College Admissions Trends from Last Year (2024–25) — and How to Use Them for This Year’s Applications (2026–27)
Key takeaways (TL;DR)
Applications hit new highs (and students applied to more colleges), which makes outcomes less predictable. (commonapp.org)
Public universities saw faster application growth than private colleges—flagships are getting even more crowded. (commonapp.org)
Test scores are “back” in a big way: more students reported scores, and more top schools reinstated testing requirements (with different policies). (commonapp.org)
What colleges say they value hasn’t fundamentally changed: course rigor + grades still drive the bus, with essays/recs as key differentiators. (obp.umich.edu)
Waitlists remain wildly variable—treat them as uncertain and build a real “Plan A” list. (mitadmissions.org)
What “last year” means (and why the Common Data Set matters)
“Last year” in this post = the 2024–25 application season (students applying for fall 2025 entry). The Common App published its end-of-season report on August 13, 2025. (commonapp.org)
The Common Data Set (CDS) is a standardized reporting format colleges publish to make key facts easier to compare (admissions factors, testing, waitlist numbers, etc.). It’s one of the most reliable ways to confirm what a college says it uses in review and what the enrolled class looks like. (irds.stanford.edu)
Trend #1: More applications (and more applications per student)
What happened (data):
Common App reported 1,498,199 applicants and 10,193,579 total applications across 1,097 member institutions—the first time applications surpassed 10 million. (commonapp.org)
Applicants applied to slightly more colleges on average (applications per applicant rose from 6.64 to 6.80). (commonapp.org)
Why it matters:
More volume = more “noise” in the process (especially at selective schools), and it can make results feel random even for strong applicants.
How it should change your strategy for 2026–27:
Build a list that’s balanced on admissions and affordability. Aim for a mix of:
“Likely” schools you’d truly attend
“Match” schools where your stats + fit are aligned
“Reach” schools (including the ultra-selective)
Don’t confuse “competitive” with “safe.” If a school’s admit rate is low, treat it like a reach even if your GPA/test scores are high.
Trend #2: Public universities gained applications faster than private colleges
What happened (data):
Applications to public Common App members grew 13%, compared to 3% for private members (2023–24 to 2024–25). (commonapp.org)
Why it matters:
State flagships and large publics are increasingly popular for perceived ROI, strong programs, and name recognition—so out-of-state and “popular major” competition can be intense.
How to adjust your strategy:
Treat out-of-state public flagships as selective unless you’re clearly above their typical ranges.
Apply early where it helps (many publics have EA priority for scholarships, honors, or just earlier review).
Track major/program rules: some universities have separate admission pathways for engineering, business, CS, etc. (This isn’t universal, but it’s common enough to check school-by-school.)
Trend #3: The applicant pool kept shifting (first-gen, URM, and low-income growth)
What happened (data):
Underrepresented minority applicants (as defined in the report) increased 14%, with strong growth among Latinx (15%) and Black/African American (12%) applicants. (commonapp.org)
First-generation applicants grew 14%. (commonapp.org)
Applicants reporting Common App fee waiver eligibility grew 10% (vs. 3% for non-eligible), and growth from below-median income ZIP codes continued to outpace above-median income ZIP codes (10% vs. 4%). (commonapp.org)
Why it matters:
Colleges are actively building classes with multiple goals (academics, programs, geography, access, etc.). A shifting pool can change the competitive “shape” of a cycle.
How to adjust your strategy:
If you have significant context (family responsibilities, work, limited courses at school, etc.), use the Additional Information section to explain it clearly and briefly.
If cost matters, treat financial aid steps as application steps (FAFSA/CSS deadlines can be as real as admissions deadlines).
Trend #4: Testing policies are diverging—and more students submitted scores anyway
This is one of the biggest “strategy” shifts from last year to this year.
4A) More applicants reported test scores
Common App found that test-score reporters increased 12%, while non-reporters decreased slightly (less than 1%). This was the first time since 2021–22 that score-reporting growth outpaced non-reporting. (commonapp.org)
4B) More highly selective colleges reinstated testing requirements (or alternatives)
Examples of what changed (or solidified) recently:
Harvard announced a return to required SAT/ACT starting with the Class of 2029 application cycle, with specified alternatives in limited “exceptional” access cases. (fas.harvard.edu)
Dartmouth returned to requiring SAT/ACT beginning with applicants to the Class of 2029. (president.dartmouth.edu)
Brown reinstated required testing beginning with the Class of 2029. (brown.edu)
Yale adopted a test-flexible requirement (you must submit test results, but not only SAT/ACT; approved alternatives are allowed). (news.yale.edu)
Princeton (as of its published policy) remains test optional for applicants seeking fall 2026 or fall 2027 entry, but plans to require testing beginning with the 2027–28 admission cycle (fall 2028 entry). (admission.princeton.edu)
What the Common Data Set shows about reality (even before full testing returns)
Even during the test-optional era, many enrolled students still submitted scores. For example (Fall 2024 enrolled first-year classes):
Harvard CDS 2024–25: 54% submitted SAT; 19% submitted ACT. (oira.harvard.edu)
University of Michigan CDS 2024–25: 51% submitted SAT; 18% submitted ACT. (obp.umich.edu)
Brown CDS 2024–25: 61% submitted SAT; 24% submitted ACT. (oir.brown.edu)
How to use this for 2026–27 applications
Plan to test at least once (SAT or ACT) even if some of your schools are test optional—because your list may change, policies may change, and strong scores can still help.
