Ivy League applications are down, and Ivy League schools have begun to panic. Over the past few weeks, America’s most coveted schools welcomed the early decision cohort of the class of 2029. Yet unlike in previous years, which saw a consistent increase in the number of applications and a corresponding decrease in acceptance rates, the data from this year’s admissions pool told a different story.
Brown’s early decision acceptance rate skyrocketed from 13 percent for the class of 2027 to 18 percent for the class of 2029, resulting in a perceived decline in prestige as nearly 1 in 5 students now have a chance to attend this Ivy League university. Similarly, Columbia saw a 2.28 percent decrease in applications, likely reflecting a consensus among Jewish students to disavow the institution following its refusal to condemn anti-Semitic incidents. Even more shockingly, Harvard refused to disclose admissions data entirely, departing from a decade-long trend of releasing early decision admissions data to the general public—likely in an attempt to obfuscate numbers that resemble those of Brown or Columbia. Whether out of concerns for anti-Semitism, a refusal to “play the game” of Ivy League admissions, or another reason entirely, qualified high school applicants have collectively boycotted the Ivy League. We must now wonder what happened—and what is in store for the eight institutions that comprise the world’s most famous college sports conference.
[RELATED: America’s Demographic Cliff Will Reshape Higher Education—for the Better]
It is no secret that the Ivy League has been broken for decades. While a number of factors have contributed to its downfall, among the most egregious offenders is the nebulous admissions process, whereby students are expected to roleplay corporate CEOs or lose nights of sleep over memorizing the Krebs cycle in hopes of securing a spot amongst the supposed American intelligentsia. Increased scrutiny of the Ivy League admissions process, furthermore, incited by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a 2023 landmark supreme court case that de jure abolished the practice of affirmative action, has sparked some insightful conversation about the declining role of meritocracy in this fraught selection process or the necessity for an Ivy League education in the first place. Indeed, amidst a resurgence of campus anti-Semitism that culminated in the 2024 wave of pro-Hamas encampments—which originated at my alma mater, Columbia University—many students have abandoned their Ivy League dreams entirely.
In my view, there are three primary factors responsible for the recent decline of the Ivy League: the far-left propaganda machine, the resurgence of anti-Semitism, and the ridiculous standards of the college admissions process. For one, an uptick in Marxist academics since the 1980s has left many students who hold centrist, conservative, or libertarian viewpoints to feel shunned and alienated from both classroom discussions and campus affinity groups. These students, many of whom once regarded the liberal arts education system of the Ivy League as the epitome of open intellectual discourse, feel rightly disillusioned by the Soviet-style censorship on campus, leading them to collectively turn away from the liberal arts education as a whole.
Jewish students feel similarly snubbed.
The questionable reactions to October 7th from the higher education world—from the notorious December 2023 congressional hearing that resulted in the resignation of two university presidents to the violent campus protests—have led many Jewish students to abandon their hopes of the Ivy League and shift their sights elsewhere. The heavily televised “Tentifada” fever unveiled the reality of university bureaucracy systems and the anti-Semitism that pervades the ranks of university professors and administrators. At Columbia, for instance, a series of anti-Semitic group chat messages revealed the extent to which “diversity, equity, and inclusion” administrators have it out for Jewish students. Wealthy donors, many of whom are Jewish and rightly outraged at the administration’s response to Jewish student plight, have begun to pull their funds, resulting in a significant decline in donations at schools such as Columbia. As my college consulting colleague put it, “I don’t think it is [prestigious to go there anymore.]” Neither, it seems, do students.
[RELATED: Some of These Institutions Need to Die. But They Won’t.]
These same high school students are also beginning to see through the absurdity of the college admissions game.
As students race to establish non-profits that will grow to gargantuan proportions—only to be abandoned once they receive their acceptance letters—or exploit their parents’ connections to gain publication in prestigious journals, many parents are lifting eyebrows at the sanity of the admissions process and encouraging students to explore alternatives. Ivy League admissions officers often claim that past performance indicates future success, but the problem is that most of these students are not performing of their own accord—they follow a set of rigid rules prescribed by their college counselors and are lost once they emerge into the real world and repeat the process themselves. As the requirements of the admissions process become increasingly absurd, many students and parents recognize that authenticity during a student’s teenage years is more important than forging a cookie-cutter admissions profile. As a result, many talented students forgo the Ivy League application process entirely.
It is safe to say that the Ivy League has taken a permanent hit to its reputation, but what’s next for high achieving students?
For one, many have begun to look to non-traditional alternatives such as Bari Weiss’s University of Austin, an institution that prioritizes classical liberal learning over pronouns and identity politics. Similarly, flagship state schools such as the University of Illinois or Rutgers University have experienced a recent influx of applications as students begin to prioritize vocational education over the classical liberal arts experience. And while the Ivy League isn’t going anywhere for at least the next several years, the tides have certainly turned: these institutions, once the epitome of intellectual inquiry and prestige, have lost the respect of the general public. And they have done this to themselves.
