The college admissions process can feel like navigating a maze—complex, unpredictable, and often overwhelming. I’m sure our ACC seniors have heard the advice, seen the statistics, and compared our applications to those of our peers. Yet, despite all the preparation, there’s still a feeling of mystery surrounding what it actually takes to get into our dream schools. This isn’t just about essays and GPAs; it’s about understanding how the system has evolved and how we fit into it.
Right now, I’m here to break down the myths, metrics, and misconceptions of the admissions process so we can all approach it with a little more clarity—and maybe even a little less stress. Still, I’m sure we’ve all wondered why it’s seemingly more difficult to get into college now than ever before. Is it all because of technology? How much do stats matter? Today, I hope to answer these questions and dive deeper into the “holistic approach” that many schools adopt these days.
History
The era of college applications and admissions that the Class of 2025 knows now really started in 2007 when the Common App went fully digital. The Common App existed before then, it was just on paper. Though the technology back then was a little different then it is now, the type of information they collected is roughly the same as it is now. So, from a Common App standpoint, we can rule out technology as a defining aspect of what changed the college admissions process.
The only notable difference between college applications pre-2007 and post-2007 is that the old version had you fill out different applications for each school, whereas the digital Common App allows us to fill out one application that gets sent to all the schools we want to apply to. If you ask your parents how many colleges they applied to, chances are they applied to about half the number you have, if that. The digital Common App revolutionized the convenience of college applications; however, it meant that kids were applying to far more colleges than before. Even now, numbers continue to rise in the number of applications submitted each year. As a recent Common App study reports, they saw a 7% increase in applications in the 2023-24 season as compared to the 2022-23 season. With this influx in applications, acceptance rates went down.
While some colleges saw this increase as a burden, others took this idea as a strategy to get their acceptance rates down and game the college rankings. A prime example of this is Tulane University. CollegeZoom reports that “Tulane has artificially lowered its acceptance rate (i.e. ballooned its applicant pool with applications from non-competitive students) by sending out free, pre-filled out, college applications to Louisiana students (its home state) and across the country. This would effectively mean that the early boost, and Tulane’s actual selectivity, is not what it seems.” Essentially, they received more applications, but didn’t accept more applicants than any other year, so the ratio of students who applied to students who were accepted changed. As IvyScholars notes, “The one thing you can truly judge by looking at a school’s acceptance rates is how many students want to apply relative to the number of spaces.” What I’ve learned from this, and what I hope you all do too, is to not read too far into acceptance rates. They tend to misrepresent how prestigious a school is and don’t say anything about the quality of education.
This leads me to my next point. Is there a good metric to see what schools you’re qualified to get into? From what I’ve found, and in my personal opinion, I would say no. This answer has two directions, but I won’t get ahead of myself. First, I’ll go over what metrics I do find to be helpful. Then, I’ll pivot to why those very same metrics can also be misrepresentative of how likely it is for a student to be accepted and why being qualified doesn’t equate to being accepted.
We know that acceptance rates aren’t an accurate metric for seeing how selective or prestigious a school is for several reasons. However, I do believe that data provided from applicants’ statistics can prove to be a more realistic guide for rates of qualification. The first statistic I would look for is an average SAT range of accepted applicants. Similar to this will be GPA ranges, a statistic that will provide a similar gauge. With the combination of these, many programs create graphs called scatterplots–maybe the best thing ever invented. On niche.com, they have awesome scatterplots. However, if you want to look at scatterplots specifically from accepted ACC students, go on Naviance. Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, just because your statistics are up to par with those of accepted students, does not mean that you will get in. Chances are that if you’re qualified to get in, your name is put into a hat and your admission will be based on the luck of the draw. So yes, your SAT/ACT score may be on the upper end of a school’s range, or maybe your GPA is higher than most admitted applicants, but those statistics may not mean anything if you’ve passed a school’s “benchmark.”
It doesn’t stop here, though. Another complication of the college admissions process these days is the adoption of the holistic approach. More widely used with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the holistic admissions approach is said to focus more on an applicant’s entire application, rather than admitting solely on statistics. It puts more emphasis on the quality of an applicant’s essay or extracurricular activities as opposed to letting a couple of numbers define them. On paper, this approach sounds appealing–especially for those who might not have the best hand with standardized testing or a traditional learning environment. In practice, however, this kind of review places a massive burden on admissions officers. Having to fully consider tens of thousands of applicants’ profiles is essentially impossible, given the turn-around time they have to process applications, review them, and come up with a decision. I’ll use Harvard as an example. They cite that their team of admissions officers consists of 40 people, and each application is likely reviewed by two people. Early Decision applications were due on November 1, and they sent out decisions on December 12. That gives them 42 days at the very maximum to review about 7000 applications. Let’s do the math: assuming these admissions officers work eight-hour days and five-day weeks, they have five weeks and three days (or 224 hours). This means that they’re reviewing 31.25 applications per hour. Split up among 20 teams of two admissions officers, that’s one application every 38.7 minutes with no breaks at all. Having to review that many applications makes it hard to believe that they are really considering all aspects and not using shortcuts to get decisions back to applicants faster. Forbes remarks that, “The review is [] holistic in the sense that admissions committees don’t just look for perfect scores and grades, but it is not holistic in the sense that they can or do take into account everything about the student as a person.” Though seemingly forgiving, the holistic approach does nothing but make college admissions even more of a gray area, stressing out applicants while simultaneously instilling a false sense of hope that they can get into their dream Ivy League school because their GPA and standardized test scores are “weighed less” now. This is why I’m criticizing the holistic approach.
