[yvonne]

the Stanford of the East

Back in the  old days, the student t-shirt shop in Tressider sold clever student-designed shirts. I have one with a teddy b--r impaled with a piece of hardware along with the words "screw the B--rs." Another read "Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Banned." Yet another was crimson with the Harvard seal, the word Harvard above it, and below, "because not everyone can get into Stanford."

[yvonne]

the Stanford of the East

Back in the  old days, the student t-shirt shop in Tressider sold clever student-designed shirts. I have one with a teddy b--r impaled with a piece of hardware along with the words "screw the B--rs." Another read "Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Banned." Yet another was crimson with the Harvard seal, the word Harvard above it, and below, "because not everyone can get into Stanford."

[Mick]

CornFed ~
Iowa consistently ranks at the top for public school performance on standardized tests. Among the three colleges where I have taught, I found Iowa State students to be the best students by far, and the best prepared for college.

I was in an audience when Ed McCracken (native Iowan, ex-HP, ex CEO of SGI) informed everyone of that fact...

[Mick]

CornFed ~
Iowa consistently ranks at the top for public school performance on standardized tests. Among the three colleges where I have taught, I found Iowa State students to be the best students by far, and the best prepared for college.

I was in an audience when Ed McCracken (native Iowan, ex-HP, ex CEO of SGI) informed everyone of that fact...

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=9773.msg87247#msg87247 date=1396684033]
I had a Stanford dormmate from South Dakota, but that was some years ago.

Same here. She referred to herself as "the South Dakota quota".  :D
[/quote]

Are we talking about the same one?  Currently at Wharton? :p

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=9773.msg87247#msg87247 date=1396684033]
I had a Stanford dormmate from South Dakota, but that was some years ago.

Same here. She referred to herself as "the South Dakota quota".  :D
[/quote]

Are we talking about the same one?  Currently at Wharton? :p

[ColoradoTree]

Regarding the smaller percentages of students in the Upper Midwest taking the SAT, I would place less emphasis on the availability of agricultural jobs and more on the fact that more students in that part of the country take the ACT instead. 

As to why, I'm not entirely sure.  But I do know that there has long been a geographical bias in favor of the ACT in the Upper Midwest.  See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/educat...nted=all.  When I was graduating from a Minnesota high school in 1999, this was still very much the case.  Everyone I knew took the ACT, and a much smaller percentage took the SAT.  While Minnesota colleges accept both the ACT and SAT (as far as I know), there was a perception among students that Minnesota colleges preferred the ACT because of a greater familiarity with the test, and some students believed that local schools required the ACT but not the SAT.  (I don't know if that was true then or is true now, but it was a widely-held belief.) 

According to this study (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publ...buttal.pdf), just 11% of Minnesota high school graduates in 2005 took the SAT, but 66% took the SAT.  The disparity is more pronounced in some other states.  For example, Mississippi had 94% of graduating seniors take the ACT, while just 4% took the SAT.  On the other hand, New Jersey's split was 86/6 the other way. 

[ColoradoTree]

Regarding the smaller percentages of students in the Upper Midwest taking the SAT, I would place less emphasis on the availability of agricultural jobs and more on the fact that more students in that part of the country take the ACT instead. 

As to why, I'm not entirely sure.  But I do know that there has long been a geographical bias in favor of the ACT in the Upper Midwest.  See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/educat...nted=all.  When I was graduating from a Minnesota high school in 1999, this was still very much the case.  Everyone I knew took the ACT, and a much smaller percentage took the SAT.  While Minnesota colleges accept both the ACT and SAT (as far as I know), there was a perception among students that Minnesota colleges preferred the ACT because of a greater familiarity with the test, and some students believed that local schools required the ACT but not the SAT.  (I don't know if that was true then or is true now, but it was a widely-held belief.) 

According to this study (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publ...buttal.pdf), just 11% of Minnesota high school graduates in 2005 took the SAT, but 66% took the SAT.  The disparity is more pronounced in some other states.  For example, Mississippi had 94% of graduating seniors take the ACT, while just 4% took the SAT.  On the other hand, New Jersey's split was 86/6 the other way. 

[Spiny_Norman]

Regarding the smaller percentages of students in the Upper Midwest taking the SAT, I would place less emphasis on the availability of agricultural jobs and more on the fact that more students in that part of the country take the ACT instead. 

As to why, I'm not entirely sure.  But I do know that there has long been a geographical bias in favor of the ACT in the Upper Midwest.  See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/educat...nted=all.  When I was graduating from a Minnesota high school in 1999, this was still very much the case.  Everyone I knew took the ACT, and a much smaller percentage took the SAT.  While Minnesota colleges accept both the ACT and SAT (as far as I know), there was a perception among students that Minnesota colleges preferred the ACT because of a greater familiarity with the test, and some students believed that local schools required the ACT but not the SAT.  (I don't know if that was true then or is true now, but it was a widely-held belief.) 

According to this study (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publ...buttal.pdf), just 11% of Minnesota high school graduates in 2005 took the SAT, but 66% took the SAT.  The disparity is more pronounced in some other states.  For example, Mississippi had 94% of graduating seniors take the ACT, while just 4% took the SAT.  On the other hand, New Jersey's split was 86/6 the other way.

Admissions-wise, it should not matter whether a prospective Stanford student takes the ACT or SAT.  Stanford Admissions accepts either the SAT or ACT Plus Writing.

[Spiny_Norman]

Regarding the smaller percentages of students in the Upper Midwest taking the SAT, I would place less emphasis on the availability of agricultural jobs and more on the fact that more students in that part of the country take the ACT instead. 

As to why, I'm not entirely sure.  But I do know that there has long been a geographical bias in favor of the ACT in the Upper Midwest.  See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/educat...nted=all.  When I was graduating from a Minnesota high school in 1999, this was still very much the case.  Everyone I knew took the ACT, and a much smaller percentage took the SAT.  While Minnesota colleges accept both the ACT and SAT (as far as I know), there was a perception among students that Minnesota colleges preferred the ACT because of a greater familiarity with the test, and some students believed that local schools required the ACT but not the SAT.  (I don't know if that was true then or is true now, but it was a widely-held belief.) 

According to this study (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publ...buttal.pdf), just 11% of Minnesota high school graduates in 2005 took the SAT, but 66% took the SAT.  The disparity is more pronounced in some other states.  For example, Mississippi had 94% of graduating seniors take the ACT, while just 4% took the SAT.  On the other hand, New Jersey's split was 86/6 the other way.

Admissions-wise, it should not matter whether a prospective Stanford student takes the ACT or SAT.  Stanford Admissions accepts either the SAT or ACT Plus Writing.

[SUBuddha]

Nice to know that Cory Booker asks the very question many of us had, "How'd I get in here?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ39FswOyFk

[SUBuddha]

Nice to know that Cory Booker asks the very question many of us had, "How'd I get in here?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ39FswOyFk

[Kathy]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=9773.msg87262#msg87262 date=1396731411]
CornFed ~
Iowa consistently ranks at the top for public school performance on standardized tests. Among the three colleges where I have taught, I found Iowa State students to be the best students by far, and the best prepared for college.

As a Midwesterner, I'm familiar with this phenomenon, and have read about it.  It has to do with a smaller % of people taking the test due to opportunities for jobs in the agriculture sector that do not require a college education.  A google search turned up this mildly interesting article.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...blogs&_r=0
[/quote]

The standardized tests I refer to are NOT college entrance exams; they are the tests administered to all students that assess student performance/competency in elementary and secondary school. SAT/ACT scores are irrelevant to these rankings.

And if you think agricultural jobs do not require a college education, you are hopelessly out of touch with the way in which the world's food supply is produced. Today's agriculture requires extensive knowledge of technology, biology, physiology, plant science, chemistry, geology, hydrology, mechanics and a slew of other topics. Americans recognized the need for college-level education in agriculture back in the 19th century.  The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 provided for the creation of land-grant colleges for the purpose of teaching  agriculture, engineering and military tactics.

[Kathy]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=9773.msg87262#msg87262 date=1396731411]
CornFed ~
Iowa consistently ranks at the top for public school performance on standardized tests. Among the three colleges where I have taught, I found Iowa State students to be the best students by far, and the best prepared for college.

