STATE OF
COLLEGE
ADMISSION
2019
MELISSA CLINEDINST
2
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
e National Association for
College Admission Counseling
(NACAC) wishes to acknowledge
the following individuals and
groups for their contributions to
this report.
Most importantly, NACAC would
like to thank the secondary school
counselors, admission ocers, and
institutional research sta who gave
their valuable time to participate in
the annual Admission Trends Survey
and Counseling Trends Survey.
e report would not be possible
without the data collected from
these surveys.
Acknowledgments
e association also appreciates
the US Department of Education
and the Higher Education Research
Institute for publicly sharing the
education data they collect.
e authors of the report wish
to thank the following members
of the NACAC sta for assistance
with survey development and
administration, and with reviewing,
editing, designing, and promoting
the nal report: David Hawkins,
executive director for educational
content and policy; Joyce Smith,
chief executive ocer; John
McGrath, deputy chief executive
ocer; Shanda Ivory, director of
communications, publications and
technology; Pam McKeta, associate
director of communications for
digital and print media; Mary
Stegmeir, assistant director of
content and marketing; Ashley
Dobson, senior communications
manager, content and social media;
and Sarah Cox, associate director of
editorial and creative services.
Special thanks to Pooja Patel,
former NACAC research associate,
for her contributions to survey
development and administration.
3
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Highlights from the 2019 State of
College Admission report include
ndings related to the transition
from high school to postsecondary
education in the United States,
gathered primarily through
NACAC’s annual Admission
Trends Survey and Counseling
Trends Survey. e 2019 report
also includes information about
applications from international and
transfer students.
College Applications
e increase in the number of
colleges to which each student
applies continues an upward trend,
which is reected in college reports
of increased application volume.
• Growth in Application
Volume Continues: Between
the Fall 2017 and Fall 2018
admission cycles, the number
of applications from rst-time
freshmen increased 6 percent and
international student applications
increased by 7 percent. Transfer
applications were up 2 percent
overall, put public colleges
experienced an average 1.7
percent decline in transfer
applications while private colleges
had a 4.7 percent increase.
Executive Summary
• Colleges Accept Two-irds
of First-Time Freshmen
Applicants, on Average:
e percentage of applicants
oered admission at four-year
colleges and universities in the
United States—referred to as
the average selectivity rate—
was 66.7 percent for Fall 2017.
e national average acceptance
rate has increased from a low of
63.9 percent in Fall 2012.
• Average Yield Rate for First-
Time Freshmen Holds Steady
After Long Decline: e average
yield rate for Fall 2017 was
nearly identical to Fall 2016
(33.7 percent and 33.6 percent,
respectively). Over the past
decade the average yield rate has
steadily declined from 48 percent
in Fall 2007.
• Transfer Acceptance Rate
Slightly Lower than Freshmen
Rate; Yield Much Higher:
Among institutions that enroll
transfer students, average
selectivity for Fall 2018 was 61
percent, compared to 66 percent
for rst-time freshmen. However,
more than half (52 percent) of
transfer applicants who were
admitted ultimately enrolled,
compared to only 27 percent of
freshman admits.
• International Student
Acceptance Rate is Low; Yield
Slightly Higher than First-Time
Freshmen: At institutions that
enroll rst-time international
students, the Fall 2018 admit
rate for this population (52
percent) was lower than the rate
for both transfer and rst-time
freshmen students. e average
yield rate for international
students was 29 percent.
Recruitment and Yield
Strategies
College admission oces use a
variety of strategies to recruit
prospective students, particularly
those who would be likely to
attend if admitted. Colleges are
broadening their recruitment
eorts to bring in more transfer
and international students.
• Top Recruitment Strategies:
Colleges employ a broad range
of strategies when recruiting
high school students. Sending
email, maintaining institutional
websites, and hosting campus
visits were the primary means
by which colleges recruited
rst-time freshmen for the Fall
2018 admission cycle. Four
other factors—high school visits,
direct mail, and outreach to
both parents and high school
counselors—were each rated as
considerably important by at least
50 percent of colleges.
4
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Early Decision and Early
Action Activity Increases:
Between Fall 2017 and Fall
2018, colleges reported an
average increase of 11 percent in
the number of Early Decision
applicants and 10 percent in ED
admits. e number of Early
Action applications increased by
10 percent and the number of
students accepted through EA
increased by 9 percent.
• Wait List Activity Increases;
Likelihood of Wait List
Acceptance Remains Low: For
the Fall 2018 admission cycle, 43
percent of institutions reported
using a wait list. From Fall 2017
to Fall 2018, the number of
students oered a place on an
admission wait list increased
by 18 percent, on average.
Institutions accepted an average
of 20 percent of all students who
chose to remain on wait lists.
Factors in Admission
Decisions
e factors that admission ocers
use to evaluate applications from
rst-time freshmen have remained
largely consistent over the past
20 years. Students’ academic
achievements—which include
grades, strength of curriculum, and
admission test scores—constitute
the most important factors in the
admission decision.
• Admission Oces Identify
Grades, High School
Curriculum, and Test Scores
as Top Factors for First-Time
Freshmen: e top factors in the
admission decision were overall
high school GPA, grades in college
preparatory courses, strength
of curriculum, and admission
test scores. Among the next
most important factors were the
essay, a student’s demonstrated
interest, counselor and teacher
recommendations, class rank, and
extracurricular activities.
• Student Background
Information: Nearly one-third
of colleges rated rst-generation
status as at least moderately
important in rst-time freshmen
admission decisions. About one-
quarter of colleges considered
high school attended, race/
ethnicity, and state or county of
residence as either moderately or
considerably important.
College Counseling in
Secondary Schools
Access to college information
and counseling in school is a
signicant benet to students in
the college application process.
For many students, particularly
those in public schools, college
counseling is limited at best.
Counselors are few in number,
often have large student caseloads,
and have additional constraints
on the amount of time they can
dedicate to college counseling.
• Student-to-Counselor Ratio:
According to US Department
of Education data, in 2016–17
each public school counselor
(including elementary and
secondary) was responsible for
455 students, on average.
• College Counseling Sta
in Secondary Schools: For
the 2018–19 academic year,
29 percent of public schools
reported employing at least one
counselor (full- or part-time)
whose exclusive responsibility
was to provide college
counseling, compared to 48
percent of private schools.
• Time Available for College
Counseling in Secondary
Schools: Some dierences exist
between the duties and activities
of counselors employed at public
schools versus those who work
at private schools. On average,
public school counselors spent
19 percent of their time on
postsecondary counseling in
2018–19, while their private
school counterparts spent
31 percent of their time on
college counseling.
5
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
INTRODUCTION
NACAC’s Mission
Supporting students in the
transition from high school to
college has been at the core of
NACAC’s mission since the
association was founded in 1937.
Given changes in both the national
and global economy in recent
decades, as well as rapidly shifting
student demographics, the role of
professionals who assist students in
this process has never been more
important. Expert projections
indicate that 65 percent of US
jobs will require some type of
postsecondary education in 2020.
1
Nearly all of the jobs (99 percent)
created since 2008—the most
recent recession recovery—have
gone to workers with at least some
college education.
2
To the detriment of both
individuals and communities,
those whose highest degree is a
high school diploma are denied
the many benets that college
graduates enjoy, including:
• higher incomes and increased
lifetime earnings
• lower levels of unemployment and
poverty
• decreased reliance on public
assistance programs
• increased job satisfaction
• greater likelihood of receiving
employer-sponsored pensions and
health insurance
• healthier lifestyles
• higher levels of civic engagement.
3
Introduction
Unfortunately, as of 2018 fewer
than half of all adults age 25 and
older had obtained at least an
associate degree and only 35 percent
obtained a bachelor’s degree or
higher.
4
Even more signicant,
underserved minority groups and
students from low-SES backgrounds
fall behind in every step of the
attainment process: high school
graduation, college enrollment, and
postsecondary credential completion.
State of College
Admission Report
e 2019 State of College Admission
report provides up-to-date
information on a number of issues
that impact students’ transition
from high school to postsecondary
education. e report covers the
recruitment strategies that colleges
use to attract prospective students
and the process by which candidates
are evaluated for admission.
Information about application
volume and admission rates are
provided for rst-time domestic
freshmen, as well as transfer and
international students. e report
also includes a chapter dedicated to
school counseling in US secondary
schools, given the integral role school
counselors play in putting students
on the path to postsecondary success.
e report is divided into four
chapters: College Applications,
Recruitment and Yield Strategies,
Factors in Admission Decisions, and
Secondary School Counseling.
Methodology in Brief
e information presented in the
report primarily includes data
gathered through NACAC’s annual
Counseling Trends Survey and
Admission Trends Survey.
NACAC’s annual Counseling
Trends Survey (CTS) collects
information from secondary
school counselors and counseling
departments about their priorities
and work responsibilities—
particularly as they relate to helping
students transition to college, and
their practices in communicating
with students, parents, and colleges.
NACAC’s CTS for the 2018–19
academic year was distributed in
May 2019 to 15,997 secondary
school counseling oces. NACAC
received 2,345 responses.
NACAC administers its annual
Admission Trends Survey (ATS)
to US four-year colleges that are
NACAC members. NACAC collects
data related to application volume;
application practices; the use of
various enrollment management
strategies, including wait lists, Early
Decision, and Early Action; the
importance of various factors in the
admission decision; and admission
stang. NACAC received 447
responses to the 2018–19 ATS.
(See Appendix A: Methodology for
detailed information about survey
administration and data analysis.)
______________________________________________________
1
Carnevale, A.P., Smith, N., and Strohl, J. (2013). Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements rough 2020. Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce.
2
Carnevale, A.P., Jayasundera, T., and Gulish, A. (2016). America’s Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots. Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce.
3
Ma, J., Pender, M., Welch, M. (2016). Education Pays 2016: e Benets of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. College Board:
Washington, DC.
4
US Census Bureau. (2019). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2018. Washington, DC: Government Printing Oce.
6
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
01
Chapter 1
College Applications
Each year, US colleges and
universities receive hundreds of
thousands of applications from
rst-time domestic students,
transfer students, and international
students. Results of recent NACAC
Admission Trends Surveys indicate
that the number of applications has
continued to increase across four-
year colleges.
Application Volume
Results of the 2018–19 Admission
Trends Survey indicate that the
average number of applications
increased for each group of
prospective students between the Fall
2017 and Fall 2018 admission cycles.
Applications from rst-time
freshmen increased by 6 percent,
on average, and applications from
international students increased
by 7 percent. Transfer applications
were up 2 percent overall, but
public colleges experienced an
average 1.7 percent decline in
transfer applications while private
colleges had a 4.7 percent increase.
1
Applications for each group of
prospective students also had
increased from Fall 2016 to Fall
2017, by 6 percent, 2 percent, and 7
percent, respectively.
According to the Higher
Education Research Institute’s e
American Freshmen report series,
36 percent of rst-time freshmen
applied to seven or more colleges
during the Fall 2017 admission
cycle. Since Fall 2014, the
percentage of freshmen applying to
seven or more colleges has uctuated
between 35 and 36 percent. Since
Fall 2013, more than 80 percent of
rst-time freshmen have applied to
at least three colleges each year (see
Figure 1).
Increases in application volume
have created a growing burden
on admission oce sta who
evaluate prospective students
______________________________________________________
1
Independent t-tests indicated there were signicant dierences in percent change in applicants and control for both international (t
(203) = -1.9, p < .01); and transfer students (t (273) = -2.3, p < .05).
PERCENT CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
BETWEEN FALL 2017 AND FALL 2018
First-time freshmen
6%
Transfer
2%
International
7%
CHAPTER 1
7
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
SOURCE: Stolzenberg, E.B., Eagan, K., Aragon, M.C., Cesar-Davis, N.M., Jacabo, S., Couch, V., and Rios-Aguilar, C. (2018). e American
Freshman: National Norms Fall 2017. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E.B., Zimmerman, H.B., Aragon, M.C., Sayson, H.W., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2017). e American Freshman: National
Norms Fall 2016. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E.B., Ramirez, J.J., Aragon, M.C., Suchard, M.R., and Rios-Aguilar, C. (2016) e American freshman: Fifty-Year
trend, 1996-2015. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
for admission. According to
Admission Trends Survey
results, the average number of
applications for each admission
oce sta member (excluding
administrative sta) for the Fall
2017 admission cycle was 1,035
for public institutions and 461 for
private institutions. e number
of applications per admission
ocer grew as applicant selectivity
and enrollment size increased
(see Table 1).
Acceptance and Yield
Rates
e acceptance rate for a college
or university is dened as the
percentage of applicants who are
oered admission. Institutions
with lower acceptance rates are
considered more highly selective,
meaning a smaller number of
applicants are admitted. e
selectivity of US postsecondary
institutions ranges from acceptance
rates of fewer than 10 percent to
more than 90 percent of applicants.
An institution’s yield rate is dened
as the percentage of admitted
students who ultimately enroll at
the institution, after considering
other admission oers. Although
yield rates may have little relevance
to prospective students, accurately
predicting yield is critical to
colleges looking to avoid either
over- or under-enrollment.
FIGURE 1. INCREASES IN FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN APPLICATION SUBMISSION: 1995 TO 2017
CHAPTER 1
8
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
N Mean
Control
Public 67 1,035
Private 133 461
Enrollment
Fewer than 3,000 students 105 315
3,000 to 9,999 52 771
10,000 or more 41 1,377
Selectivity
Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 53 1,026
50 to 70 percent 69 605
71 to 85 percent 60 474
More than 85 percent 20 335
NOTE: Both admission counselors and mid/senior level admission ocials were included in the analyses.
