Executive summary

The stress of college admissions looms over millions of high school seniors each year. From worrying about their GPA to their essays, students struggle through an application process that is only further complexified by underlying inequitable policies. Especially with recent Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action, as well as policies implemented by colleges and universities, it becomes abundantly clear that this demanding process is inherently unfair. The following brief discusses the history, tried policies, and barriers to equitable college admissions, concluding with policy recommendations for fostering an environment of fairness and transparency in the admissions process for the future.

Overview

The college admissions process is and forever will be a major source of stress for students across the globe. From the standardized, academic-focused approach of the UCAS system in the United Kingdom, where decisions are made by both the admissions office and academic faculty in the chosen field; to Australia's more decentralized UAS system where students receive offers from universities based on year 12 marks and state-wide subject exams; to China's rigorous gaokao exam, a once-a-year event that is so important that even traffic gets diverted on test day. Each of these countries has developed a unique approach to university admissions that reflects its own cultural values and educational priorities, yet none quite rivals the complexity and lack of transparency of the American system.

Now take the application process in the United States as an example: put yourself into the shoes of a senior at a rural, mid-tier public high school. Every day since you returned from winter break, you check your mailbox with a mix of hope and dread. Your heart races as you open yet another letter from a top-20 university. Reluctantly, you scan the first few words and toss it aside: “After thoughtful consideration, we regret to inform you that we are unable to offer you a place in the Class of…”

Despite maintaining that perfect GPA, scoring 1500+ on your SAT, and filling your CommonApp with impressive leadership and volunteering experiences, one by one, the doors of elite institutions are slammed shut in your face.
As you navigate this emotional rollercoaster, doubt begins to creep in. You start to question whether your essays were compelling enough or if your extracurriculars truly stood out. Should you have taken that one extra AP class? What about that one summer program that you didn’t apply for? Was it because of that one B you got in 9th-grade world literature?

Then, among the sea of rejections, an unexpected acceptance letter appears—from Harvard College. As you celebrate this triumph with your parents, a thought lingers in your head: What made the difference? Was it a particular aspect of your application that made you stand out, or was it simply fate?
This is the perplexing reality of American college admissions and what tens of thousands of students experience each year, with most not as fortunate as the student in our scenario. This system, with the widely touted "holistic review,” promises to consider applicants as more than just a set of numbers. But what does it really mean to the admission officers, and how does it shape the fates of hopeful applicants every cycle?
Is it truly about finding the "right fit," or do hidden—or not-so-hidden—factors like race and socioeconomic background play a more significant role than colleges let on? Consider this: your application—the culmination of years of hard work and dreams—may be reviewed in as little as three to five minutes by readers earning $15-20 per hour. Your future could hinge on whether that reviewer’s had a good night's sleep or if they had something bad for lunch, or even a string of exceptional applications they’ve read before yours.

Over the years, this process has evolved significantly, becoming increasingly competitive and proportionately scrutinized. In the 2024 application cycle alone, over 1.3 million students submitted a combination of 7.5 million applications to more than 1,000 colleges across the country through just the Common Application. With the huge influx of applications, the recent admission cycles have been characterized by a key trend: students are applying to more than just a handful of schools. Notably, 26% of seniors in the Class of 2022 submitted applications to more than 10 colleges. This trend has since only resulted in increased competition and declining acceptance rates, making the process even more stressful and unpredictable for applicants. On top of artificially lowering colleges' acceptance rates, the rise in applications per student adds an unnecessary amount of stress, spreading their efforts across essays when they will only end up at one.

The process has also been the subject of numerous controversies and lawsuits, the most recent surrounding the topic of affirmative action. Other major issues include the fairness of using standardized test scores, such as the SAT and ACT, in admissions decisions; the use of race-conscious admissions policies; preferential treatment for legacy applicants; the impact of athletic recruiting on admissions decisions; and whether early decision programs advantage wealthier applicants.
These application policies alone highlight the inherent inequalities in the process. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that higher-income, white students are oftentimes able to enjoy much greater access to resources, support, and opportunities compared to low-income, first-generation, students of color. These wealthier students can bolster their application by paying for essay editing or SAT prep courses; they can utilize their parents' social networks to secure internships, coaching, and stunning recommendations so they can better package themselves as an emblem of academic and social might. Yet how would admission officers know these hidden factors? In the end, even if high school rigor and grades are the most important indicators of success in college, access to rigorous coursework is not equally distributed across all high schools—and the resources to succeed within them are certainly not.