As a Midwesterner, I'm familiar with this phenomenon, and have read about it.  It has to do with a smaller % of people taking the test due to opportunities for jobs in the agriculture sector that do not require a college education.  A google search turned up this mildly interesting article.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...blogs&_r=0
[/quote]

The standardized tests I refer to are NOT college entrance exams; they are the tests administered to all students that assess student performance/competency in elementary and secondary school. SAT/ACT scores are irrelevant to these rankings.

And if you think agricultural jobs do not require a college education, you are hopelessly out of touch with the way in which the world's food supply is produced. Today's agriculture requires extensive knowledge of technology, biology, physiology, plant science, chemistry, geology, hydrology, mechanics and a slew of other topics. Americans recognized the need for college-level education in agriculture back in the 19th century.  The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 provided for the creation of land-grant colleges for the purpose of teaching  agriculture, engineering and military tactics.

[Kathy]

I don't remember where I saw the rankings ... Iowa was No. 1 one year and close to that many other times. Iowa, the Dakotas & Utah, I believe, rotated in and out of the top positions. It caught my eye because the Ames school district was tops & we used to live in Ames (our oldest son was born there).

Agriculture education is valuable to more than the 2% of Americans who own farms. And owners aren't the only farmers. Believe me, farmers are too busy being productive to spend their days trading corn futures. That's for crazy gamblers!

[Kathy]

I don't remember where I saw the rankings ... Iowa was No. 1 one year and close to that many other times. Iowa, the Dakotas & Utah, I believe, rotated in and out of the top positions. It caught my eye because the Ames school district was tops & we used to live in Ames (our oldest son was born there).

Agriculture education is valuable to more than the 2% of Americans who own farms. And owners aren't the only farmers. Believe me, farmers are too busy being productive to spend their days trading corn futures. That's for crazy gamblers!

[Mick]

And if you think agricultural jobs do not require a college education, you are hopelessly out of touch with the way in which the world's food supply is produced. Today's agriculture requires extensive knowledge of technology, biology, physiology, plant science, chemistry, geology, hydrology, mechanics and a slew of other topics. Americans recognized the need for college-level education in agriculture back in the 19th century.  The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 provided for the creation of land-grant colleges for the purpose of teaching  agriculture, engineering and military tactics.

My family has a vertically-integrated business that involves farms, dryers, canneries and the like.  It was started by my grandfather, Stanford class of '42.  It's a glamorous business, they transform French plums into prunes, and pack, sell and distribute it worldwide.  In the late 1970s/early 1980s (which is when I last worked in the business) they sold product in 48 countries.  At the time, about 85% of the world's prunes were grown in California.  I distinctly recall talking to my uncle about technology in the business; they used sensors on the outside of prunes to measure internal pressure which indicated sugar content.  That would indicate whether the plums/prunes would ultimately end up as juice, concentrate or prunes for sale in various conditions.

[Mick]

And if you think agricultural jobs do not require a college education, you are hopelessly out of touch with the way in which the world's food supply is produced. Today's agriculture requires extensive knowledge of technology, biology, physiology, plant science, chemistry, geology, hydrology, mechanics and a slew of other topics. Americans recognized the need for college-level education in agriculture back in the 19th century.  The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 provided for the creation of land-grant colleges for the purpose of teaching  agriculture, engineering and military tactics.

My family has a vertically-integrated business that involves farms, dryers, canneries and the like.  It was started by my grandfather, Stanford class of '42.  It's a glamorous business, they transform French plums into prunes, and pack, sell and distribute it worldwide.  In the late 1970s/early 1980s (which is when I last worked in the business) they sold product in 48 countries.  At the time, about 85% of the world's prunes were grown in California.  I distinctly recall talking to my uncle about technology in the business; they used sensors on the outside of prunes to measure internal pressure which indicated sugar content.  That would indicate whether the plums/prunes would ultimately end up as juice, concentrate or prunes for sale in various conditions.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, the technology in modern agriculture is something to behold.  Modern tractors are GPS controlled, and capable of planting seeds to within fractions of an inch, then coming back weeks later to inject fertilizer, to within fractions of an inch of where the seed was planted.

The next frontier is robotically picking delicate fruit.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1944396668

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, the technology in modern agriculture is something to behold.  Modern tractors are GPS controlled, and capable of planting seeds to within fractions of an inch, then coming back weeks later to inject fertilizer, to within fractions of an inch of where the seed was planted.