Flags of the Ivy League by Kenneth C. Zirkel on Wikimedia Commons
“Similarly, flagship state schools such as the University of Illinois or Rutgers University have experienced a recent influx of applications as students begin to prioritize vocational education over the classical liberal arts experience.”
This may not have been intended, but it strikes me as condescending, as well as poorly founded. Places like the two universities mentioned are perfectly capable of offering “classical liberal arts experience.” Try the honors programs if the “regular” programs aren’t enough. And “vocational education” is not appropros if trade school is what is implied. Try engineering — which is offered in at least some of the Ivies — or try some option in health sciences. You’ll find a breadth and rigor of disciplines, especially in the sciences, which may put the classical liberal arts experience to shame, especially nowadays.
Nothing ever sparked such a firestorm for me then when I mentioned in a chat that I thought that the quality of Ivy grads had declined markedly in the half century since I graduated high school. (Class of 1972) What inspired that was cleaning out my old bedroom before selling our old family home after mom died at 100. Going through my old student desk (can you believe Rolling Stones tickets were $7?) I found a sheet from my graduation stuff from my little Chicago suburban Catholic boys school that told where everyone was going to college. There were a dozen going to Ivies out of a bit over a hundred of us. Looking back they really were all super smart kids. Compared that to my husband’s comment on talking to young potential hires at his investment company in San Francisco which recruited from Ivies and Little Ivies. He noted they were great in their disciplines and clearly smart but they had no other conversation and obviously were just not what used to be called “well read.” You would not believe the howls of outrage I got over that comment usually accompanied by snide remarks about how a State U (Colorado) peasant like me could presume to speak of this.
“He noted they were great in their disciplines and clearly smart but they had no other conversation and obviously were just not what used to be called “well read.””
It’s sexist as heck to say this, but the purpose of a “Seven Sisters” degree was to enable a young lady to become a corporate wife who could be a good hostess at a cocktail or dinner party, and be able to carry on an intelligent conversion with the wife of her husband’s boss.
The purpose of the “Liberal Arts” degree once was to enable people to live a life of liberty, to be well enough read to be able to participate in self-governance. To know things like the US Constitution was written in the late 18th Century (if not 1787) — to know that it wasn’t written in 1987. To know that the US fought two wars against Germany and who won them, to know who Shakespeare was, and to know the difference between Reconstruction and the Resurrection.
To know WHICH river and WHAT sea, and to more or less know where they are. To know where Taiwan is and a little bit of the dispute between it and the PRC. As ISI has been showing for more than a decade now, Ivy League graduates simply don’t know this stuff…
Ridiculous article. “Experts” like Liza know very little about the larger trends driving application numbers. The primary reason for a decrease in applications at many of the Ivies is the return of required testing. Much of the increase in applications since the pandemic is a result of test-optional policies. More students applied because submitting test scores was no longer required. With most of the Ivies re-instating testing requirements, smaller applicant pools were anticipated and openly talked about by many of the institutions in public forums this past fall.
“Many have begun looking at alternatives…such as University of Austin” — Really? Show us the data.
Flagship public’s are seeing an increase for two reasons 1) AAU research institutions are a great choice for students unable to secure a coveted spot at a top 20 national university; and 2) price sensitivity is rearing its head for many families. Why pay $70K for lower ranked private school. Just look at the UCs, Texas, Michigan, Florida. It has nothing to do with “vocational” interests. The liberal arts programs at these schools are bursting with applications.
“And while the Ivy League isn’t going anywhere for at least the next several years…” so where do you think they will go after several years? Ridiculous statement.
Jason Locke, former Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment at Cornell.
Jason, I have to ask the research behind your conclusions, and remember that coincidence is not causation. I am not aware of any research (qualitative or quantitative) indicating that applications increased as a result of test-optional policies, and if your theory is correct, wouldn’t the sum total of applications amongst the Ivys remain constant until *all* of them mandated the tests?
In other words, if there are eight Ivys and I want to apply to three, and non require test results, there are three applications (collectively) amongst the eight. If half re-institute test requirements, I apply to three of the four who haven’t, and there are *still* three applications (collectively) amongst the eight.
And if seven now require tests, the one that doesn’t will receive applications from all the people who don’t want to take the tests — and hence (if your theory is right) applications to that particular school will dramatically *increase*. As the author is implying that early admit applications are down across the board, which would sorta lean against your conclusion.
And how many applicants that didn’t submit test scores actually had them (taken because they also applied to schools that required them)? I’ve been wondering about that one for a long time…
I haven’t seen the data — I am merely stating that I don’t see the basis of your concluding causation when it could merely be coincidence. Heck, it could be that more kids got tired of being unemployed during the pandemic and we do know that college attendance corresponds to the unemployment rates (particularly the U-6, but I digress).
Second, when you realize that the privates have an average tuition discount rate of something like 47%, the net price of a state university for a middle class kid is not inherently less anymore. BC (Before Covid), I saw a breakdown in a financial magazine that indicated that it would be cheaper for a middle class kid to go to Amherst College than to UMass Amherst — Amherst College’s higher list price notwithstanding.
