On March 26 Reed College offered admission to 1,356 of the 2,887 applicants for the class of 2017. The acceptance rate of 47 percent marks the class of 2017 as the least selective class since 2004 and comes on the heels of what had been an unprecedented period of increasing selectivity for the college.
From 2000 to 2008 Reed saw its applicant pool double and its admission rate plummet from 74 percent to an all-time low of 32 percent in 2008, as a result of the restructuring of the Admission Office under former Dean of Admission, Paul Marthers, as well as a nation-wide influx of Millennial applicants. According to current Dean of Admission, Keith Todd, a larger applicant pool has allowed the college to find students who are a better match for Reed, and notes that “faculty are more happy with the quality of students.” Although the incoming Reedies of the past decade are more likely to graduate and have boasted higher GPAs and SAT scores compared to Reedies of the past decade, Todd cautions that a high test score is not a guarantee of admission. According to Todd, Reed’s unique and demanding classroom environment requires a student that will be engaged in the classroom: “Not every ‘A’ student is active in the classroom.” The admission committee also takes into consideration applicants with spotty academic records due to extenuating circumstances as well as students they consider “late bloomers.”
Despite the decrease in applicants this year, Todd acknowledges that increasing the applicant pool is a long-term goal of the administration. He points to an increase in applications at public universities, particularly the University of California system, as well as the tailwind of the recession, as potential causes of Reed’s shrinking applicant pool. In an attempt to grow the applicant pool, Todd says the Admission Office is promoting Reed more heavily in Asia, where the market for a liberal arts education is growing. However, he concedes that attracting international students who cannot afford to pay the entirety of their tuition is a challenge, as Reed has a limited amount of aid to offer to international students.
John Sheehy ’82, a member of Reed’s Board of Trustees, considers the goal of increasing the applicant pool “a big challenge.” Sheehy cites Reed’s high percentage of graduates who go on to earn PhDs as well as its large number of Rhodes Scholars, as selling points that are beginning to fatigue. “We are coasting on our earlier reputation in that aspect.”
Reed has produced a total of 30 Rhodes Scholars; however, of the 30 only 2 have been awarded in the past 30 years. The percentage of graduates who go on to earn PhDs has also shown a very slight downward trend – about one percentage point – over the last 30 years.
Sheehy worries that Reed will not be able to draw a larger applicant pool without first expanding financial aid, a prospect that he acknowledges is likely not in the cards in the near future. “We’re not in a good situation to attract more full-pay students and not in a position to expand financial aid.” Sheehy says that Reed, “while in the best shape it has ever been financially,” is still financially fragile and dependent on tuition to finance operating costs. According to Sheehy, 50% of Reed’s applicants need to be willing to pay in order to subsidize the already limited financial aid that Reed is able to give to students in need. Reed competes with top-tier liberal arts colleges that can either afford to be need-blind or are willing to offer merit aid to attract wealthy students to offset the cost of extending financial aid packages to students in need. Reed is currently unable to fully meet the financial needs of 10 percent of students that request aid.
Student Body Vice-President Paul Messick ’15 warns that growing the applicant pool may result in the homogenization of the student body. He places blame on the Admission Office and Public Affairs for failing to separate Reed’s history of drug use from its “iconoclastic and counter culture” image. Messick argues that both offices are “not painting the fullest picture possible” by placing a singular emphasis on the academic rigor and prestige of the college, while neglecting to “give appropriate emphasis to the autonomy that students at Reed have to govern themselves as a body.” He says that the college’s marketing efforts are drawing students who are exclusively interested in the academic nature of the college and lack commitment to Reed’s community: “The marketing is more and more attracting students who like the marketing.”
Messick advises against “renegotiating” Reed’s values in an attempt to increase the applicant pool, instead suggesting that Reed look for input from students, faculty, and alumni to decide a way forward for the college that won’t compromise its ideals. He recommends that Reed focus on the unique qualities that have traditionally separated it from its peer intuitions. “We have to trust that if we create the field of dreams that people will come.”