The next frontier is robotically picking delicate fruit.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1944396668

BC

[CowboyIndian]

  It's a glamorous business, they transform French plums into prunes....

Well, I have another view, having driven a prune shaker for 50 straight 12-hour, 100-degree days back in the early 70s north of Yuba City....following in the footsteps of Juan Corona: http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/corona.htm.

And that wasn't the low end of the totem pole, either. That would be the Mexican women and kids who picked our drops from the ground and deposited them in BIG boxes (about 4-foot cubes as I recall). At that time, they received $25 per box. My worldview was literally shaken. I would go home and sit still with a beer and watch the world vibrate. And then, come fall, there was the Jack Christiansen era.....

For an unsentimental look at tree-fruit-picking (and club boxing) in the Valley before machines took over, take a look at "Fat City"....the book and movie:

[CowboyIndian]

  It's a glamorous business, they transform French plums into prunes....

Well, I have another view, having driven a prune shaker for 50 straight 12-hour, 100-degree days back in the early 70s north of Yuba City....following in the footsteps of Juan Corona: http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/corona.htm.

And that wasn't the low end of the totem pole, either. That would be the Mexican women and kids who picked our drops from the ground and deposited them in BIG boxes (about 4-foot cubes as I recall). At that time, they received $25 per box. My worldview was literally shaken. I would go home and sit still with a beer and watch the world vibrate. And then, come fall, there was the Jack Christiansen era.....

For an unsentimental look at tree-fruit-picking (and club boxing) in the Valley before machines took over, take a look at "Fat City"....the book and movie:

[washingtonismoney]

A couple of fascinating pieces of journalism about agriculture and tech:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...3869192124

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/...ct_specter

[washingtonismoney]

A couple of fascinating pieces of journalism about agriculture and tech:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...3869192124

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/...ct_specter

[needle]

I haven't followed this thread 100 percent, but The Upshot (a New York Times vertical, is how I'd describe it) weighs in using Census data and stats on foreign admits to claim it is harder than ever to get into the most selective schools.

In 2012, about 33 out of every 100,000 American 18- to 21-year-olds were attending Harvard, down from 45 per 100,000 in 1994. These changes in the share tell you how much harder, or easier, admission has become for American teenagers on average. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/upshot...?src=rechp

This analysis seems way oversimplified to me. Looking at how the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds who are high school graduates has changed over time would be more meaningful. And I would actually be interested if financial data on admits (admits by class) could be matched with the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds with high school degrees in that same economic class (general college-ready pop. by class).

But any analysis assuming *everyone* wants to go to a highly-selective university (I would reluctantly accept Harvard as a proxy for these schools) is not especially grounded in reality.

[needle]

I haven't followed this thread 100 percent, but The Upshot (a New York Times vertical, is how I'd describe it) weighs in using Census data and stats on foreign admits to claim it is harder than ever to get into the most selective schools.

In 2012, about 33 out of every 100,000 American 18- to 21-year-olds were attending Harvard, down from 45 per 100,000 in 1994. These changes in the share tell you how much harder, or easier, admission has become for American teenagers on average. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/upshot...?src=rechp

This analysis seems way oversimplified to me. Looking at how the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds who are high school graduates has changed over time would be more meaningful. And I would actually be interested if financial data on admits (admits by class) could be matched with the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds with high school degrees in that same economic class (general college-ready pop. by class).

But any analysis assuming *everyone* wants to go to a highly-selective university (I would reluctantly accept Harvard as a proxy for these schools) is not especially grounded in reality.

[CTcard]

I haven't followed this thread 100 percent, but The Upshot (a New York Times vertical, is how I'd describe it) weighs in using Census data and stats on foreign admits to claim it is harder than ever to get into the most selective schools.

In 2012, about 33 out of every 100,000 American 18- to 21-year-olds were attending Harvard, down from 45 per 100,000 in 1994. These changes in the share tell you how much harder, or easier, admission has become for American teenagers on average. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/upshot...?src=rechp

This analysis seems way oversimplified to me. Looking at how the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds who are high school graduates has changed over time would be more meaningful. And I would actually be interested if financial data on admits (admits by class) could be matched with the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds with high school degrees in that same economic class (general college-ready pop. by class).