As if these criteria weren’t complicated enough, students are constantly inundated with marketing emails from colleges, often sent through third-party enrollment management firms. These emails, which are indistinguishable from marketing ploys, create confusion and "low-quality noise" for students in one of the most stressful times in their lives. An example of such a marketing scheme is from a Reddit user on the popular form r/ApplyingToCollege: as a member of the high school graduating Class of 2020, this user received 3,069 emails from 127 institutions over four years, with the average being 24 emails per school. As Angel Pérez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) notes, “Websites like College Confidential and Reddit might be entertaining, but they don’t provide expert guidance.”

Addressing the inherent unfairness in college admissions is thus crucial for the future of higher education: the American process stands out as a uniquely complex and opaque system among global practices. The "holistic review" approach, while succeeding in its mission to consider applicants beyond mere numbers, introduces a deeper level of subjectivity and uncertainty that is both perplexing and stressful for students. This process is further complicated by inherent inequalities in society, where factors such as economic background, race, and access to resources can significantly influence an applicant's chances. The sheer volume of applications and the speed at which they are reviewed should be an area of concern for the overall depth and subjectivity of these evaluations. It becomes increasingly clear that addressing these issues is more than simply improving the process, but more about addressing access to educational opportunities and, by extension, social mobility.

Pointed Summary

• Despite a 44% increase in high school graduates over 30 years, Ivy League class sizes grew by only 14%.
• 1 in 4 high school students are "non-submitters," students who start but never complete a college application, yet are academically qualified.
• Applicants report receiving over 3,000 marketing emails from 100+ top colleges
• Applications may be reviewed in as little as 3-5 minutes by an outside reader earning just $15-20 per hour.

Relevance

There is no doubt that the current college admissions process affects millions of students annually, but its relevance extends far beyond individual applicants: it influences campus diversity and representation, exacerbating broader societal inequalities.

Approximately 2 million students enroll in American colleges and universities as first-time undergraduates each year; however, the economic distribution of those admitted reveals stark disparities. An analysis published in the New York Times, done by Raj Chetty, John Friedman, Emmanuel Saez, Nicholas Turner, and Danny Yagan, found that at 38 elite colleges, including five in the Ivy League, there are more students from the top 1% of the income scale than from the bottom 60%.

The impact of this campus diversity is further heightened by the slow growth of class size at elite institutions. While the number of high school graduates increased by 44% over the past 30 years, class size in the Ivy League only grew by 14%. This disparity has directly contributed to the increasingly competitive and exclusive status of Ivy-plus schools.

Increased access and academic excellence are not mutually exclusive. Some public universities have managed to increase enrollment while maintaining prestige. Take the University of Michigan for example, which has increased its student body by 35% since 1990, while retaining its top-25 ranking. As a true Tar Heel, it is important to also mention that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has increased its undergraduate population by 48% since 1987. These institutions are each nationally ranked #21 and #22, respectively.
It is equally important to look at the scope of the higher education landscape outside of the top institutions. Over 500 nonprofit private colleges have closed their doors over the last decade. While this trend is concerning, there needs to be an emphasis on the existence of higher education outside of the “elite” bubble. There are over 5000 institutions in the nation, and if applicants start looking past the rat race to get into a T50, there is room for every student.

Current Stances

Currently, college admissions are characterized by several significant controversies, particularly with universities grappling with the ideas of fairness, diversity, and access in a progressively more competitive environment. Despite criticisms, a majority of American universities continue to rely on holistic review for admission decisions. According to the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), the holistic review assesses an applicant's unique experiences alongside traditional academic measures with the goal of creating a diverse student body; however, there's a large gap between how colleges assess applicants and how parents perceive these criteria. Eduventures’ Prospective Parent Research found that parents rank colleges' consideration of character dead last, while colleges themselves rank it third in importance. Additionally, parents surveyed thought class rank to be a top consideration for admission officers, in reality, it ranks second-to-last in the process.

