by Akil Bello
Each year, articles surface that poorly frame the story of college admissions. These narratives typically identify a highly accomplished student, list their GPA and test scores, mention one non-academic accomplishment, and highlight several prestigious colleges they applied to but were rejected from, implying that these rejections were surprising or unfair.
By overemphasizing GPA and SAT scores, while minimizing the many other factors, these stories create a public expectation of a forced-ranked numeric college admission system. This creates the false impression that acceptance to a highly selective school like Bowdoin (8% 2023 acceptance rate) guarantees acceptance to other schools like the University of California San Diego (25%), Tuskegee (31%), and Queens University of Charlotte (68%).
However, college admissions is not a forced ranking process; it is a numerically informed human decision-making process influenced by a student’s academic achievements, personal profile, and, importantly, by the college’s strategic plan and institutional priorities. Understanding how admission works means recognizing that institutional needs impact recruitment, acceptance, and aid incentives.
The factors colleges consider vary greatly depending on the type of institution, and there are many types of institutions among the more than 6,000 colleges in the federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). IPEDS asks those colleges to rank 12 different admissions factors, while the Common Data Set initiative asks them to rank 19. Some colleges focus solely on the high school record, while others consider many more factors. The University of California evaluates at least 13 factors, while the University of Iowa uses only three.
Even when colleges use the same factors, the influence on decisions and the way those factors are considered can differ.
Institutional priorities also shape class composition but are often unknown to those outside the admissions office. Priorities, such as increasing the percentage of full-tuition students, filling athletic rosters, recruiting rural students, or growing career fields needed in a particular state, also impact admissions decisions.
Rodney Morrison, Vice President of Enrollment Management at the University of Delaware, said, “As the flagship university, we always want to work collaboratively with the State to help solve state needs. We make an effort to admit as many applicants as we can who meet the requirements. We typically admit over 60%; however, we have some majors that are much more selective, and we are not able to admit everyone who is academically admissible. We have also had record applications each of the last seven years. If that trend continues, our admit rate will decrease due to having to deny more applicants.”
Even when colleges use the same factors, the influence on decisions and the way those factors are considered can differ. Any article that cites GPA without context ignores not only the curriculum that led to that GPA but also that GPAs are often recalculated.
Adrienne Oddi, Vice President for Strategic Enrollment at Queens University of Charlotte, said, “I’ve worked for five different universities, and we recalculated GPAs in five different ways.”
Oddie went on to say, “At some universities, [academic preparation] means looking for students who have access to the toughest courses offered in their communities and ace those courses. At most universities, including Queens, being academically qualified is something much broader. We have more freedom in our academic requirements because we have more options for the academic on-ramp students take into our community.”
This variance shows up not only in what and how the factors are considered but also in how the admission process functions. Most colleges evaluate in rounds or phases, with the early rounds determining who is qualified and then later rounds evaluating who is offered admission. Some colleges consider ability to pay as part of the admissions calculation, and some don’t. Some give significant advantages to Early Decision applicants — at Tulane, for example, early applicants were over 26 times more likely to be admitted — while others, like Case Western, actually admit them at a lower rate. The practices and procedures of admissions are as varied as institutions are.
Part of the challenge in explaining college admissions is the difficulty in explaining college. The typical college admission conversation is about residential colleges that are not open admission and award at least a bachelor’s degree. That means the conversation about college admission is focusing on less than three in 10 colleges. Even if we focus on that popular but limited view of college, the stress about college admission is driven by a hyper-focus on the ones most difficult to get into. Of the 1,665 colleges that are not open access, more than 75% admit more students than they reject. So getting into college is only hard if you restrict consideration to the most popular and rejective colleges in the country.
This focus on the highly rejective 6% of colleges is often driven by the stories about the difficulty of college admission and by the businesses that market college admissions services, leaving out the colleges that most students apply and go to. This exacerbates the wrong ideas about how admissions works. The variety among colleges demands that we recognize that their admission practices won’t fit one neat paradigm but should be described by several.
Paradigm 1: Admit everyone academically qualified
Typically larger, these colleges ask, “What can this college do for you?” rather than “What can you do for this college.” They generally have a mission to serve the public good and focus on inclusivity by providing access for as many academically qualified students as possible.
Initial evaluation screens the academic record for proof of ability to do the work at the college, considering grades, curriculum, and tests, if submitted. Most applicants have done reasonably well in high school making them academically qualified and thus admitted after the first screening. A percentage is marked for further review, and a small percentage is denied.
Subsequent evaluations review applicants who were in question during the first round more closely, again looking for indicators of preparation that might have been previously overlooked. Non-academic factors (essays, state residency, recommendations, participating in support programs) might be considered at this stage to help the assessment. Aid is considered to maximize the likelihood of filling the class, and this might shift the final pool by 5 to 10%.
Paradigm 2: Admit all qualified applicants, but prioritize state needs
These institutions are public colleges that seek students who are not only academically qualified but also satisfy the mission and needs, which might include residency, major, gender, income, or simply expanded enrollment. These colleges are often under state rules for enrollment, programs offered, aid limitations, and academic criteria. Tuition costs are often balanced by state funding and scholarships, which can influence admissions priorities and practices.