NOTE: Independent t-tests and one-way ANOVAs indicated there were signicant dierences in the application to admission ocer ratio by: control (t
(198) = 5.1, p < .001); enrollment (F (2, 195) = 35.5, p < .001), and acceptance rate (F (3, 198) = 6.5, p < .001).
Correlation (Pearson) applications per admission ocer and: enrollment .578, p < .01; acceptance rate -.326, p < .01. Correlation (Spearman’s rho)
applications per admission ocer and public control .456, p < .01.
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
TABLE 1. APPLICATIONS PER ADMISSION OFFICER, FALL 2018
Selectivity
National
share of
institutions
Average
number of
applications
per institution
National
share of
applications
National share of
full-time, rst-time
degree seeking
undergraduates
Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 19.2% 12,492 36.5% 21.3%
50 to 70 percent 33.4 6,108 31.0 32.3
71 to 85 percent 28.8 5,625 24.6 33.4
More than 85 percent 18.6 2,771 7.9 13.0
N = 1,599
SOURCE: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017–18). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) Data Center. Washington, DC: NCES. [Includes Title-IV participating, four-year public and private not-for-prot, degree-granting
(primarily baccalaureate) institutions in the US that enroll rst-time freshman and are not open admission.]
TABLE 2. APPLICATIONS AND ENROLLMENT, BY SELECTIVITY: FALL 2017
CHAPTER 1
9
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
______________________________________________________
2
Chi-squared test control and application fee (X
2
(1) = 41.0 p < .001; phi = .363 p < .001.
3
Pearson correlations for application fee amount and: enrollment (.295), acceptance rate (-.498), p < .01.
First-Time Freshmen
According to data collected by the
US Department of Education, the
national average acceptance rate for
rst-time freshmen across all four-
year institutions in the US was 66.7
percent in Fall 2017, up from a low
of 63.9 percent in Fall 2012. e
average acceptance rate at private
institutions was about 6 percentage
points lower than the average rate
at public institutions (64.9 percent
versus 70.3 percent).
e most selective four-year
colleges—dened as those accepting
less than half of all applicants—
received 37 percent of all Fall 2016
applications but enrolled only 21
percent of rst-time undergraduate
students. Nearly two-thirds of
rst-time, full-time freshmen
(65 percent) were enrolled in
institutions with selectivity rates
between 50 percent and 85 percent
(see Table 2).
For the Fall 2017 freshman class,
the average yield rate among four-
year colleges and universities was
33.7 percent, nearly identical to the
Fall 2016 rate of 33.6 percent. Over
the past decade the average yield
rate has steadily declined from 48
percent in Fall 2007.
Transfer and International
Students
Among 2018–19 Admission
Trends Survey respondents that
accept transfer students, the
average acceptance rate for transfer
applicants was slightly lower
than for the rst-time freshmen
population (61 percent compared
to 66 percent). However, the yield
for accepted transfer students was
much higher (52 percent compared
to 27 percent).
A similar analysis of institutions
that accept international students
showed that rst-time international
students are accepted at a lower
rate (52 percent) than both transfer
students and rst-time freshmen.
e yield rate for international
students was 29 percent, indicating
they were only slightly more likely
to enroll than accepted rst-time
freshmen applicants (see Table 3).
Application Fees
Results of the Admission Trends
Survey indicate that 71 percent of
four-year, not-for-prot colleges had
an application fee for the Fall 2018
admission cycle, which averaged
$50. Public colleges were more likely
to report having an application fee
than privates (91 percent versus
57 percent), but no dierence was
found in the average fee amount.
2
Larger enrollment sizes and lower
acceptance rates were associated with
higher average fees.
3
Transfer N Mean
Transfer Selectivity Rate 310 60.6%
Overall Freshman Selectivity Rate for Institutions with Transfer Students 314 65.5%
Transfer Yield Rate 310 52.1%
Overall Yield Rate for Institutions with Transfer Students 314 26.6%
International N Mean
International Selectivity Rate 227 51.7%
Overall Freshman Selectivity Rate for Institutions with International Students 307 65.6%
International Yield Rate 230 28.5%
Overall Yield Rate for Institutions with International Students 307 26.7%
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
TABLE 3. KEY STATISTICS FOR TRANSFER AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ADMISSION:
FALL 2018
CHAPTER 1
10
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
Chapter 2
Recruitment and
Yield Strategies
02
Recruitment Strategies
by Prospective
Student Group
Results of NACAC’s 2018–19
Admission Trends Survey indicate
that institutions use a wide
variety of recruitment methods to
connect with prospective students.
Contacting students through email
and engaging with them through
the institution’s website or by
hosting campus visits were the most
important recruitment strategies
that colleges and universities
used for rst-time freshmen. An
additional four factors were each
rated as considerably important by
at least half of survey respondents.
ey were high school visits (63
percent), direct mail (50 percent),
and outreach to parents and high
school counselors (55 percent and 54
percent, respectively) (see Table 4).
Early Decision
Twenty-ve percent of respondents
to NACAC’s 2018–19 Admission
Trends Survey oered Early
Decision (ED). Private colleges
were more likely than public
institutions to oer Early Decision
programs (37 percent compared
to 5 percent), as were selective
colleges.
1
More than half (56
percent) of the most selective
colleges (those accepting fewer than
50 percent of applicants) had an
Early Decision application option.
(See Appendix C for a detailed
description of Early Decision and
Early Action policies.)
Early Decision applicants represent
only a small portion of the total
applicant pool at colleges that have
ED policies. Only 6 percent of all
applications for Fall 2018 admission
to ED colleges were received through
Early Decision. e proportion of
all applications received through
ED increased with the admission
selectivity rate and yield rate.
2
As expected, colleges with
Early Decision policies reported
a higher acceptance rate for their
ED applicants as compared to all
applicants (61 percent versus 49
percent). Given the binding nature
of Early Decision policies, the
average yield rate for Early Decision
admits was 90 percent, substantially
higher than the average yield rate
for all students admitted to ED
colleges (25 percent) (see Table 5).
Colleges with lower total yield rates
tended to admit a greater percentage
of their ED applicants compared to
those with higher yield rates.
3
More
selective colleges tended to have
higher ED yield rates.
4
______________________________________________________
1
Chi-squared test for Early Decision policy and: institution type (X (1) = 55.8, Phi = .366), p < .001; Correlation (Spearman’s Rho) for
Early Decision policy and acceptance rate (-.371), p < .001.
2
Correlation (Pearson’s R) for percent of apps received through ED and: acceptance rate (-.333); yield rate (.439), p < .01.
3
Correlation (Pearson’s R) for institutional yield rate and ED acceptance rate (-.617), p < .01.
