April 16, 2002

Keeping an Eye on Admissions

Thanks to Record Applications, University Develops a More Selective Approach to Admissions

By Greg Licamele

When Kathryn Napper graduated from GW in 1977, the University received 5,000 applications and admitted 75 percent of those students.

Twenty-five years later, the standards for admission have become the most selective they have been in the University’s 181-year history.

Napper, now the director of admissions, has witnessed consistent growth through the years and a qualitative improvement in the students. She says for the Fall 2002 semester, the University received a record of approximately 16,900 applications and will admit 39–41 percent of those students (see “undergraduate admissions selectivity” chart). Last year, GW admitted 48.5 percent of the 15,960 applicants, with 2,578 students choosing to enroll for Fall 2001 (33.3 percent yield).

“We’re admitting 800–900 fewer freshmen than last year,” says Napper, adding, “We have a much larger wait list which to draw.”

Napper says 5,700 admittance letters were sent March 25. These admitted students have until May 1 to accept GW’s offer. In addition, 860 early decision students were admitted in January and February and are bound to attend GW. Napper says that while she can’t forecast this year’s yield (the number of students accepting admission), GW is aiming for an incoming class of 2,250 students.

Robert Chernak, vice president for student and academic support services, says the University knew it needed to be more conservative this year with acceptance letters.

“[Admissions] has to be correlated with budgetary planning in terms of the number of people, not just coming in new this year, but also forecasting out for a five-year period,” Chernak says. “We need to calculate the needs of the University such as services, housing, faculty, classrooms, and amenities.”

Chernak cites a basketful of reasons why applications continue to rise. One reason is the so called “baby-boom echo” — the increased number of students who are graduating from high schools around the country. That trend is expected to level off in 2005–06. But in a more local sense, it’s the increased prominence of GW, its academic offerings, and its location that are contributing to record-setting applications.

“We are becoming a more preferred institution among certain cohorts of the graduating senior high schoolers,” says Chernak, citing new facilities, new faculty members, and an overall improved GW experience.”

“Students are loving it here and staying here,” Napper says. “They go back and tell their friends. I’ve heard from many high school counselors this year about how happy their students are at GW.” The University’s freshman-to-sophomore retention rate has held steady at 92 percent over the last three years.

“When we look at students, we want to admit ones who we think are serious about being at GW,” Napper says. “There isn’t another school in a neighborhood like us. That’s one of the factors retention we have to take into consideration when admitting students.”

Napper says the average SAT score stands between 1180 and 1320 for incoming freshmen, while the grade point average will likely increase because more students were admitted who ranked in the top of their classes. In addition to an overall higher quality student being admitted, many of these students are applying to other well-renowned institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and Michigan.

“Students are looking at us and the Ivy’s,” Napper says.

As the student body has grown consistently in the last eight years, the amount of financial aid GW offers also has increased. In 1995, undergraduates received almost $61 million in financial aid, of which $35 million came from GW. In 2000, $104 million was dedicated to undergraduate financial aid, with GW contributing $53 million (see “undergraduate financial aid” chart). Dan Small, director of financial aid, says GW’s aid is extremely important to students who want to enroll.

“Once we determine a student’s financial need, GW will try to award as close to 70 percent of the need from our funds,” Small says. “The rest comes from other sources and in the form of loans and work.”

Small says the packages GW offers are competitive with other schools. He says the University tries not to enter a “bidding war,” but his office does monitor other institutions and listens to student concerns.

“At times we offer more, other times less, but more than likely the difference is within a few thousand dollars,” Small says. “We try to be consistent in our policy and to follow through from year to year so families can plan out their four years at GW. So far, we seem to be doing OK since admissions reports are increasing in numbers and quality, and we seem to be able to maintain our numbers and keep within our allocation.”

Chernak says as admissions numbers stabilize, the University will have a greater opportunity for qualitative improvement throughout campus.

“Just like in an airplane, you use a lot of power rising to a certain altitude, and once you level off, you pick up your speed,” Chernak says. “It’s the same thing that will happen here at the University.”

As more resources are dedicated to students and as the University becomes more selective, Napper, who earned three degrees at GW, says her diplomas from a then-sleepy University look better every day.

“My degrees are increasing in value all of the time,” Napper says. “There’s more prestige associated with them every year.”

 

Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu