU, which was my dream school in HS & crushed me when I didn't get in). I'm an admissions counselor at a decidedly *not* selective, small, private college. These trends are really brutal to smaller universities without crazy endowments to rely on. Not only are students applying to 20+ schools, but they often enroll at multiple and then cancel later on. This really affects schools like the one I work at, which has declining enrollment. Not to mention this upcoming cycle will be the first of the "demographic cliff"-- less kids were born in 2008-2011ish because of the recession. There will simply not be enough 17-18 year-olds to fill all the seats available. Schools with the prestige factor don't have to worry about this, but it may be devastating to smaller universities.
Thanks so much for the note! So interesting and that makes sense about less selective schools. Has there been a push for a centralized body to control the application craziness? Like cap applications to 10 or something? I guess early decision is one solution but obviously hasn’t solved it
Not to my knowledge! There have been smaller efforts. My school now has nonrefundable enrollment deposit fees in order to deter depositing at more than one school. Something more centralized would be tricky as, in many ways, changes like the Common App have made the process more equitable for students. So there are pros and cons both ways
I hate the discourse on undergraduate university selection. It's all based on meaningless rankings rather than the things that matter. The value of your degree is based on the strength of the program you studied under and the name recognition of your major professors who are going to write you letters of recommendation. Studying at a big-name school that has nobody expert in your field is a terrible decision (though the Ivies try really hard to cover everything). And studying at a state school under an up-and-coming professor who gets hired away to teach at Harvard or Yale is a great way to not pay the latter's prices. But all this depends on knowing your major early on, educating yourself on who's important within the field, and making strategic choices.
This seems right if you’re going to grad school - is that the main track you’re thinking of?
Yes, I wrote this for someone going on to grad school. But a modified version of the same advice applies for someone who's looking for corporate, government, or non-profit work immediately after undergrad. As an undergraduate student you want either an internship with whoever you want to hire you after undergrad, or to be a research assistant helping your professor do work that is funded or otherwise affiliated with the corporations for government entities that you'd like later like to work for.
Kudos for having the courage to skewer your own school. Mine (Duke) was lame for that complaint.
Duke doesn’t need the publicity! They get plenty every spring.
I’m not sure how much universities think like this, but it’s interesting to think that a lower profile school like WashU would be willing to be riskier in its PR than duke
Also this is another amazing takedown of universities gaming the rankings. https://www.experimental-history.com/p/how-to-drive-a-stake-through-your
Didn’t go to Wash U, but I remember it was the first university to send me something in the mail my junior year of high school. Didn’t know much about them besides I saw them everywhere and assumed (incorrectly) they needed enrollment numbers. Interesting read !
They’re good at marketing!!
Go Terriers!
Acceptance rates alone are a poor data point. Many parents coach their high school children to "prestige shop" when doing applications. Meaning applying to "top 20" schools in majors that have way less comptetion or applicants to boost chances of acceptance. Many parents/high schoolers would rather be accepted to a top 20 in a major that has zero career opportunities and no scholarship then be at a low ranked school with an in demand and challenging major and scholarship dollars. This is what leads to the un/under employed massively in debt graduate still living at home. Well at least they got into Duke or whatever. The practical advice is to pick an employable major and go to a state school in the state you live in or the school that gives you the most scholarship dollars out of state. No scholarship means they just want you to fund the students they are giving money to.
The UK solved the problem years ago with a national admissions system that caps the number of colleges you can apply to or accept offers from, which you have to do before you take your A levels. Nearly all offers are conditional on grades and must be accepted before you have taken your exams. The offers are steep at the top end.
The UK can do that because almost all unis (and all the ones of any repute) are public and controlled by the state.
Hard to see how you would be able to herd all the cats (er, colleges) together in the US, though.
Not proposing it for the US. Illustrating that it’s not unsolvable.
I mean, many issues are "solvable" in a narrow sense if you don't mind trade-offs and have dictatorial powers.
They have a clearing system at the end for those who make a mess of it btw.