4
Correlation (Pearson’s R) for institutional selectivity rate and ED yield (.727), p < .01.
10
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
11
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
CHAPTER 2
Factor N
Considerable
Importance
Moderate
Importance
Limited
Importance
No
Importance
Email 215 88.4 10.2 1.4 —
Hosted Campus Visit 215 85.1 13.5 1.4 —
Website 215 78.6 19.5 1.9 —
High School Visit 214 63.1 30.8 6.1 —
Parents 215 54.9 30.7 14.0 0.5
High School Counselor 214 54.2 36.9 8.4 0.5
Direct Mail 214 50.0 32.7 15.0 2.3
Social Media 215 47.4 42.8 9.8 —
College Fairs 213 44.1 38.5 16.4 0.9
Text Messaging 212 34.4 31.1 21.2 13.2
Online Advertising 214 25.7 38.8 25.7 9.8
Community-Based
Organizations
214 20.6 44.4 32.2 2.8
Test-Optional Policy 210 11.9 12.4 10.5 65.2
Conditional/Provisional
Admission Program
212 9.0 19.8 30.7 40.6
Alumni 212 7.1 45.3 43.9 3.8
—No respondents chose this option.
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGES ATTRIBUTING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE
TO VARIOUS RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES: FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN, FALL 2018
12
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
CHAPTER 2
Between Fall 2017 and Fall 2018,
colleges reported an average increase
of 11 percent in the number of Early
Decision applicants and 10 percent
in ED admits. In a prior survey,
colleges also had reported increases
in ED applications and ED admits
between Fall 2016 and Fall 2017 (4
percent each).
Early Action
irty-eight percent of four-year
colleges oered Early Action plans,
according to results of the 2018–19
Admission Trends Survey. Colleges
with lower yield rates were more
likely to oer Early Action.
5
Forty-
six percent of colleges with yield
rates lower than 30 percent used
Early Action.
For Fall 2018, 45 percent of
applications to colleges that had
Early Action admission plans were
received through EA. Similar to the
pattern with Early Decision, colleges
with Early Action accepted a greater
proportion of EA applicants when
compared to the overall applicant
pool (73 percent versus 64 percent).
Unlike Early Decision, Early Action
did not provide a signicant benet
to institutions in terms of yield
rates. e average yield rate for EA
admits was nearly identical to that
of the overall applicant pool (25
percent and 24 percent, respectively)
(see Table 6).
From Fall 2017 to Fall 2018, the
number of Early Action applications
increased by 10 percent and the
number of students accepted
through EA increased by 9 percent,
on average. Colleges also had
reported average increases in EA
applications and EA admits between
Fall 2016 and Fall 2017 (9 percent
and 10 percent, respectively).
OF SELECTIVE COLLEGES
OFFERED EARLY DECISION
56%
OF COLLEGES WITH LOW
YIELD RATES OFFERED
EARLY ACTION
46%
______________________________________________________
5
Correlation (Spearman’s Rho) for Early Action policy and institutional yield rate (.254), p < .001.
N Mean Percent
Applications Received through Early Decision 100 5.6
Early Decision Selectivity Rate 98 61.1
Overall Selectivity Rate for Institutions with Early Decision Policies 104 49.3
Early Decision Yield Rate 84 89.6
Overall Yield Rate for Institutions with Early Decision Policies 104 25.4
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
TABLE 5. KEY STATISTICS FOR EARLY DECISION COLLEGES: FALL 2018
13
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
CHAPTER 2
N Mean Percent
Applications Received through Early Action 112 45.3
Early Action Selectivity Rate 106 73.1
Overall Selectivity Rate for Institutions with Early Action Policies 161 63.9
Early Action Yield Rate 106 25.4
Overall Yield Rate for Institutions with Early Action Policies 161 23.7
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
TABLE 6. KEY STATISTICS FOR EARLY ACTION COLLEGES: FALL 2018
Wait Lists
For the Fall 2018 admission
cycle, 43 percent of institutions
reported using a wait list. Private
institutions were more likely than
public colleges and universities to
maintain a wait list (48 percent
compared to 34 percent). Both
colleges with lower enrollments
and those with lower acceptance
rates also were more likely to use
a wait list.
6
Eighty-two percent
of the most selective institutions
(accepting fewer than half of all
applicants) maintained a wait list.
Institutions reported placing
an average of 10 percent of all
applicants on the wait list for the
Fall 2018 admission cycle, and an
average of 50 percent of waitlisted
students opted to remain on the
wait list. Colleges with lower
acceptance rates placed a greater
proportion of students on wait lists,
on average.
7
Institutions admitted an average
of 20 percent of all students who
chose to remain on wait lists.
Selective colleges were least likely
to admit students from a wait list.
8
Only seven percent of students who
accepted a wait list spot at the most
selective colleges (those accepting
fewer than half of all applicants)
were ultimately admitted. e
average number of students oered
a position on a wait list increased
by 18 percent between Fall 2016
and Fall 2017 and by 12 percent
between Fall 2016 and Fall 2017.
THE MOST SELECTIVE
COLLEGES ADMITTED
ONLY 7 PERCENT OF
WAITLISTED STUDENTS
______________________________________________________
6
Chi-squared test for wait list policy and: institution type (X (1) = 8.8, Phi = .144), p < .01; Correlation (Spearman’s Rho) for wait list
policy and institutional acceptance rate (-.402), enrollment (-.196), p < .001.
7
Correlation (Pearson’s R) for institutional acceptance rate and percentage of applicants waitlisted (-.196), p < .01.
8
Correlation (Pearson’s R) for institutional acceptance rate and percentage admitted from wait list (.443), p < .01.
14
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
Chapter 3
Factors in Admission
Decisions
03
ere is no denite plan or specic
combination of factors that will
guarantee a student admission
to their preferred institution.
Colleges and universities review
many aspects of prospective
student applications in order
to determine which students
will be admitted. In addition to
considering the merits of each
applicant, most universities also
consider the composition of the
entering class as a whole in order
to ensure that a diverse group of
students with a variety of academic
and extracurricular interests will
enrich the campus experience.
Institutional characteristics, such
as enrollment size and acceptance
rate, also impact the importance of
admission factors.
Factors in Admission
Decisions: First-Time
Freshmen, Fall 2018 (see
Table 7)
• Academic performance in
high school has been the most
important consideration in
freshman admission decisions for
decades. Seventy-ve percent of
colleges rated grades in all high
school courses as considerably
important, and 73 percent rated
grades in college prep courses as
considerably important. Strength of
curriculum was rated considerably
important by more than 60 percent
of colleges and nearly half gave
admission test scores (ACT/SAT)
considerable weight.
• A second set of factors were most
often considered to be moderately
important. ese factors tend
to provide insight regarding the
personal qualities and interests
of students, as well as oer more
detail on academic performance.
ey include essays or writing
samples; teacher and counselor
recommendations; student’s
demonstrated interest; class rank;
and extracurricular activities.
