Fall 2021 Enrollment numbers

[dr_codex]

In the spirit of the "Fall 2020 Enrollment numbers" thread, how do things look this year?

I'll start: We learned at a budget presentation that we are currently down 25% for the Fall, and unlikely to make much of that up. The Dean of Admissions attributed some of this to universities and colleges making placement tests optional, and noted that the ivies and larger universities were getting the larger share of applications. This echoes the analysis reported here: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2021/04/30/college-enrollment-is-down-and-dropping-492678

I hope the news is better where you are.

dc

[Vkw10]

25% — ouch!

We're down 5% based on deposits and summer orientation registration. We're a back up school for instate students who are waitlisted, so admissions expects to make up some ground as students realize they aren't getting a late acceptance at their first choice. Big school up the road from us got more deposits than they expected, so they won't make any offers to their waitlist.

[AmLitHist]

We were recently told in some email or another (they all run together, and I don't much trust anything Admin says) that our CC is currently up about 10% for fall.  We'll see.

As someone mentioned in another context in another thread, we're currently OK due to CARES and other such money, but I'm sure they'll burn through the last of that soon enough with nothing to show for it.

[Puget]

The (newish) dean recently described the incoming class as "very large!". The admissions people I was meeting with as part of a service project laughed and said the dean apparently doesn't understand how summer melt and deferments work, and the class should come in right about on target.

The Dean of Admissions attributed some of this to universities and colleges making placement tests optional, and noted that the ivies and larger universities were getting the larger share of applications.

I don't think this really holds water-- applications may be up, but selective places still only have X slots, which hasn't generally increased. The ivies could always have filled their classes many times over with the applicants they already had. Our (not an ivy, but a private R1 with ~30% acceptance rate) applications were up (probably some mix of going test-optional and a bumper-crop from students who decided to take a gap year last year) but we still have the same target enrollment and can't really go much over it or we start having problems with dorm rooms and class slots. So we'll look slightly more selective, but nothing else will change.

[dr_codex]

The (newish) dean recently described the incoming class as "very large!". The admissions people I was meeting with as part of a service project laughed and said the dean apparently doesn't understand how summer melt and deferments work, and the class should come in right about on target.

The Dean of Admissions attributed some of this to universities and colleges making placement tests optional, and noted that the ivies and larger universities were getting the larger share of applications.

I don't think this really holds water-- applications may be up, but selective places still only have X slots, which hasn't generally increased. The ivies could always have filled their classes many times over with the applicants they already had. Our (not an ivy, but a private R1 with ~30% acceptance rate) applications were up (probably some mix of going test-optional and a bumper-crop from students who decided to take a gap year last year) but we still have the same target enrollment and can't really go much over it or we start having problems with dorm rooms and class slots. So we'll look slightly more selective, but nothing else will change.

I was skeptical, too.

I think there a lot of reasons why we aren't drawing students, and they have virtually nothing to do with what Harvard is experiencing.

[Parasaurolophus]

No news yet on our front, I'm afraid.

[Anselm]

I have no data for my school but I did notice something.  From 2008 up until about 2017 we were sent an email with enrollment data showing changes from previous years for the Fall term and summer classes.  They stopped doing this and I suspect that it is because our numbers are down, significantly.   I can tell that just by looking at the parking lots.

[Ruralguy]

I don't know about Ivies, but certainly some competitive state programs are going down list quite a bit and taking a flyer on a bunch of people that they can cram in
temporary dorms. I have the feeling that the retention rate of said individuals is on the low side, but I am sure they've done the calculation of how much a 4 year tuition and fee yield they are like to get out of this year's crop. Presumably, they deemed it to be profitable enough.

This is one of the reasons why some of the smaller schools don't have much of a shot at remaining competitive. Can they really beat out a state program that can grow at the drop of a hat? Maybe, in some ways (attention to the student, overall pedagogical quality), but probably not enough ways that matter to students and parents.

[Parasaurolophus]

Yesterday we were told that domestic enrollments are up (good, because they were dangerously low) and international enrollments are down a bit (not unexpected). No numbers were proferred, however.

[Tee_Bee]

I'm at something of a flagship R1 in the southeast, and our freshman class is about 400 students above what all the models thought we'd get. These are all deposits put down, housing applications, etc., so the numbers looks solid. I'd echo what others have said about why--we suspended the SAT/ACT requirement, but the GPA/class standing didn't change that much. So our admissions people thing that student performance won't unduly suffer. International enrollments, particularly among grad students, are down, but there's apparently reason to believe that those numbers are going to rebound next year.

I worry about the SLACs in our region, and in home region.

[Dismal]

Our large masters program enrollment has remained steady or is even above the norm but 3 of my new advisees had undergrad GPAs of 2.5-2.6 in non STEM majors although I'm sure we'll be told our standards have not changed.

[the_geneticist]

Our numbers for Fall look the same as usual.  But we've had a HUGE increase in STEM majors coupled with a HUGE increase in "not algebra ready" students.  That means that we are getting a lot of students not able to start their core classes in their major until their 2nd year.  Plus, we had a really high failure rate in Intro courses & getting a lot of repeaters. 
Add in pressure from upper admin to fund fewer TAs to teach the labs and it's going to be a bit of a mess for the next few years.

[dr_codex]

Our numbers for Fall look the same as usual.  But we've had a HUGE increase in STEM majors coupled with a HUGE increase in "not algebra ready" students.  That means that we are getting a lot of students not able to start their core classes in their major until their 2nd year.  Plus, we had a really high failure rate in Intro courses & getting a lot of repeaters. 
Add in pressure from upper admin to fund fewer TAs to teach the labs and it's going to be a bit of a mess for the next few years.

That's a bad combination. Our 6-year graduation rate for Engineering students who don't start in Calc I or higher is very poor. Almost none of them make it. It's even worse for those who don't start in algebra; none of them make it. The numbers in other STEM areas aren't much better.

[lightning]

Our numbers for Fall look the same as usual.  But we've had a HUGE increase in STEM majors coupled with a HUGE increase in "not algebra ready" students.  That means that we are getting a lot of students not able to start their core classes in their major until their 2nd year.  Plus, we had a really high failure rate in Intro courses & getting a lot of repeaters. 
Add in pressure from upper admin to fund fewer TAs to teach the labs and it's going to be a bit of a mess for the next few years.

That's a bad combination. Our 6-year graduation rate for Engineering students who don't start in Calc I or higher is very poor. Almost none of them make it. It's even worse for those who don't start in algebra; none of them make it. The numbers in other STEM areas aren't much better.

If you have STEM-lite programs to catch those who fall, it helps with the academic unit's numbers. For example, our CS department plays "move the deck chairs," and also houses a UX/UI degree program, glorified web design programs, and a more management-based IT program to capture the CS dropouts. Our math programs have an analytics and stats program to keep math program dropouts in the math department, which helps with enrollment. Engineering needs something similar. As far as I know, they don't (at least at my uni).

[Mobius]

My place, which I'm leaving this summer, is cooking the books a bit with apples-to-oranges comparisons. Like a lot of schools, we started a few weeks earlier, so comparisons to the same week last year don't mean much. What's worse is they are comparing this week in 2021 to seven days later in 2020, which again skews the results. In essence, they are comparing this year to a point equivalent to a month ahead last year.

The change was made recently and "improved" the losses from around a 12-13% decline to a 7% decline.