But any analysis assuming *everyone* wants to go to a highly-selective university (I would reluctantly accept Harvard as a proxy for these schools) is not especially grounded in reality.

I just ran into this article independently.

I think that you are correct in questioning the assumption that everyone wants to go to a highly-selective university. More precisely the issue is whether the fraction of potentially qualified students that actively attempt to get into a highly-selective university has been steady over time. It almost certainly has not. Much more so over the past 60 years, but also true over the past 30 years, highly-selective universities have admitted a higher number of students from most minority groups and a wider socio-economic background. Since many people know that, it almost certainly has widened the pool of students who imagine they can get into these schools and thus try to do so. I think that is the main trend that has changed how hard it is to get into a highly-selective university. Of course the average effect of this over the entire country is zero by definition, but the effect on folks from groups who would have applied in either the new or older scenarios is significant.

-------------
As to the article itself, I don't quite believe the numbers. I went to the web sites he listed but couldn't find most of the numbers he was using. Couldn't bring myself to dig more deeply than that. So, maybe there is something curious about the exact years he used (1984, 1994, 4, 2012 - though mostly he used 1984 and 2012), maybe something else.

So, while I don't quite believe his numbers,  let's take them at face value: the number of American 18 year olds is about the same, the number of foreign students went from 5% to 10% of the class, and we'll assume Stanford's class size stayed the same. That all adds up to the number of spots available to Americans dropped by just over 5% (the 5% increase in foreign students over the orignal 95% American). Yet he has Stanford at -17%, over a factor of three larger. Hard to figure where that came from, especially since I think his numbers are off in the other direction.

From what I remember the demographics is about right (the high point would have been several years before 1984), Stanford has increased class size by about 100 per year (I see 1765 in the Common Data Set for the class entering 2013 - and I remember 1600 or maybe a little more in mid-early 1980s), and I think I remember being told students from foreign high schools were just under 10% (I was one). The Stanford web site has an entering class profile that lists 8% of the class with foreign geographic origin for class of 2013. The fractions are probably close, and it's hard to believe it changed by more than 5%.
Common Data Set: https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2013
2013-2014 entering class profile:  http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile

So, I am suspicious of the numbers in that article. Also, the biggest effect on the trumpeted admission rates is a large increase in number of applications per student which raises the denominator in an artificial manner. Nevertheless, I do think there has been a demographic change [ongoing?] that has led to more strong students try to get into Stanford and other highly-selective universities, and that is likely a big effect.

[CTcard]

I haven't followed this thread 100 percent, but The Upshot (a New York Times vertical, is how I'd describe it) weighs in using Census data and stats on foreign admits to claim it is harder than ever to get into the most selective schools.

In 2012, about 33 out of every 100,000 American 18- to 21-year-olds were attending Harvard, down from 45 per 100,000 in 1994. These changes in the share tell you how much harder, or easier, admission has become for American teenagers on average. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/upshot...?src=rechp

This analysis seems way oversimplified to me. Looking at how the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds who are high school graduates has changed over time would be more meaningful. And I would actually be interested if financial data on admits (admits by class) could be matched with the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds with high school degrees in that same economic class (general college-ready pop. by class).

But any analysis assuming *everyone* wants to go to a highly-selective university (I would reluctantly accept Harvard as a proxy for these schools) is not especially grounded in reality.

I just ran into this article independently.

I think that you are correct in questioning the assumption that everyone wants to go to a highly-selective university. More precisely the issue is whether the fraction of potentially qualified students that actively attempt to get into a highly-selective university has been steady over time. It almost certainly has not. Much more so over the past 60 years, but also true over the past 30 years, highly-selective universities have admitted a higher number of students from most minority groups and a wider socio-economic background. Since many people know that, it almost certainly has widened the pool of students who imagine they can get into these schools and thus try to do so. I think that is the main trend that has changed how hard it is to get into a highly-selective university. Of course the average effect of this over the entire country is zero by definition, but the effect on folks from groups who would have applied in either the new or older scenarios is significant.

-------------
As to the article itself, I don't quite believe the numbers. I went to the web sites he listed but couldn't find most of the numbers he was using. Couldn't bring myself to dig more deeply than that. So, maybe there is something curious about the exact years he used (1984, 1994, 4, 2012 - though mostly he used 1984 and 2012), maybe something else.