• A nal group of admission
decision factors were given
moderate or considerable
importance, on average by a small
percentage of institutions, likely
because most of the factors are
relevant only to a small subset of
colleges. ey included subject
test scores (AP, IB), portfolios,
SAT II scores, interviews, state
graduation exams scores, and
work experience.
Factors in Admission
Decisions for First-Time
Freshmen: Change Over
Time (see Table 8)
e relative importance of many
admission decision factors have
remained remarkably stable over
the long term. Notable exceptions
include the declining importance of
class rank and interviews.
While academic performance
has remained the most important
consideration for colleges, in
recent years, specic changes
in the top factors have become
evident. For many years, grades
in college prep courses had
been rated as the top factor in
admission decisions, followed
15
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
CHAPTER 3
by strength of curriculum,
admission test scores, and grades
in all courses (overall GPA).
However, for the past three
admission cycles (2016, 2017,
and 2018), the percentage of
colleges rating grades in all courses
as considerably important has
matched or surpassed grades in
college prep courses.
Class rank has become much less
important over the past decade.
For each admission cycle from Fall
2016 to Fall 2018, only 9 percent
of colleges rated class rank as
considerably important, compared
to 23 percent in 2007.
Factors in Admission
by Institutional
Characteristics for First-
Time Freshmen, Fall 2018
e top four admission decision
factors for rst-time freshmen
are consistent across all types of
institutions. However, institutional
characteristics determined the
relative level of importance assigned
to some admission factors.
Institutional Control
• Private colleges placed relatively
more importance on the essay/
writing sample, the interview,
counselor and teacher
recommendations, demonstrated
interest, extracurricular activities,
and work.
• Public colleges valued admission
test scores more highly than
private institutions.
Enrollment Size
• Smaller colleges gave
comparatively more weight
to the interview, teacher and
counselor recommendations, and
demonstrated interest.
• Larger colleges tended to place
more value on admission test scores.
Factor N
Considerable
Importance
Moderate
Importance
Limited
Importance
No
Importance
Grades in All Courses 220 74.5 15.0 5.5 5.0
Grades in College Prep Courses 220 73.2 16.8 5.9 4.1
Strength of Curriculum 219 62.1 21.9 8.7 7.3
Admission Test Scores (SAT, ACT) 221 45.7 37.1 12.2 5.0
Essay or Writing Sample 220 23.2 33.2 24.1 19.5
Student’s Demonstrated Interest 218 16.1 23.9 28.0 32.1
Counselor Recommendation 218 15.1 40.4 26.6 17.9
Teacher Recommendation 219 14.2 40.2 26.5 19.2
Class Rank 220 9.1 29.1 34.1 27.7
Extracurricular Activities 219 6.4 42.9 32.0 18.7
Portfolio 219 6.4 11.9 26.9 54.8
Subject Test Scores (AP, IB) 219 5.5 18.3 35.2 41.1
Interview 219 5.5 16.4 28.3 49.8
Work 217 4.1 28.6 36.9 30.4
State Graduation Exam Scores 218 2.3 8.7 18.8 70.2
SAT II Scores 216 1.9 5.6 14.8 77.8
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGES ATTRIBUTING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE
TO FACTORS IN ADMISSION DECISIONS: FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN, FALL 2017
16
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
CHAPTER 3
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Grades in College
Prep Courses
80% 75% 87% 83% 84% 82% 82% 79% — 77% 71 73
Grades in All Courses 52 52 46 46 52 50 52 60 — 77 81 75
Strength of
Curriculum
64 62 71 66 68 65 64 60 — 52 51 62
Admission Test
Scores
59 54 58 59 59 56 58 56 — 54 52 46
Essay or Writing
Sample
26 27 26 27 25 20 22 22 — 19 17 23
Class Rank 23 19 16 22 19 13 15 14 — 9 9 9
Counselor
Recommendation
21 20 17 19 19 16 16 17 — 15 11 15
Demonstrated
Interest
22 21 21 23 21 18 20 17 — 14 16 16
Teacher
Recommendation
21 21 17 19 17 15 14 15 — 11 7 14
Interview 11 11 7 9 6 7 8 4 — 5 4 6
Extracurricular
Activities
7 7 9 7 5 7 10 6 — 8 4 6
Work 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 — 3 2 4
Subject Test Scores
(AP, IB)
7 8 7 10 7 5 8 7 — 7 4 6
State Graduation
Exams
4 4 3 4 4 2 3 4 — 2 2 2
SAT II Scores 6 7 5 5 5 4 6 5 — 2 7 2
Portfolio — 7 8 6 7 5 6 7 — 6 5 6
—Data are not available.
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Surveys, 2007-08 through 2018–19.
TABLE 8. PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGES ATTRIBUTING “CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE” TO
FACTORS IN ADMISSION DECISIONS: FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN, FALL 2007 TO FALL 2018
17
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
CHAPTER 3
N
Considerable
Inuence
Moderate
Inuence
Limited
Inuence
No
Inuence
FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN
High School Attended 221 4.5 19.0 32.1 44.3
Race/Ethnicity 219 6.8 17.8 16.9 58.4
State or County of Residence 220 4.1 22.3 17.3 56.4
First-generation Status 220 5.5 25.5 20.9 48.2
Ability to Pay 221 1.2 4.2 13.7 81.0
Gender 221 3.2 10.4 18.6 67.9
Alumni Relations 220 0.9 11.8 35.0 52.3
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
TABLE 9. PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGES ATTRIBUTING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFLUENCE
TO STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS IN ADMISSION DECISIONS: FALL 2018
Selectivity
• Institutions that were more
selective placed more emphasis
on grades in college prep courses
and strength of curriculum.
• More selective colleges also rated
more highly the essay/writing
sample, counselor and teacher
recommendations, extracurricular
activities, and work.
(See Appendix Table B.1. for a
correlation matrix of statistically
signicant associations.)
Student Characteristics
as Contextual Factors in
Admission Decisions for
First-Time Freshmen, Fall
2018 (see Table 9)
Colleges were asked to rate the
inuence of certain student
characteristics—race/ethnicity,
rst-generation status, high school
attended, state or county of
residence, gender, alumni relations,
and ability to pay—in terms of
how they aect evaluation of the
main admission factors. Although,
for the most part, college admission
ocers give little importance to
these characteristics, there are some
ndings worth noting.
For example, nearly one-third
of colleges (31 percent) rated
rst-generation status as at least
moderately important in rst-time
freshmen admission decisions.
About one-quarter of colleges
considered high school attended,
race/ethnicity, and state or county
of residence as either moderately
or considerably important (24
percent, 25 percent, and 26
percent, respectively).
Interesting dierences also were
found in the relative importance
given to these factors based on
institution type. Data provided
on the NACAC 2018–19
Admission Trends Survey allowed
for comparison by institutional
characteristics.