Recent legal challenges have also significantly impacted holistic policies. The 2023 Supreme Court decision in the SFFA v. Harvard and UNC cases has led to the end of race-conscious admissions policies after decades of controversy, prompting institutions to seek alternative methods to maintain class diversity. In the admissions cycle following the SCOTUS decision, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) reported a 10 percentage-point drop in underrepresented minority admissions, highlighting the challenges in maintaining diversity without explicit race-based decisions.

Since the pandemic, the role of standardized tests in admissions has been hotly debated. A NACAC report found that only 5% of institutions now view test scores as having considerable importance, down from 58% just a decade ago. Accelerated by both COVID-19 and growing concerns surrounding equity, many universities have adopted test-optional policies, with nearly 80% of students in the NACAC survey noting that these policies would encourage them to apply.

There's a growing demand for greater transparency in admissions processes. Some Ivy League colleges have stopped releasing their admit rates, drawing criticism from those who argue this prevention of statistics transparency doesn't reduce student stress as proponents claimed. These decisions come at a time with record-low acceptance rates, with Harvard reaching 3.19% and Yale 4.35% in recent cycles.
Legacy admissions practices are facing increased scrutiny. A Pew Research Center survey found that 75% of Americans believe relations to alumni should not be considered in admissions. Critics like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called legacy admissions "affirmative action for the privileged." An analysis by Opportunity Insights also found that legacy students were nearly four times more likely to be admitted to elite private colleges than those with the same test scores, further fueling the debate.

A new process has emerged in an effort to address equity concerns: Direct admissions programs, where students are proactively admitted based on their academic records without needing to apply. This system has been implemented in more than 10 states and hundreds of colleges. For instance, Governor Hochul's plan to offer direct admission to the top 10% of New York high school seniors to SUNY schools represents an attempt to make higher education more accessible, though some criticize it as a way to continue affirmative action at SUNY schools by limiting chances of acceptance from applicants who rank below the top 10% in highly regarded high schools, who often tend to be of white or Asian ethnicity.

1. History & Tried Policy

The evolution of college admissions in the United States reflects the complex transformation of modern society, starting from simple academic criteria to the multi-faceted, and often controversial, process we know today. In the early days of American higher education, admission was straightforward, yet solely for the white and wealthy. As one source humorously notes, getting into Harvard 300 years ago required just two simple steps: reading Virgil and Cicero in Latin, demonstrating reading knowledge of Greek, and boom, you were in.

These criteria began to shift dramatically in the early 20th century, however. One aspect of college admissions was the introduction of standardized testing, particularly the SAT or Scholastic Aptitude Test (this acronym was officially dropped by the College Board in 1997) in 1926, initially seen as a way to democratize admissions by providing an objective measure of aptitude. Over time, it became clear that standardized tests often favored wealthier students, with critics arguing that those who are able to seek test preparation assistance from courses and tutors would obviously do better on the exam. This shift in the stance on standardized testing has led to the recent trend of colleges adopting test-optional policies, which was further accelerated by the 2020 pandemic. Since then, this tool has become a source of controversy, with several elite universities reinstating test mandates for the 2024 admissions cycle.

.

Another aspect of college admissions that gave rise to the holistic process today was the establishment of formal admission policies. In 1910, Columbia University established the first Office of Admissions in the U.S. This new system of admissions introduced many of the criteria that continue to appear present day: letters of recommendation, personal essays, and demonstrations of character. Yet these first systems were rooted in racism; as written in The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton by UC Berkley Professor Jerome Karabel, these metrics allowed schools to control the Jewish population on campus without outright quota. Even after a century of change, the same argument was made by the lobbyist group Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) in the landmark cases against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which notably allowed the Supreme Court to rule Affirmative Action unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. These policies, implemented in the 1960s, aimed to increase diversity on campuses. As mentioned in the case SFFA v. Harvard and UNC-CH, they have been the subject of various legal problems, for instance, the landmark 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the use of race as one factor in holistic admissions processes.

More recently, colleges have introduced early decision and early action programs, which have significantly impacted the admissions timeline. Several selective colleges are filling more of their incoming classes early, with institutions like Barnard finalizing up to 62% of their freshman class before even considering regular decision applications. This trend has raised concerns about fairness, as early decision programs tend to favor wealthier students who are able to commit early without comparing financial aid packages.

There have been some efforts to increase transparency in the admissions process within our federal legislation. The Congressional College Transparency Act proposed by Louisiana Republican Senator Cassidy, if passed, would create a federal system to track student enrollment, performance, and outcomes, potentially providing valuable data to inform future admissions policies. Despite this, college admissions remain inherently unfair. Socioeconomic disparities continue to play a significant role, with wealthier students simply having better access to resources for college counseling. The back-and-forth shift between test-optional policies hoped to address some of these inequities, but that future is uncertain.

Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

Without a doubt, prospective students and their families are at the heart of this discussion. As they navigate the increasingly complex and competitive system, the stakes are seemingly very high: many see college education as a pathway to social mobility and economic opportunity, yet the process is particularly challenging for low-income and first-generation students. Federal student aid such as the Pell Grant is typically awarded to undergraduate students with exceptional financial need. According to U.S. Department of Education statistics, the top 50 universities in the United States enroll approximately 158,000 Pell Grant recipients, with private universities accounting for only 45,000 of these students. Data highlighting stark contrasts between high-achieving, low-income students and wealthy, preparatory school students, begs the question of whether there will ever be a system that isn’t inherently unfair.
Addressing the roles of teachers and parents in the process, it is important to highlight the challenges they often face in keeping up with the rapidly changing admissions policies. Decades ago, 58% of institutions considered test scores highly important; present day, however, in the aftermath of the pandemic, this view is shared by just 5% of schools. The Eduventures’ Prospective Parent Research mentioned earlier concluded that present-day college admissions are not well understood by parents, which only furthers the communication gap between families, schools, and colleges.

College admissions officers are thus tasked with the job of evaluating applicants and shaping incoming freshmen classes. They must balance institutional goals, diversity, and the need to maintain academic standards, all while navigating recent legal and ethical considerations. As federal and state policymakers become increasingly aware of institutional disparities, they play a significant role through legislation and oversight, targeting issues of access, affordability, and transparency.

Lastly, college prep companies have emerged as significant players in the admissions process as well, offering services ranging from test preparation to essay coaching, all for those who can afford to package themselves nicely. While these services provide invaluable support for potential top applicants, they raise concerns about equity, as not all students have equal access to such resources. The test-optional movement has somewhat diminished the influence of test prep companies, but they continue to adapt their services to meet the growing needs of applicants.

B. Risks of Indifference

If left unaddressed, the current state of the admissions process would pose significant risks and far-reaching consequences for students, universities, and our society.

One of the most immediate is the impact on student mental health. A study published in the National Library of Medicine highlights that high levels of stress among university students are linked to lower mental well-being and increased risk of mental health problems. Academic pressure, financial stress, and other factors significantly impact students' mental health, leading to issues like emotional exhaustion and burnout, yet this stress develops well before the student even steps foot on campus. A poll of students aged 16 to 22 found that more than three-quarters agreed that completing college applications felt like "such a decisive moment" in their lives. The complexity and opacity of the current admissions policies also lead to missed opportunities for qualified students; A study of over 1.2 million high schoolers showed that nearly 25% start but never complete a college application. These "non-submitters" were just as academically qualified as those who submitted applications, suggesting that even well-prepared students can be easily overwhelmed by the current process.

The stress and uncertainty of the admissions process have given rise to a cottage industry of college counseling services and websites. As noted by The Southerner, websites like College Confidential claim to offer insider knowledge of the admissions process, but in reality, they often add to student anxiety by providing conflicting advice, often from individuals who are unqualified.

The perceived unfairness is also eroding public trust in higher education. When the path is seen as nearly impossible, it leads to disillusionment and decreased faith in the system. This sentiment is not unique to the United States; in China, the difficulty of college admissions has led to the metaphor of the "dragon gate," where only the most exceptional can pass through to success.

On top of devastating individual consequences, an unfair admissions system threatens to widen existing socioeconomic gaps. The risks of maintaining the status quo in college admissions are substantial: from students' mental health to broader societal implications, the need for change is clear. Addressing these issues is not just about improving the admissions process, but about ensuring that higher education can fulfill its role as a pathway to a thriving democracy and economic opportunity.