So, while I don't quite believe his numbers,  let's take them at face value: the number of American 18 year olds is about the same, the number of foreign students went from 5% to 10% of the class, and we'll assume Stanford's class size stayed the same. That all adds up to the number of spots available to Americans dropped by just over 5% (the 5% increase in foreign students over the orignal 95% American). Yet he has Stanford at -17%, over a factor of three larger. Hard to figure where that came from, especially since I think his numbers are off in the other direction.

From what I remember the demographics is about right (the high point would have been several years before 1984), Stanford has increased class size by about 100 per year (I see 1765 in the Common Data Set for the class entering 2013 - and I remember 1600 or maybe a little more in mid-early 1980s), and I think I remember being told students from foreign high schools were just under 10% (I was one). The Stanford web site has an entering class profile that lists 8% of the class with foreign geographic origin for class of 2013. The fractions are probably close, and it's hard to believe it changed by more than 5%.
Common Data Set: https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2013
2013-2014 entering class profile:  http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile

So, I am suspicious of the numbers in that article. Also, the biggest effect on the trumpeted admission rates is a large increase in number of applications per student which raises the denominator in an artificial manner. Nevertheless, I do think there has been a demographic change [ongoing?] that has led to more strong students try to get into Stanford and other highly-selective universities, and that is likely a big effect.

[82lsju]

Stanford has increased class size by about 100 per year (I see 1765 in the Common Data Set for the class entering 2013 - and I remember 1600 or maybe a little more in mid-early 1980s)

In 1970, the undergraduate class size was 6,221; in 1980 it was 6,630; last year [2006 or maybe 2007] it was 6,689.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/mag...e_id=32005

and from your link

for 2013-14 it was 6,980

http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2013#enrollment

so an increase in undergrad population of 12% from 1970

[82lsju]

Stanford has increased class size by about 100 per year (I see 1765 in the Common Data Set for the class entering 2013 - and I remember 1600 or maybe a little more in mid-early 1980s)

In 1970, the undergraduate class size was 6,221; in 1980 it was 6,630; last year [2006 or maybe 2007] it was 6,689.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/mag...e_id=32005

and from your link

for 2013-14 it was 6,980

http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2013#enrollment

so an increase in undergrad population of 12% from 1970

[Mick]

[quote author=needle link=topic=9773.msg88595#msg88595 date=1398637019]
I haven't followed this thread 100 percent, but The Upshot (a New York Times vertical, is how I'd describe it) weighs in using Census data and stats on foreign admits to claim it is harder than ever to get into the most selective schools.

In 2012, about 33 out of every 100,000 American 18- to 21-year-olds were attending Harvard, down from 45 per 100,000 in 1994. These changes in the share tell you how much harder, or easier, admission has become for American teenagers on average. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/upshot...?src=rechp

This analysis seems way oversimplified to me. Looking at how the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds who are high school graduates has changed over time would be more meaningful. And I would actually be interested if financial data on admits (admits by class) could be matched with the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds with high school degrees in that same economic class (general college-ready pop. by class).

But any analysis assuming *everyone* wants to go to a highly-selective university (I would reluctantly accept Harvard as a proxy for these schools) is not especially grounded in reality.

I just ran into this article independently.

I think that you are correct in questioning the assumption that everyone wants to go to a highly-selective university. More precisely the issue is whether the fraction of potentially qualified students that actively attempt to get into a highly-selective university has been steady over time. It almost certainly has not. Much more so over the past 60 years, but also true over the past 30 years, highly-selective universities have admitted a higher number of students from most minority groups and a wider socio-economic background. Since many people know that, it almost certainly has widened the pool of students who imagine they can get into these schools and thus try to do so. I think that is the main trend that has changed how hard it is to get into a highly-selective university. Of course the average effect of this over the entire country is zero by definition, but the effect on folks from groups who would have applied in either the new or older scenarios is significant.

-------------
As to the article itself, I don't quite believe the numbers. I went to the web sites he listed but couldn't find most of the numbers he was using. Couldn't bring myself to dig more deeply than that. So, maybe there is something curious about the exact years he used (1984, 1994, 4, 2012 - though mostly he used 1984 and 2012), maybe something else.