Institutional Control
• Private institutions gave greater
consideration to race/ethnicity,
gender, high school attended,
alumni relations, and ability to
pay when evaluating applications.
Enrollment
• Alumni relations and ability to
pay were rated as having more
inuence in admission decisions
for smaller colleges.
• Larger colleges gave greater
consideration to state or
county of residence and rst-
generation status.
Selectivity
• When evaluating applications,
institutions that were more
selective placed more emphasis
on each of these student
characteristics—race/ethnicity,
gender, rst-generation status,
state or county of residence, high
school attended, alumni relations,
and ability to pay.
(See Appendix Table B.2. for a
correlation matrix of statistically
signicant associations.)
18
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
04
Chapter 4
School Counselors:
Academic and College
Counseling
Introduction
Using data from NACAC’s 2018–
19 Counseling Trends Survey and
the US Department of Education,
this chapter explores student-
to-counselor ratios and college
counseling activities.
School counselors play a key
role in assisting students through
the transition to postsecondary
education. By collaborating with
school administrators, teachers,
community representatives,
government ocials, and parents,
school counselors can be signicant
assets throughout the college
application and admission process.
Counselors serve an important
role in advising students as they
progress through secondary school
and prepare for college. Pre-college
counseling generally includes
activities that help students meet
requirements for postsecondary
attendance, pursue challenging
courses, and navigate the college
admission process.
Student-to-Counselor
Ratios
According to the US Department
of Education, in 2016–17 each
public school counselor was
responsible for overseeing 455
students, on average,
1
which
exceeds the 250-to-1 maximum
ratio recommended by the
American School Counselor
Association (ASCA).
2
Student-to-
counselor ratios also vary widely
by state. Only two states—New
Hampshire and Vermont—had
ratios below ASCA’s recommended
threshold. e states with the
highest number of students per
counselor included Arizona (905),
Michigan (741), Illinois (686),
California (663), Minnesota (659),
and Utah (648).
(A list of average public school
student-to-counselor ratios for
all 50 states plus the District
of Columbia can be found in
Appendix Table B.3.)
Taking into account part-time
sta, results of NACAC’s 2018–19
Counseling Trends Survey indicated
the average overall student-to-
counselor ratio for public secondary
schools (ending in grade 12) was
263-to-1. Data regarding the extent
to which college advising is part
______________________________________________________
1
US Department of Education. (2018). Common Core of Data State Nonscal Survey Public Elementary/Secondary Education: School Year,
2016–17 Version 1a. Washington, DC: NCES. Note: Calculation includes all students and counselors in the state (pre-kindergarten,
elementary, and secondary counselors) except for adult education.
2
American School Counselor Association. (2016). e role of the school counselor. Alexandria, VA: ASCA.
3
e student-to-college counselor ratio is based on both the total number of counselors who exclusively provide college counseling for
students and the total number who provide college counseling among other services for students. As such, it overestimates the focus on
college counseling. Both full-time and part-time counselors were included in this calculation.
CHAPTER 4
19
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
of counselors’ job responsibilities
showed the average student-to-
college counselor ratio was 309-
to-1.
3
Public institutions assigned
substantially more students to
each counselor. ere also were
signicant dierences in the
student-to-counselor ratios by
enrollment size (see Table 10).
Notably, 48 percent of private
schools reported that they employed
at least one counselor (full- or
part-time) whose sole responsibility
was to provide college counseling
for students, compared to only 29
percent of public schools. Schools
with higher student-to-counselor
ratios also were less likely to have
a counselor whose duties were
dedicated to college counseling.
4
Staff Time for College
Counseling
Postsecondary admission
counseling is one of many
functions of school counselors.
On average, the time that
counselors in secondary schools
spend on various tasks breaks down
in the following way:
• Postsecondary admission
counseling (20 percent)
• Choice and scheduling of high
school courses (23 percent)
• Personal needs counseling
(26 percent)
• Academic testing (13 percent)
• Occupational counseling and job
placement (7 percent)
• Teaching (5 percent)
• Other non-guidance activities
(6 percent)
However, the division of
time among these tasks diers
signicantly based on school
characteristics. For example, the
counseling sta at private schools
spent an average of 31 percent of
their time on college counseling,
while counselors at public schools
______________________________________________________
4
Chi-squared test for exclusive college counselor and institution type (X (2) = 44.0, V = .141), p < .01; Correlation (Spearman’s Rho)
for exclusive college counselor and students per counselor (-.388), p < .01.
STATES WITH HIGHEST AND LOWEST RATIOS
Vermont
202
California
663
Arizona
905
Minnesota
659
Michigan
741
Illinois
686
New
Hampshire
220
spent only 19 percent of their time
on that task. Counselors at schools
with more students eligible for free-
and reduced-price lunch spent less
time on postsecondary admission
counseling than counselors whose
schools served more auent
populations (see Table 11).
(See Appendix Table B.4 for a
correlation matrix of signicant
associations for time spent on
various job responsibilities and
school characteristics.)
Utah
648
CHAPTER 4
20
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
Students per
Counselor
Students per College
Counselor
Total 263 309
Type
Public 274 319
Private 192 244
Enrollment
Fewer than 500 students 203 224
500 to 999 291 339
1,000 to 1,499 302 369
1,500 to 1,999 316 409
2,000 or more students 375 477
Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL)
0 to 25% of students eligible 243 300
26 to 50% 277 328
51 to 75% 285 331
76 to 100% 244 272
SOURCE: NACAC Counseling Trends Survey, 2018–19.
NOTE: Independent t-test indicated signicant dierence by control in both students per counselor (t (2,195) = 7.4) and students per college
counselor (t (2,187) = 4.7), p < .01. Correlation (Pearson R) for enrollment and: students per counselor (.537), students per college counselor
(.464), p < .01.
TABLE 10. AVERAGE STUDENT-TO-COUNSELOR AND STUDENT-TO-COLLEGE COUNSELOR
RATIOS, BY SCHOOL TYPE AND ENROLLMENT, 2018–19
CHAPTER 4
21
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
TABLE 11. PERCENTAGE OF TIME COUNSELING STAFF SPENT ON VARIOUS TASKS,
BY SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS: 2018–19
SOURCE: NACAC Counseling Trends Survey, 2018–19.
NOTE: Independent t-test showed dierence by school type in percentage of time spent on postsecondary counseling (t (2194) = -15.4), p < .01.
Correlation (Pearson R) for percentage of time spent on postsecondary counseling and percentage of students eligible for FRPL (-.254), p < .01.