Now you may be thinking, how does this work if the holistic approach is really a hoax? Well, maybe that’s dramatic, but here’s where some of my theories come in. I do believe that colleges use a holistic approach when reviewing applications. Not completely, fairly, or equally, though. Let me explain: Instead of weighing every part of an application equally, colleges use what I like to call a restrictive holistic approach. By this, I mean that yes, some schools won’t pay as much attention to applicants’ test scores and GPAs, and yes, maybe they will place more emphasis on extracurriculars, but once an applicant meets the basic standards of what a college is looking for, whether they actually get in is based on a luck of the draw. I know this isn’t a revolutionary theory or anything, however I do think it’s important to call out.
Realizing this isn’t a comfort to me, but it does make me think about how I shouldn’t compare myself to others. Maybe one of my classmates has acquired years of internship experience and started a non-profit organization. Does that give them an upper hand in getting into a school I also really want to go to? Maybe, but we have the same grades so who’s to say!
Ivy League Criticism
You’ve heard me use Ivy League schools as an example in several instances, and I have lots more to say on it. First, I’ll say that acceptance rates are especially tricky at these schools. Like many schools, Ivy Leagues recruit athletes to attend their school, and apply as Early Decision applicants so they can lock in to their commitment. What this does is inflate ED acceptance rates because more athletes–who otherwise wouldn’t have been admitted to the school–are accepted. For example, students with lower statistics are accepted because of their athletic commitments. Without knowing this, looking at a statistic represented at a school like Brown University where their ED acceptance rate is around 18%, could convince a non-athlete ED applicant that they are more likely to be accepted. Really, the rate is so high because of the special exceptions Brown takes in during that round of the admission cycle.
Another factor that Ivies largely take into account, whether they like to admit it or not, is income. An outstanding statistic provided by PBS states that one in six students at our nation’s top schools are in the top one percent of income. Another not-so-revolutionary part of this is that Ivies will favor applicants who are wealthier because it means that they’ll be able to pay tuition fees without grants or aid. That’s why there’s always jokes about how donating money to Ivies or having your name on a building guarantees you admission.
International Application vs. US Applications
Now that I’ve gotten the criticism of the US College Admissions process out of the way, it’s time to give us some credit for the hard work that us seniors put in. Online, I see a lot of confusion from international high school students who are unaware of how the college application process works in the US. People from the UK often laugh at American students for complaining about how difficult and time consuming applications are, thinking that we have to go through the same stuff that they do to attend a reputable university. In places like Canada (in addition to the UK), admissions are very black and white. What I mean by this is that there is very little room for error, and very clear requirements about what I school looks for. At McGill University, for example, the only requirements in the application are transcripts and test scores. That’s it. No essays, no letters of recommendation, no list of extracurriculars. No other data points for them to consider. With this, it means that they have a specific caliber of student that they are looking for. In fact, McGill publishes yearly “cut offs” for each program that they offer. In these cutoffs they post what the minimum admission requirements are in terms of test scores and GPA. What’s great about this is that it deters unqualified students from applying in the first place because the school makes it clear that they won’t be offered admission. This eliminates a lot of the stress that many US students face with college applications because there’s a significantly lower amount of uncertainty to face. The worry about getting in or not getting in is primarily caused by the gray area of extracurriculars, essays, and anything that shows any aspect of an applicant’s interests or personality. So yes, there are drawbacks to the system used more commonly in Canada and the UK, but if you’re looking for a less stressful, easy, 20 minute application, consider applying abroad (tuition is also cheaper.)
Conclusion
I’d like to close out by saying that you should take what I’ve presented with a grain of salt. I’m obviously not an expert on the inner-workings of college admissions, but I am part of a very large population of high school seniors stressed about acceptances and I’m just trying to flush out what information I find to be perplexing. Finally, I want to wish all the seniors good luck on their college decisions and to be proud of the hard work they’ve put in. On behalf of the entire ACC Chronicle staff, we’re rooting for you!
All Sources
https://www.ivyscholars.com/why-you-cant-always-trust-acceptance-rates/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/22/opinion/college-admissions.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2023/04/06/what-colleges-really-mean-by-holistic-review/
https://counselors.collegeboard.org/college-application/admission-decisions
https://www.commonapp.org/files/Common-App-Deadline-Updates-2024.03.01.pdf
https://www.mcgill.ca/undergraduate-admissions/apply/requirements/us
https://www.collegezoom.com/blog/
https://www.collegezoom.com/early/early-decision-early-action/