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

The importance of addressing the challenges in college admissions transcends political affiliations and speaks to core American values of opportunity and meritocracy. A fair and accessible college admissions process is not just an educational issue, but a societal issue with far-reaching consequences.

The economic stakes are undeniable. According to Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce, by 2031, a staggering 72% of jobs in the country will require a college degree or some form of post-secondary training. Yet, the current landscape of higher education is filled with barriers. The closure of over 500 nonprofit private colleges in the last decade highlights the pressures faced by smaller institutions, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. This trend not only limits options for students but also threatens the diverse ecosystem of higher education that has long been a strength of our American system.

Recent enrollment trends further complicate the picture. While overall undergraduate enrollment increased by 2.1% in fall 2023, there was a concerning 3.6% decline in freshman enrollment. This statistical gap suggests deeper issues in the transition from high school to college that need to be addressed. The congressional support for policies like Senator Cassidy's College Transparency Act demonstrates a bipartisan recognition of the need for more equitable access to higher education.

Ultimately, as research from the College Board indicates, higher education benefits individuals, communities, and society at large. Addressing these issues in college admissions is not just about improving the process; it's about ensuring that higher education can fulfill its role as a guide to national prosperity. The stakes are too high and the potential benefits too great for us to simply accept the status quo.

Policy Options

The current admissions system has long been criticized for its lack of transparency and inherent inequities. In order to address these issues at their core, this brief proposes a comprehensive overhaul of admissions policies in a three-pronged approach, focused on improving admission equity, enhancing campus diversity, and dismantling application complexity.

A. Combating Admissions Inequity:

To address the inherent inequity in admissions, there must be a fundamental change in how schools recruit and select applicants for their freshman classes.

A crucial step towards this is the elimination of legacy admissions. Following the overruling of Affirmative Action by the Supreme Court in the SFFA v. Harvard and UNC-CH cases, public focus—specifically of liberals—has been shifted towards legacy benefits. California's Assembly Bill 1780 hopes to prohibit legacy admissions at both in-state public and private colleges. This bill requires institutions to report the legacy status, donor status, race, geography, income brackets, and athletic status of all admitted students, bringing unprecedented transparency to the admissions process. A study found that legacy applicants to Harvard were 5.7 times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy applicants, highlighting the significant advantage of legacy applicants when they are traditionally more privileged already.

Recognizing socioeconomic background and implementing class-based affirmative action is the critical step that needs to be taken. Giving greater weight to applicants from less affluent backgrounds could help increase diversity. This approach recognizes that socioeconomic status, not ethnicity, directly correlates with reduced access to educational resources. A federal percentage plan should thus be introduced, guaranteeing admission to top in-state public universities for the top 5% of students from each public high school in their respective state, given that they rank above the 90th percentile on state testing. This would help increase geographic and socioeconomic diversity while simplifying the process for high-achieving students from all backgrounds. Many states have already introduced such programs: in Texas, which has had a top 10% plan since 1998, the policy increased enrollment of underrepresented minorities at top UT universities by 11%. A congressional implementation of similar programs could have significant impacts on diversity across all states.

B. Enhancing Campus Diversity:

To improve applicant diversity at individual institutions, there must be an increase in class size, improved targeted recruitment programs, and early action reform
Expanding freshman class sizes at elite institutions should be a top priority. By encouraging these schools to increase their class sizes, we can create more opportunities for diverse students without significantly altering existing admission criteria. This could be incentivized in three ways: federal grants tied to enrollment growth metrics, regulations requiring top private universities to gradually increase class size, and the encouragement of satellite campuses.
Targeted recruitment programs are also essential in expanding the applicant pool. Developing state-funded programs to support colleges in actively recruiting from high schools in underserved areas would significantly improve diversity. From providing funding for campus visits, application fee waivers, or even just a visit from an A.O., colleges showing interest in the applicants could push for those "non-submitters" to find motivation.

Finally, early decision programs need reform to ensure they don't disproportionately advantage wealthier applicants who wouldn't need to compare financial plans. Congress must require colleges to defer a certain percentage of early decision spots or limit the binding nature of these agreements. Currently, early decision applicants are typically from more affluent backgrounds and are admitted at rates much higher than regular decision applicants, with elite institutions rushing to fill over half of their seats before even considering regular applications.

C. Simplifying Application Complexity:

Lastly, increasing transparency for all applicants is crucial. Colleges receiving any federal funding should be required to provide clear, detailed information about their admissions criteria and processes, including publishing comprehensive breakdowns of admitted student profiles and the weight given to various factors in the admissions process. Currently, only 55% of colleges clearly list their admissions requirements on their websites, further emphasizing the need for federal regulations to improve transparency.

Limiting the number of schools applicants can apply to, similar to the UK system, could be considered. In the UK, students can apply to a maximum of 5 universities through UCAS. If done in the U.S., it would significantly reduce application inflation and allow students to focus on schools they are genuinely interested in attending, and vice versa.

Introducing minimum thresholds in admissions could provide clarity for uncertain applicants. Some universities in Canada use a grade threshold system, where meeting certain grades guarantees admission. A mixed version of this approach could simplify the process for students who meet these thresholds and allow universities to focus more attention on borderline cases.

The ambiguity surrounding test-optional policies needs to be addressed. Schools should adopt clear stances on standardized testing, either requiring them or not considering them at all. During the pandemic, about 1,700 schools adopted test-optional policies, but the inconsistent application of these policies has led to confusion among applicants. Importantly, test-optional does not mean test-blind as many schools claim. The use of the holistic process partly involves comparing the submitted test scores of other students in your area, and if the school isn't test-blind, it could have an impact on your file.

Eliminating demonstrated interest as one of the many uncontrollable factors in admissions decisions could also level the playing field for students who may not have the resources to visit campuses or engage with institutions in other forms. Currently, about 40% of colleges consider demonstrated interest in admissions decisions, vastly disadvantaging students from lower-income backgrounds or those simply living far from the colleges they're interested in. Even if colleges utilize data to ensure the students they admit will be ones who actually attend in the fall, it is strange to imagine an applicant being admitted over others of similar aptitude merely by clicking the virtual tour links that flood their inboxes.

To summarize the proposed policies, reforming college admissions process will require a coordinated effort from policymakers, educational institutions, and stakeholders at all levels. The solutions outlined above solely represent a step towards creating a more equitable, diverse, and transparent admissions system. No doubt these challenges will face heavy resistance from colleges and applicants alike, but they are crucial for ensuring higher education remains open to all who seek it. As society moves forward, we must continue refining these policies to ensure that they are effective at their intended purpose to benefit the students.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conformity is a dangerous force. The general public tends to tie acceptance rate with prestige, using it as a measure of how well an education the school provides: this could not be further from the truth. For these 17-18-year-olds to be surrounded by parents, friends, and counselors who only speak on the prestige of schools in the T50, it perpetuates a negative cycle of stress and does nothing but wreak havoc on their mental health.

No matter what these seniors get in the mail, the aftermath can be challenging. From the joy of acceptance to the disappointment of rejection, the application experience will have lasting impacts on their image of self-worth and future goals. Imagine now the senior from the introduction. The excitement of Harvard is dampened by the lingering questions from other rejections. As he prepares for the next chapter of life, doubts begin to creep in: Was Harvard truly the right fit, or just the most prestigious option available? Will someone like him, rejected from all but one school, really be able to succeed in the crowd of privileged kids? The marketing emails may have stopped, but the pressure to justify their own college results to their peers and family–and even themselves–continues.

The intention of this policy brief is more than just to address inherent unfairness in the process: It's about reshaping the narrative around higher education. It's about recognizing the value of education far beyond the prestige attached to the school's name. It's about truly valuing diversity of experiences and perspectives in a cutthroat system that seems to lack compassion for the very students it's meant to work for.

Even with the gradual implementation of the proposed policies, it's crucial to remember that the end goal should be matching students with schools where they can thrive, not to create a competition that benefits a wealthy few at the expense of many.