Postsecondary
admission
counseling
Choice and
scheduling of high
school courses
Personal needs
counseling
Academic testing
Occupational
counseling and job
placement
Teaching
Other non-
guidance activities
All Schools 20.1% 22.6% 26.6% 13.2% 6.7% 5.1% 5.7%
Type
Public 18.5 23.7 27.2 13.3 6.9 4.6 5.8
Private 30.6 15.9 22.4 12.8 5.4 8.0 5.5
Enrollment
Fewer than 500 students 20.6 18.9 25.4 14.1 7.5 7.1 6.3
500 to 999 21.4 22.0 27.0 14.1 6.4 3.8 5.2
1,000 to 1,499 19.3 26.7 27.7 11.8 6.3 3.0 5.2
1,500 to 1,999 17.4 27.7 29.0 11.7 5.5 3.3 5.4
2,000 or more 17.5 32.3 27.0 9.8 5.4 2.8 5.1
Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL)
0 to 25% of students eligible 26.5 19.6 25.1 12.2 5.7 5.8 5.1
26 to 50% 18.4 23.5 27.1 13.2 7.2 5.0 5.5
51 to 75% 18.0 23.6 25.8 14.7 6.9 4.8 6.2
76 to 100% 17.1 23.8 27.9 13.4 7.2 4.3 6.3
Students per Counselors
100 or fewer 20.5 19.6 27.4 11.6 7.4 7.1 6.5
101 to 200 22.3 20.6 26.2 12.5 6.7 6.3 5.4
201 to 300 19.5 23.3 26.9 13.9 6.7 4.3 5.4
301 to 400 18.5 25.5 26.2 13.2 6.7 3.9 6.1
401 to 500 18.5 23.3 28.1 14.1 6.6 3.9 5.6
More than 500 19.4 22.8 24.5 16.9 5.5 4.4 6.4
CHAPTER 4
22
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
e 2019 State of College Admission
report primarily uses data collected
from two annual NACAC surveys:
Counseling Trends Survey (CTS) and
Admission Trends Survey (ATS).
Counseling Trends Survey
e purpose of NACAC’s annual
Counseling Trends Survey (CTS)
is to collect information from
secondary school counselors and
counseling departments about their
priorities and work responsibilities,
particularly as they relate to helping
Appendix A. Methodology
students transition to college; and
their practices in communicating
with students, parents, and colleges.
In May 2019, NACAC
distributed the 2018–19 academic
year CTS to a school counseling
oce sta member at 15,997
secondary schools ending in 12th
grade. e list of counselors was
purchased from MDR Education.
e survey was administered
online using SurveyMonkey.
Responses were collected through
June 2019.
NACAC received 2,345 responses
to the survey. Table A.1. provides
a comparison of the characteristics
of NACAC CTS respondents to
those of all public and private
secondary schools in the US (ending
in grade 12). NACAC survey
respondents were 85 percent public,
6 percent private non-parochial,
and 10 percent private parochial,
making the sample slightly over-
representative of public schools and
under-representative of private,
parochial schools. Among public
NACAC
Respondents
All Schools
NACAC
Public
Respondents
All Public
Schools
NACAC
Private
Non-Parochial
Respondents
All
Private Non-
Parochial
Schools
NACAC Private
Parochial
Respondents
All Private
Parochial
Schools
N 2,345 33,062 1,191 26,579 130 1,996 224 4,487
% of
Schools 84.9 80.4 5.5 6.0 9.6 13.4
Total Enrollment
Mean
Enrollment 840 548 904 615 489 225 473 300
Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility
1
Percentage
of Students
Eligible
49.1 — 54.7 44.1 12.7 — 18.1 —
1
All schools that include grade 12.
—Not available for private schools.
SOURCES: NACAC Counseling Trends Survey, 2018–19.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School
Universe Survey”, 2016–17 v.2a, 2017–18 v.1a.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Private School Universe Survey (PSS)”, 2015–16.
TABLE A.1. NACAC 2018–19 COUNSELING TRENDS SURVEY SAMPLE COMPARED
TO THE NATIONAL SECONDARY SCHOOL
1
POPULATION
APPENDIX A
23
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
schools, NACAC respondents had
a greater percentage of students
eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch. NACAC survey respondents
reported larger enrollments
compared to all secondary schools.
Admission Trends Survey
NACAC conducts its annual
Admission Trends Survey (ATS)
to better understand admission
processes at US colleges and
universities. NACAC collects data
related to application volume;
application practices; the use of
various enrollment management
strategies, including wait lists,
Early Decision, and Early Action;
the importance of various factors
in the admission decision; and
admission stang. In 2014,
NACAC began incorporating
questions related to the admission
process for prospective transfer and
international students, in addition
to continuing to track trends for
domestic rst-time freshmen.
For the 2018–19 administration
of the Admission Trends Survey,
the questionnaire was divided into
two parts—one set of questions was
sent to university admission oces
and another set to institutional
research (IR) oces. Both portions
were administered online using
SurveyMonkey. e IR portion of
the survey was e-mailed in March
2019 to 1,069 IR contacts at four-
year postsecondary institutions
that were members of NACAC. In
August 2019, the admission oce
portion of the survey was sent to
all 1,263 NACAC-member four-
year colleges. Admission oces also
were asked to provide additional
data if the IR portion had not been
submitted. At the time of the survey,
NACAC member institutions
represented 78 percent of all
NACAC
Respondents All Colleges
NACAC Public
Respondents
All Public
Colleges
NACAC Private
Respondents
All Private
Colleges
N (%) 447 1,611 169 (38%) 531 (33%) 278 (62%) 1,238 (68%)
Total Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollment
Mean Enrollment 6,787 5,263 13,225 10,671 2,750 2,594
Selectivity and Yield (Percents)
Mean Selectivity 64.2 66.7 67.7 70.3 62.1 64.9
Mean Yield 27.8 33.7 33.2 33.4 24.6 33.9
NOTE: Data for all colleges was drawn from the 2017–18 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) using the following
criteria: US location; four-year, not-for-prot; baccalaureate degree-granting; Title IV-participating; enrolls full-time rst-time freshmen; not
open admission.
SOURCES: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017–18). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
Data Center. Washington, DC: NCES.
TABLE A.2. NACAC 2018–19 ADMISSION TRENDS SURVEY SAMPLE COMPARED TO
NATIONAL COLLEGE POPULATION
four-year nonprot, baccalaureate
degree-granting, Title-IV
participating institutions in the US
that admit rst-time freshmen and
are not open admission. Colleges
that meet these criteria represent
the type of institutions that the
survey is designed to include.
NACAC received 447 responses,
for an overall response rate of 35
percent. Of the 447 responses, 326
institutions submitted completed
surveys (both admission and IR
sections) and 121 submitted just
the IR portion. All responses were
utilized in the analyses.
As shown in Table A.2, NACAC
2018–19 ATS respondents had
slightly lower acceptance rates
compared to all colleges, and
private college respondents had
lower yield rates when compared
to the national average. NACAC
survey respondents also had larger
undergraduate enrollments.