Initial evaluation reviews academic criteria (GPA and, perhaps, test scores) but also looks for other indicators of the likelihood of success (e.g., curricular rigor, college prep courses, dedication to the major selected, etc.). This will typically reduce the applicant pool fairly closely to the desired number.
Subsequent admissions rounds will often amount to “balancing.” Ensuring that enough students for each major were admitted, that geographic regions are represented as desired, that net tuition discounting (merit aid) isn’t problematic, and that admissions decisions are consistent within high schools, etc. This round generally doesn’t make dramatic changes in the pool size or academic profile.
Paradigm 3: Admit academically well-qualified applicants who satisfy an institutional need and are financially viable applicants
These institutions are typically the most selective public colleges or fairly selective private colleges with strong national name recognition. They tend to get a lot of attention in college admissions conversations but are still tuition-dependent and image-conscious. They prioritize students with above-average academic achievements who also bring other desirable qualities — such as unique talents, wealth, leadership potential, or fame—that align with the college’s goals. Financial viability is key, as these schools rely heavily on tuition and contributions from students and their families.
Initial evaluation begins with a contextual review of academic criteria, paying less attention to numbers — since all candidates have strong numbers — and focusing on curriculum, rigor, and academic focus (which might be essays, major, etc.) as well as identifying those applicants most likely to enroll if accepted.
Subsequent reviews will often be “balancing,” ensuring sufficient representation by major and geography, that tuition discounting is affordable, and that admissions decisions are consistent within high schools, etc. While this may not make dramatic changes in the pool size or academic profile, it might make changes in smaller categories like admitted students from South Dakota or theater majors.
Paradigm 4: Admit highly qualified applicants who will fulfill one or more institutional needs and contribute to one or more institutional wants
These institutions have internationally strong reputations and work to keep and bolster those reputations. They are in the enviable position of having an applicant pool that consists almost entirely of highly accomplished students who are all well-qualified. Selection is more like choosing who should make the all-star team rather than who is qualified for the team. Those admitted will generally fulfill some specific institutional need, such as talent in the arts, athletics, furthering 100-year relationships with a family or private high school, or contributions to campus geographic, academic, racial, or economic diversity.
The first pass through applications identifies the academically inadmissible applicants (perhaps reducing the applicant pool by 5-15%) and clear admits (maybe 1-10% of the pool). The rest of the applicants are passed through for further evaluation.
Shaped by institutional priorities, the admissions process further refines the admitted pool by looking for distinctive academic accomplishments (awards, national competitions, research) and unique non-academic achievements (leadership, service, dedication) that help an applicant appeal to the institution.
Some special consideration groups begin their evaluation in this later round of considerations: early applicants, athletes, children of donors, children of faculty, etc. Later admission rounds and waitlists might be used to backfill admits to ensure that institutional priorities and needs are met as commitments begin to come in from early rounds.
The diversity of American higher education (of institutions and in institutions) is not only fundamental to our beliefs but also our strength. We must embrace the complexity of admissions practices, recognizing that variety is not only a core value of our institutions but essential for fostering creativity and innovation in education.
The majority of successful individuals did not attend these highly selective schools.Timothy Fields, Senior Associate Dean of Admission, Emory University
As we enter the fall, expect a flurry of announcements of record-breaking most-accomplished classes ever, new rankings, and high schools boasting about their graduates’ successes. Conversations will swirl around who got in and why, often overshadowed by the misleading narratives that a handful of popular institutions dictate the admissions landscape. In reality, the colleges that shape the popular discourse not only employ the most complex and varied admissions processes but also enroll the fewest students.
Timothy Fields, Senior Associate Dean of Admission at Emory University and co-author of “The Black Family’s Guide to College Admission,” cautioned against placing excessive emphasis on the 6% of universities, saying, “The majority of successful individuals did not attend these highly selective schools. Instead, we should prioritize the cost, academic options, and opportunities provided by institutions to prepare students for the constantly changing job market and global economy.”
Despite the allure of articles and consultants claiming otherwise, there isn’t a universal formula for career success nor one for college admissions. Students should focus on excelling academically, pursuing their interests and responsibilities, and identifying institutions that align with their aspirations. To reduce the stress of college applications, families should accept that once applications are submitted, getting accepted is not only out of your hands but is also as much about the college’s needs as the student’s wants.
Akil Bello is an educator, entrepreneur, and advocate who has worked in admissions testing and educational access for almost three decades. A nationally recognized authority on educational access and standardized testing, Akil was a founding partner and CEO of Bell Curves, a test preparation company that helps schools and non-profit organizations develop affordable solutions for underserved students. Currently, Akil serves as Senior Director of Advocacy and Advancement at FairTest, where he works to build resources and tools to ensure that large-scale assessment tests are used responsibly and transparently to benefit students. Akil attended an HBCU and ultimately earned a bachelor’s degree from a university in Brooklyn.