After all, the true value of an education lies not in the acceptance rate of the institution, but in how well it prepares students for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. The level of stress and uncertainty will never be able to be completely removed from the college admissions process, but it does not have to be the defining experience.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Paul Kramer, Carlos Bindert, Gwen Singer, and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Programming Department within the Institute.

References

1. 2022 Niche Senior Enrollment Survey, www.niche.com/about/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-Niche-Senior-Enrollment-Survey.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
2. Ali, Nageeb, and Ran Shorrer. The College Portfolio Problem* - Cdn, bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.psu.edu/dist/2/100983/files/2023/07/AliShorrer.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
3. APLU, 25 July 2024, www.aplu.org/.
4. “Australian University Admissions: Your Comprehensive Guide - Crimson Education Us.” Australian University Admissions: Your Comprehensive Guide - Crimson Education US, www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blog/australian-university-admissions/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2024.
5. Barnard, Brennan. “College Admission: Data, Transparency, and Match.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 8 Nov. 2022, www.forbes.com/sites/brennanbarnard/2022/06/02/college-admission-data-transparency-and-match/.
6. Bauer-Wolf, Jeremy. “Over 1,900 Colleges Not Requiring SAT, ACT Scores for Fall 2024 Admissions.” Higher Ed Dive, 26 July 2023, www.highereddive.com/news/over-1900-colleges-not-requiring-sat-act-scores-for-fall-2024-admissions/689110/.
7. “Brodeur Partners.” Brodeur Partners Directions and Disruptions in Higher Education Comments, www.brodeur.com/directions-and-disruptions-in-higher-education/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
8. “Carolina by the Numbers: UNC-Chapel Hill.” The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1 July 2024, www.unc.edu/about/by-the-numbers/.
9. The Chronicle of Higher Education | Higher Ed News, Opinion, & Advice, www.chronicle.com. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
10. “College Admissions: A Lesson in History.” Western Association for College Admission Counseling, 29 Sept. 2015, www.wacac.org/college-admissions-a-lesson-in-history/.
11. Complexity in College Admission, secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/advocacy/admissions21century/complexity-in-college-admission.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
12. Cracking the Code: Why College Admissions Feels Broken, www.ivyscholars.com/why-does-college-admissions-feel-broken/. Accessed 5 Sept. 2024.
13. “Digest of Education Statistics, 2017.” National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a Part of the U.S. Department of Education, nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_219.10.asp. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
14. Duncan, Jemille Q. “The Unfairness of Students for Fair Admissions.” The Philadelphia Citizen, 25 July 2023, thephiladelphiacitizen.org/the-unfairness-of-students-for-fair-admissions/.
15. “Education Pays.” Education Pays – College Board Research, research.collegeboard.org/trends/education-pays. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
16. Flanagan, Linda. “There’s No Rejecting the College Admissions Game.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 28 May 2013, www.huffpost.com/entry/college-admissions-game_b_2971473 .
17. “Governor Hochul Announces Initiatives to Increase Access to Higher Education.” Governor Kathy Hochul, www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-initiatives-increase-access-higher-education#:~:text=To%20ensure%20that%20high%2Dachieving,to%20SUNY%20and%20CUNY%20institutions. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
18. Gómez, Vianney. “As Courts Weigh Affirmative Action, Grades and Test Scores Seen as Top Factors in College Admissions.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 26 Apr. 2022, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/26/u-s-public-continues-to-view-grades-test-scores-as-top-factors-in-college-admissions/.
19. Harvard and Its Peers Should Be Embarrassed about How Few Students They Educate - The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/harvard-and-its-peers-should-be-embarrassed-about-how-few-students-they-educate/2021/04/08/3c0be99c-97cb-11eb-b28d-bfa7bb5cb2a5_story.html. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
20. “Journals.” CCSE, www.ccsenet.org/journal/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
21. Jp. “State of College Admission.” National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), 14 Dec. 2023, www.nacacnet.org/state-of-college-admission-report/.