Third, I would not compare an AAU research university to a liberal arts college. Think about this for a minute…
Fourth, applications are largely irrelevant in the context of program visibility — it’s yield less shrink, and then freshman retention. I don’t see “liberal arts programs” at state schools “bursting at the seams” — although in fairness I haven’t researched it. Are you aware of state schools that are facing over-enrollment in their liberal arts programs? (All I have seen is declining enrollment.)
And as to Honors programs, much of that is driven by credentialism — ambitious young people in STEM or Business seeking to have the gold star on their transcripts.
Jason, I am not saying that you are wrong, only that I can’t see the basis of your conclusions.
“Whether out of concerns for anti-Semitism, a refusal to “play the game” of Ivy League admissions, or another reason entirely, qualified high school applicants have collectively boycotted the Ivy League. We must now wonder what happened—and what is in store for the eight institutions that comprise the world’s most famous college sports conference.”
As a qualitative researcher, I must ask what the data doesn’t show as well as what it does.
The regular admissions deadline for most institutions was January 1st, I believe that is postmarked by which means that they haven’t all even arrived yet. Early decisions, on the other hand, have to be announced in December so that the applicants are free to apply elsewhere if not given early admission.
We know two things — (a) the absolute number of early decision applications declined and (b) they didn’t expect a massive increase of regular applications (which they were already receiving, even though the deadline hadn’t yet passed).
In other words, they took a higher percentage of a smaller early admissions pool — I haven’t reviewed the data, but this is what the author appears to be saying. And the only reason they would have done that is that they weren’t anticipating being able to fill the number of slots they have to fill out of their general admission application pool.
This raises several interesting questions — the first being what will everyone else’s applicant pool look like when they’ve got all their applications sorted in the next few weeks? Will Columbia’s 2.25% decrease be reflected in applications to State U?
To go beyond this, one has to go into the weeds a bit. General admission candidates can apply to as many colleges as they wish, I applied to four, was accepted at two, and went to one. I’m told that the common application has increased the number of schools that most candidates apply to and colleges know this. (That was part of why early decision was created, it’s a two-way commitment — you accept the kid and are more or less likely to get the kid.)
So there this an acceptance rate (percentage of those who applied) but more importantly there is an acceptance NUMBER — the number of acceptance letters sent out. Then there is the YIELD — the percentage of that number that actually accepts the acceptance and pays the deposit. (It used to be $100, probably more now.) That’s also a number, a headcount, and that’s the size of your incoming class.
And then there is the SHRINK — that’s the percentage (and number) of the yield number who don’t show up in September. For all kinds of reasons ranging from couldn’t raise the money to decided to get married, a few die in car wrecks — there has always been a shrink rate.
Starting in the 1990s, some students would pay the deposit at multiple colleges and go through freshman orientation at the various colleges, only then deciding which one they wanted to attend — and simply not showing up at the others. This is legal. Ethical, maybe not, but it is legal. And remember too that there are kids who go to orientation and then decide not to go to college at all.
So what we don’t know is what the Class of 2029 is going to look like until it physically shows up on the various campi next fall. We never do, but the author is pointing out two things that may be FAR larger than just the Ivy League schools she’s mentioning — the possible decline in applications industrywide. We *know* that the percentage of young people going to college is declining, and perhaps it is declining more rapidly than predicted.
The other thing is that if Brown goes from a 13% to 18% acceptance rate, that 5% represents a headcount of students who will be going to Brown instead of State U. State U then has to accept students it would otherwise have rejected in order to fill it’s slots, and this then means that the institutions less prestigious than State U have to do likewise in what essentially becomes a game of musical chairs, just with more chairs than people and the institution stuck with the empty chairs going out of business.
The author thinks that it is the Ivy League that is being boycotted, and her data does show that — but I wonder if it is all of academia being boycotted. The Hamas Fan Club isn’t limited to just these eight schools and places like UMass Amherst have been antisemitic cesspools for decades. And it isn’t just Jews, or even White males anymore — things have gotten so crazy that Black women are getting fired for merely expressing their (mainstream) Christian beliefs.
A decreasing percentage of the high school graduating class is going on to college — that’s a known fact, and I suspect it is decreasing more than people expected.
And there is one other thing — early decision is a promise to not attend any OTHER college, it presumes that the applicant will be attending that college, but it does not require it. In other words, you can apply for and receive early acceptance at Harvard and then decide not to go ANYWHERE next fall — in an earlier age that would be unheard of, but now???
Qualitative research often resembles “Kremlin Watching.” During the Cold War, we would watch to see who was standing next to whom in front of the Kremlin during various parades in an attempt to determine who held status in the Politburo as the Soviets weren’t going to tell us. Same thing here — applications have been coming in since November and most institutions have a pretty good idea of what their applicant pool looks like this year compared to last year. The think to watch is if they increase their acceptance NUMBERS (headcount) because that would mean that they expect their yield to decrease and they don’t know what their yield is going to be until the deadline for deposits has passed. And then it’s only a guess as to how much that will shrink.
It’s going to be a fun fall. Fall 2026 will be even more fun…