So, while I don't quite believe his numbers,  let's take them at face value: the number of American 18 year olds is about the same, the number of foreign students went from 5% to 10% of the class, and we'll assume Stanford's class size stayed the same. That all adds up to the number of spots available to Americans dropped by just over 5% (the 5% increase in foreign students over the orignal 95% American). Yet he has Stanford at -17%, over a factor of three larger. Hard to figure where that came from, especially since I think his numbers are off in the other direction.

From what I remember the demographics is about right (the high point would have been several years before 1984), Stanford has increased class size by about 100 per year (I see 1765 in the Common Data Set for the class entering 2013 - and I remember 1600 or maybe a little more in mid-early 1980s), and I think I remember being told students from foreign high schools were just under 10% (I was one). The Stanford web site has an entering class profile that lists 8% of the class with foreign geographic origin for class of 2013. The fractions are probably close, and it's hard to believe it changed by more than 5%.
Common Data Set: https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2013
2013-2014 entering class profile:  http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile

So, I am suspicious of the numbers in that article. Also, the biggest effect on the trumpeted admission rates is a large increase in number of applications per student which raises the denominator in an artificial manner. Nevertheless, I do think there has been a demographic change [ongoing?] that has led to more strong students try to get into Stanford and other highly-selective universities, and that is likely a big effect.
[/quote]



California-based high school students are far less likely to be admitted to Cal or UCLA than they were a decade or three ago.  In part, more applicants.  In part, the UC's are starving for out-of-state tuition dollars.  The UCLA admission rate is far lower for California high school students than for non-California students (although about the same for international students).

[Mick]

[quote author=needle link=topic=9773.msg88595#msg88595 date=1398637019]
I haven't followed this thread 100 percent, but The Upshot (a New York Times vertical, is how I'd describe it) weighs in using Census data and stats on foreign admits to claim it is harder than ever to get into the most selective schools.

In 2012, about 33 out of every 100,000 American 18- to 21-year-olds were attending Harvard, down from 45 per 100,000 in 1994. These changes in the share tell you how much harder, or easier, admission has become for American teenagers on average. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/upshot...?src=rechp

This analysis seems way oversimplified to me. Looking at how the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds who are high school graduates has changed over time would be more meaningful. And I would actually be interested if financial data on admits (admits by class) could be matched with the universe of 18- to 21-year-olds with high school degrees in that same economic class (general college-ready pop. by class).

But any analysis assuming *everyone* wants to go to a highly-selective university (I would reluctantly accept Harvard as a proxy for these schools) is not especially grounded in reality.

I just ran into this article independently.

I think that you are correct in questioning the assumption that everyone wants to go to a highly-selective university. More precisely the issue is whether the fraction of potentially qualified students that actively attempt to get into a highly-selective university has been steady over time. It almost certainly has not. Much more so over the past 60 years, but also true over the past 30 years, highly-selective universities have admitted a higher number of students from most minority groups and a wider socio-economic background. Since many people know that, it almost certainly has widened the pool of students who imagine they can get into these schools and thus try to do so. I think that is the main trend that has changed how hard it is to get into a highly-selective university. Of course the average effect of this over the entire country is zero by definition, but the effect on folks from groups who would have applied in either the new or older scenarios is significant.

-------------
As to the article itself, I don't quite believe the numbers. I went to the web sites he listed but couldn't find most of the numbers he was using. Couldn't bring myself to dig more deeply than that. So, maybe there is something curious about the exact years he used (1984, 1994, 4, 2012 - though mostly he used 1984 and 2012), maybe something else.

So, while I don't quite believe his numbers,  let's take them at face value: the number of American 18 year olds is about the same, the number of foreign students went from 5% to 10% of the class, and we'll assume Stanford's class size stayed the same. That all adds up to the number of spots available to Americans dropped by just over 5% (the 5% increase in foreign students over the orignal 95% American). Yet he has Stanford at -17%, over a factor of three larger. Hard to figure where that came from, especially since I think his numbers are off in the other direction.