Use score submission strategically:
If a school is test-required/test-flexible, comply early so you’re not scrambling. (college.harvard.edu)
If a school is test optional, compare your score to the school’s CDS ranges and submission rates to make a decision (and consider your school context).
Trend #5: Colleges keep telling us the same core story: rigor + grades matter most
The Common Data Set is very clear on this at many institutions: your transcript matters most, and then several “human” pieces (recommendations, essays, qualities, activities) help distinguish you.
Two examples:
University of Michigan CDS 2024–25 rates rigor of secondary school record and academic GPA as Very Important, and also lists recommendations, test scores, and essays as Important. (obp.umich.edu)
Harvard CDS 2024–25 shows the institution considers multiple academic and nonacademic factors (including rigor, GPA, testing, essays, recommendations, extracurriculars, and first-generation status). (oira.harvard.edu)
How that should change your strategy:
Prioritize senior-year rigor (especially in the context of what your school offers).
Use your essays and activities to show direction and depth, not a résumé dump.
Make it easy for recommenders to write specifics (a short brag sheet + 2–3 examples of your impact).
Trend #6: Early application options keep expanding (especially at large publics)
Early plans are becoming a bigger part of how schools manage enrollment—and applicants increasingly use them strategically.
One concrete example:
The University of Michigan announced it would introduce a new binding Early Decision option for first-year applicants for the 2026–27 academic year (i.e., the cycle many current juniors will use). (news.umich.edu)
And at highly selective schools, early round volume remains enormous. MIT’s published stats for the Class of 2029 show 12,052 Early Action applicants and an overall admit rate of 4.6%. (mitadmissions.org)
Strategy implications:
Use ED only if it’s your clear first choice and you’re comfortable with the financial commitment (since it’s binding).
Use EA when it provides real advantages (priority scholarship deadlines, earlier review, honors programs, etc.).
Don’t apply early “just because”—apply early with a plan.
Trend #7: Waitlists stayed unpredictable (use CDS + official stats to reality-check them)
Waitlist outcomes range from “meaningful movement” to “almost none,” depending on the school and the year.
Examples:
MIT (Class of 2029): 561 offered a waitlist spot; 10 admitted from the waitlist. (mitadmissions.org)
University of Michigan (Fall 2024 CDS): reported 973 wait-listed students admitted (illustrating how some large institutions can pull many more students from the waitlist). (obp.umich.edu)
How to adjust your strategy:
Treat waitlists as uncertain, not a plan.
If waitlisted, follow each school’s instructions carefully (some want a LOCI; others don’t).
Make a strong enrollment plan by May 1, regardless.
A practical “this year” checklist (for the 2026–27 application season)
If you’re applying this coming cycle, here’s what to do differently based on last year’s trends:
Finalize your testing plan by early summer
Pick SAT vs ACT, schedule dates, and build in time for a retake if needed.
Build your list with “volume” in mind
Because applications are up, protect yourself with true likelies + financial likelies. (commonapp.org)
Map early deadlines in a single spreadsheet
Include EA/ED, honors, merit scholarships, portfolio/audition deadlines.
Draft essays earlier than you think you need to
With holistic review, writing quality and specificity still matter. (obp.umich.edu)
Use the Common Data Set like a playbook
Check: C7 (factors), C9 (test ranges + % submitting), C2 (waitlist), and any early plan reporting.
Final thought
Last year’s data points to a simple reality: more applicants, more complexity, and more policy variation. The students who do best are usually the ones who build a smart list early, stay flexible, and treat every part of the application (transcript, testing, essays, recommendations, and deadlines) as a system.
Not sure where to start? Let’s make a plan.
In an intro call, we can cover:
what schools make sense (reach/match/likely)
your timeline + priorities
where essays/activities can be strengthened
If that sounds helpful, contact me.