22. Karabel, Jerome. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. A Mariner Book Houghton Mifflin Company, 2014.
23. Katharine Meyer, Adrianna Pita, et al. “Complex Applications Create Barriers to College Are Trying to Change That.” Brookings, 22 Aug. 2024, www.brookings.edu/articles/complex-applications-create-barriers-to-college-some-are-trying-to-change-that/.
24. Looker, Rachel. “MIT: US University Says Diversity Slumps after Affirmative Action Ban.” BBC News, BBC, 22 Aug. 2024, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rxvd2z6ldo.
25. March 1 Deadline Update, www.commonapp.org/files/Common-App-Deadline-Updates-2024.03.01.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
26. Mason, Patty Reinert, et al. “7 Ways to Make College Admissions More Equitable.” Strada Education Foundation, 15 Dec. 2020, stradaeducation.org/advising/7-ways-to-make-college-admissions-more-equitable/#:~:text=Eliminate%20early%2Ddecision%20applications.%20This%20process%20gives%20institutions,the%20applications%20are%20binding%2C%20students%20are%20under.
27. Miller, Claire Cain, and Aatish Bhatia. “How Big Is the Legacy Boost at Elite Colleges?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 July 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html.
28. Mukherjee, Renu. “Why Hochul’s 10 Percent Plan for SUNY MAKES SENSE.” New York Post, New York Post, 27 Jan. 2024, nypost.com/2024/01/27/opinion/why-hochuls-10-plan-for-suny-makes-sense/.
29. Nadeem, Reem. “2. Perceived Impacts of Factoring Race and Ethnicity into College Admissions.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 8 June 2023, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/perceived-impacts-of-factoring-race-and-ethnicity-into-college-admissions/.
30. Nierenberg, Amelia. “Interest Surges in Top Colleges, While Struggling Ones Scrape for Applicants.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Feb. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/02/20/us/colleges-covid-applicants.html.
31. No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press, 2014.
32. OIRA - Oira, oira.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/297/2024/06/fb2000_2001.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept. 2024.
33. Osborne, Carter. “College Applications Are Complicated - Take a Breath | Op-Ed.” The Seattle Times, The Seattle Times Company, 17 Sept. 2023, www.seattletimes.com/opinion/college-applications-are-complicated-take-a-breath/.
34. Osborne, Carter. “College Applications Are Complicated - Take a Breath | Op-Ed.” The Seattle Times, The Seattle Times Company, 17 Sept. 2023, www.seattletimes.com/opinion/college-applications-are-complicated-take-a-breath/.
35. Person. “Direct Admissions: Reimagining College Applications to Promote Equity.” The Campaign for College Opportunity, The Campaign for College Opportunity, 29 Aug. 2024, collegecampaign.org/publication/direct-admissions-reimagining-college-applications-to-promote-equity.
36. Reid, Kim. “Overcoming the Myths of College Admissions.” Encoura, Encoura, 24 Apr. 2024, www.encoura.org/resources/wake-up-call/overcoming-the-myths-of-college-admissions/.
37. Rim, Christopher. “Fair College Admissions Doesn’t Exist - It’s Time We Stop Searching for It.” New York Post, New York Post, 30 June 2023, nypost.com/2023/06/29/fair-college-admissions-dont-exist-lets-stop-searching-for-it/.
38. Selingo, Jeffrey. “The College-Admissions Process Is Completely Broken.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 Apr. 2022, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/change-college-acceptance-application-process/627581/.
39. Slimmen, Sybren, et al. “How Stress-Related Factors Affect Mental Wellbeing of University Students a Cross-Sectional Study to Explore the Associations between Stressors, Perceived Stress, and Mental Wellbeing.” PloS One, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 7 Nov. 2022, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9639818/.
40. Sonnad-Joshi, Sayan. “College Admissions Process Unfair, Needs Revision.” The Southerner Online, thesoutherneronline.com/90724/comment/college-admissions-process-unfair-needs-revision/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.
41. Tujardon, Clarise. “CA Assembly Unanimously Approves Bill to End Legacy Admissions in the Name of ‘Equity.’” Campus Reform the #1 Source for College News, 19 June 2024, www.campusreform.org/article/ca-assembly-unanimously-approves-bill-end-legacy-admissions-name-equity/25682.
42. Vkimber. “Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 28 Oct. 2022, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-707.
43. “‘Affirmative Action for the Privileged’: Why Democrats Are Fighting Legacy Admissions.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 11 Aug. 2023, www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/11/college-legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-democrats.