From what I remember the demographics is about right (the high point would have been several years before 1984), Stanford has increased class size by about 100 per year (I see 1765 in the Common Data Set for the class entering 2013 - and I remember 1600 or maybe a little more in mid-early 1980s), and I think I remember being told students from foreign high schools were just under 10% (I was one). The Stanford web site has an entering class profile that lists 8% of the class with foreign geographic origin for class of 2013. The fractions are probably close, and it's hard to believe it changed by more than 5%.
Common Data Set: https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2013
2013-2014 entering class profile:  http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile

So, I am suspicious of the numbers in that article. Also, the biggest effect on the trumpeted admission rates is a large increase in number of applications per student which raises the denominator in an artificial manner. Nevertheless, I do think there has been a demographic change [ongoing?] that has led to more strong students try to get into Stanford and other highly-selective universities, and that is likely a big effect.
[/quote]



California-based high school students are far less likely to be admitted to Cal or UCLA than they were a decade or three ago.  In part, more applicants.  In part, the UC's are starving for out-of-state tuition dollars.  The UCLA admission rate is far lower for California high school students than for non-California students (although about the same for international students).

[CTcard]

California-based high school students are far less likely to be admitted to Low APR U or UCLA than they were a decade or three ago.  In part, more applicants.  In part, the UC's are starving for out-of-state tuition dollars.  The UCLA admission rate is far lower for California high school students than for non-California students (although about the same for international students).

Can you give us the numbers?

[CTcard]

California-based high school students are far less likely to be admitted to Low APR U or UCLA than they were a decade or three ago.  In part, more applicants.  In part, the UC's are starving for out-of-state tuition dollars.  The UCLA admission rate is far lower for California high school students than for non-California students (although about the same for international students).

Can you give us the numbers?

[pauloalto]

from Cornfed

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

MANY years ago, when I informed my Iowa high school counselor that I planned to take the SATs, he responded, "Why? The University of Iowa doesn't require them."

The idea of applying to an elite school or even going far away for college just wasn't normal.

[pauloalto]

from Cornfed

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

MANY years ago, when I informed my Iowa high school counselor that I planned to take the SATs, he responded, "Why? The University of Iowa doesn't require them."

The idea of applying to an elite school or even going far away for college just wasn't normal.

[CornFed]

from Cornfed

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

MANY years ago, when I informed my Iowa high school counselor that I planned to take the SATs, he responded, "Why? The University of Iowa doesn't require them."

The idea of applying to an elite school or even going far away for college just wasn't normal.

Oh man, does that ever resonate with me!!!!!!  My high school counselor was aghast that I was not going to go to Iowa or Iowa State; after all, they are nearly as good as the Ivies and cost so much less!!!

Really shouldn't bag on her, though.  a very large segment of the population had convinced themselves of these truths, and they constantly reinforced one another.

[CornFed]

from Cornfed

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

MANY years ago, when I informed my Iowa high school counselor that I planned to take the SATs, he responded, "Why? The University of Iowa doesn't require them."

The idea of applying to an elite school or even going far away for college just wasn't normal.

Oh man, does that ever resonate with me!!!!!!  My high school counselor was aghast that I was not going to go to Iowa or Iowa State; after all, they are nearly as good as the Ivies and cost so much less!!!

Really shouldn't bag on her, though.  a very large segment of the population had convinced themselves of these truths, and they constantly reinforced one another.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=9773.msg88625#msg88625 date=1398701943]

California-based high school students are far less likely to be admitted to Low APR U or UCLA than they were a decade or three ago.  In part, more applicants.  In part, the UC's are starving for out-of-state tuition dollars.  The UCLA admission rate is far lower for California high school students than for non-California students (although about the same for international students).

Can you give us the numbers?
[/quote]

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...Prof13.htm

In 2013, the UCLA admit rate for California students was 17.87%, the out-of-state admit rate was 33.68%.  So out of staters were nearly twice as likely to be admitted.  The international rate was 20.8%.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=9773.msg88625#msg88625 date=1398701943]

California-based high school students are far less likely to be admitted to Low APR U or UCLA than they were a decade or three ago.  In part, more applicants.  In part, the UC's are starving for out-of-state tuition dollars.  The UCLA admission rate is far lower for California high school students than for non-California students (although about the same for international students).

Can you give us the numbers?
[/quote]

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...Prof13.htm

In 2013, the UCLA admit rate for California students was 17.87%, the out-of-state admit rate was 33.68%.  So out of staters were nearly twice as likely to be admitted.  The international rate was 20.8%.