APPENDIX A
24
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
Appendix B. Tables
TABLE B.1. CORRELATION MATRIX BETWEEN PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGES ATTRIBUTING
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE TO SELECT ADMISSION DECISION FACTORS AND
INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS: FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN, FALL 2018
Total High
School GPA
Grades in
College Prep
Courses
Strength of
Curriculum
Admission
Test Scores
Essay/
Writing
Sample
Interview
Private -.028 .043 .062 -.272** .288** .448**
Enrollment -.035 -108 .123 .284** .018 -.360**
Acceptance Rate .102 -.219** -.293** -.025 -.304** -.030
Yield -.102 -.202* -.261** .165* -.092 -.117
NOTE: Pearson R and Spearman’s Rho correlation coecients were calculated. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19
Counselor
Rec.
Teacher Rec.
Demonstrated
Interest
Work
Extra-
curriculars
Private .345** .307** .362** .140* .161*
Enrollment -.195** -.217** -.324** .102 .053
Acceptance Rate -.249** -.242** .063 -.385** -.364**
Yield -.316** -.304** -.105 -.152 -.168*
Race/
Ethnicity
Gender
First-
generation
State or
County of
Residence
High
School
Attended
Alumni
Relations
Ability to
Pay
Private .182** .155* .092 -.115 .258** .375** .299**
Enrollment .034 .055 .210** .334** .072 -.176* -.146*
Acceptance
Rate
-.388** -.372** -.422** -.295** -.208** -.262** -.150*
TABLE B.2. CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MATRIX BETWEEN INFLUENCE OF STUDENT
CHARACTERISTICS IN ADMISSION DECISIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS:
FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN, FALL 2018
NOTE: Pearson R and Spearman’s Rho correlation coecients were calculated. ** p < .01, * p < .05.
SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2018–19.
APPENDIX B
25
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
TABLE B.3. PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT-TO-COUNSELOR RATIOS, BY STATE: 2016–2017
State
Total
Enrollment
Counselors
Students
Alabama 744,930 1,786 417
Alaska 132,737 324 410
Arizona 1,123,137 1,241 905
Arkansas 493,447 1,296 381
California 6,309,138 9,522 663
Colorado 905,019 2,482 365
Connecticut 535,118 1,165 459
Delaware 136,264 330 413
District of
Columbia
85,850 168 511
Florida 2,816,791 5,824 484
Georgia 1,764,346 3,784 466
Hawaii 181,550 634 286
Idaho 297,200 553 538
Illinois 2,026,718 2,955 686
Indiana 1,049,547 2,112 497
Iowa 509,831 1,239 411
Kansas 494,347 1,041 475
Kentucky 684,017 1,552 441
Louisiana 716,293 1,822 393
Maine 180,512 563 321
Maryland 886,221 2,376 373
Massachusetts 964,514 2,349 411
Michigan 1,528,666 2,063 741
Minnesota 875,021 1,328 659
Mississippi 483,150 1,116 433
State
Total
Enrollment
Counselors
Students
Missouri 915,040 2,645 346
Montana 146,375 475 308
Nebraska 319,194 837 381
Nevada 473,744 975 486
New Hampshire 180,888 822 220
New Jersey 1,410,421 3,824 369
New Mexico 336,263 699 481
New York 2,729,776 7,525 363
North Carolina 1,550,062 4,212 368
North Dakota 109,706 361 304
Ohio 1,710,143 3,822 447
Oklahoma 693,903 1,582 439
Oregon 578,947 1,162 498
Pennsylvania 1,727,497 4,534 381
Rhode Island 142,150 340 418
South Carolina 771,250 2,147 359
South Dakota 136,302 353 386
Tennessee 1,001,562 2,992 335
Texas 5,360,849 12,123 442
Utah 659,801 1,019 648
Vermont 88,428 438 202
Virginia 1,287,026 3,563 361
Washington 1,101,711 2,207 499
West Virginia 273,855 729 376
Wisconsin 864,432 1,992 434
Wyoming 94,170 275 343
SOURCE: US Department of Education. (2018). Common Core of Data State Nonscal Survey Public Elementary/Secondary Education Survey:
School Year, 2016–17 Version 1a. Washington, DC: NCES.
APPENDIX B
26
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING
Postsecondary
Admission
counseling
Choice and
scheduling of
high school
courses
Personal needs
counseling
Academic
testing
Occupational
counseling
Teaching
Other non-
guidance
activities
Private School .237** -.236** -.133** .008 -.118** .081** -.005
Enrollment -.060** .263** .024 -.103** -.090** -.143** -.045*
Percent Eligible
for FRPL
-.254** .104** .061* .055* .098** -.069** .064**
Students per
Counselor
-.075** .088** -.006 .060** -.036 -.081** .017
TABLE B.4. CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MATRIX BETWEEN TIME SPENT
BY COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS ON VARIOUS RESPONSIBILITIES AND
SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS, 2018–2019
NOTE: Pearson R and Spearman’s Rho correlation coecients were calculated. ** p < .01, * p < .05.
SOURCE: NACAC Counseling Trends Survey, 2018–19.
APPENDIX B
27
2019 STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION
e use of multiple admission plans by colleges and universities often results in confusion among students, parents,
and college admission counseling professionals. NACAC believes institutions must clearly state policies, and
counselors are advised to assist students with their understanding of the various admission decision options. e
following information outlines agreed-upon denitions and conditions, included in NACAC’s Code of Ethics and
Professional Practices.
1
Standard application
plans
Regular Decision: Students
submit their applications by
a specied deadline and are
notied of a decision within a
clearly stated period of time.
Rolling Admission: Students
apply at any time after a college
begins accepting applications
until a nal closing date, which
may be as late as the start of the
term for which they are applying.
Students are notied of a
decision as their applications are
completed and are reviewed.
Early application plan
Early Action (EA): Students
apply by an earlier deadline to
receive a decision in advance of
the college’s Regular Decision
notication date. Students
will not be asked to accept the
college’s oer of admission or to
submit a deposit prior to May 1.
Restrictive early
application plans
Early Decision (ED): Students
commit to a rst-choice college
and, if admitted, agree to enroll
and withdraw their other college
applications. Colleges may
oer ED I or II with dierent
deadlines. is is the only
application plan where students
are required to accept a college’s
oer of admission and submit a
deposit prior to May 1.
Restrictive/Single Choice Early
Action (REA): Students apply
to a college of preference and
receive a decision in advance of
its Regular Decision notication
date. Colleges place certain
restrictions on applying under
other early application plans.
Students admitted under
Restrictive Early Action are not
obligated to accept the college’s
oer of admission or to submit a
deposit prior to May 1.
Appendix C. Early Decision and
Early Action Dened
______________________________________________________
1
NACAC’s Code of Ethics and Professional Practices is available online at: nacacnet.org/cepp.
APPENDIX C
