On Nov. 20, Swarthmore Vice President and Dean of Admissions Jim Bock ’90 convened with students for an “Admissions 101” panel hosted by the Student Government Organization. The session offered an overview of the college’s admissions philosophy and operational realities amid nationwide questions surrounding standardized testing requirements, the aftermath of Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, and increasing public scrutiny of admissions practices.
Bock opened the discussion by framing the admissions process within Swarthmore’s core institutional missions. He mentioned the challenge of marketing Swarthmore for the incoming class of 2029, given that larger universities often dominate public perception and tuition increases pose a barrier to communicating accessibility.
For the class of 2029, the Admissions Office yielded 425 first-year students and nineteen transfer students from a pool of 12,995 applicants, maintaining the college’s 7.4% acceptance rate. Recruitment strategies have therefore evolved beyond traditional methods, including a targeted tour. Bock visited Austin Community College and several other schools in his hometown, Austin, TX, and beyond. With more admissions tours at community colleges, he signaled an intentional expansion of the applicant pipeline: “We are actively recruiting bright community college students.”
This outreach effort operates within a defined annual rhythm. The fall is dedicated to application reading, and the spring shifts focus to yield efforts, retention analysis, and transfer student evaluation — all while navigating the logistical constraints of managing enrollment for a residential campus.
A critical example of Swarthmore’s adapting strategy involves its recent standardized testing policy. The college has chosen to continue its test-optional admissions policy for up to five more years. Bock emphasized that this extension was not a reactive decision but one grounded in nearly three years of internal analysis and campus consultation, guided by performance and retention data tracked since the policy was piloted in 2020.
Analyses conducted by the Admissions Office, in consultation with the Institutional Effectiveness, Research & Assessment (IERA) Office and faculty leadership, found that students admitted both with and without test scores are “overwhelmingly doing well,” with retention rates remaining high for both cohorts. While students who applied without scores exhibited slightly lower first- and second-year GPAs on average, Bock previously told The Phoenix this gap is “not worrisome.”
Furthermore, the analysis compared the outcomes for non-submitters with applicants who submitted scores below the majority, finding that both groups demonstrated similar academic trajectories. According to Bock, these analyses have strengthened the college’s confidence that “informed [admissions] decisions can be made with or without scores.”
Bock felt it was important to note that the college remains test-optional, not test-blind, meaning students can still choose whether to submit SAT or ACT scores. The college also continues to consider results from AP exams, IB predicted scores, and country-specific high school leaving or graduation examinations when offered.
Bock again discussed the shrinking availability of testing seats, particularly in large applicant markets like California, where the state university system has shifted to a test-free policy. This shortage poses a significant concern for private and out-of-state admissions departments and students unable to afford standardized testing applying outside their state system. This reduction in testing centers also risks widening inequality, as families with greater financial means may travel out of state or reserve seats at under-resourced high schools to secure a spot.
Bock says there are “not enough seats for all high school SAT test-takers in California.” Compounding this uncertainty is the ACT’s decision to remove its science section, a revision that has not yet been reliably studied or aligned with updated concordance tables, leading to hesitation among admissions regarding reliance on rapidly shifting assessments.
With the rise of increasingly efficient and human-like generative artificial intelligence (AI), the world of admissions is changing. Swarthmore is one of the few institutions to have made a formal statement on the use of AI in its admissions. Bock clarified that AI tools, such as chatbots, are explicitly not used by the Admissions Office for final decision-making or transcript reading. The primary institutional challenge is for academic departments in ethically integrating AI tools into teaching and learning, a domain separate from the admissions process itself.
Bock maintained that Swarthmore will preserve its need-blind admissions policy for domestic students. The ability to do so is supported by the college’s endowment, which funds the financial aid budget. The college does not commit to a concrete yearly budget for aid to retain its need-blind stance, choosing instead to admit as it goes and later source the necessary aid for the admitted students.
This commitment was tested in the previous admissions cycle, which saw the highest yield of admitted students with financial aid in the college’s history. Bock emphasized the financial generosity inherent in Swarthmore’s funding model, given that the average cost of attendance for those receiving financial aid is about half the cost of Penn State and the cost of educating each student is higher than any individual student pays in tuition.
The need-blind policy does not extend to international applicants, though there is a dedicated budget for international aid that is not capped, allowing approximately two-thirds of international students to full pay.
Responding to a question from an audience member, Bock clarified that due to costs per student exceeding tuition, full-pay international students help buttress the school’s generous financial aid.
The practice of early decision (ED) admissions remains important for Swarthmore, though Bock acknowledged that it is currently experiencing challenges due to an ongoing lawsuit filed against 32 colleges, including Swarthmore.
He said that while applying ED is a binding commitment from the applicant to enroll at the school if accepted, it is not enforced for students who are financially dependent on comparing aid offers from multiple institutions, and is enforced overall only via an honor system. Bock shared that, overall, Swarthmore is “very fortunate,” as the college loses very few applicants from ED.
“There is no communication between schools for early decision,” he stated. Crucially, the office proactively sends financial aid estimates to ED admittees within two weeks of acceptance, allowing students for whom affordability is uncertain to withdraw and meet other application deadlines.
The recruitment and enrollment of transfer students represent a targeted expansion of the Swarthmore student body, with the college actively seeking to enhance diversity and access. As part of “Swarthmore Forward” — the college’s current strategic plan to “enhance its educational, community, and campus experience for students” — the college has pledged to “admit an annual cohort of up to twenty to 25 transfer students from community colleges.” The office successfully yielded near the target, with nineteen new transfers for the classes of 2028 and 2027.
With a transfer acceptance rate of about 10% for the 2024-2025 cycle, Bock noted that 46% of enrolled transfer students this year came from community colleges. However, the capacity to admit transfers is inherently dependent on institutional constraints like the yield of the first-year class and the resulting availability of on-campus housing.
The college admits students to the school as a whole, not to a specific major, with engineering being the only exception. Supplementary application materials, such as portfolios for theater, music, dance, and poetry, can be submitted.
Bock acknowledged that many of these materials are never fully reviewed due to the volume. However, for early decision applicants, all supplements are reviewed by faculty experts in their area. For regular decision applicants, a limited pool of supplements is assessed by faculty and can serve as a plus factor in final deliberations for strong candidates.
Responding to another question from an audience member, Bock said that recruited athletes comprise about a quarter of each class. He says that athletes benefit from higher acceptance rates partially because they have been pre-vetted through camps, visits, and coach communications. Bock clarified the clear division of labor in athletic recruitment: “We [admissions] determine admission, coaches determine talent.”
He described the remaining legacy preference in admissions decisions as a “small, limited policy” applied only to children and siblings of alumni. He emphasized that legacy status might serve as a contextual factor, but qualifications remain foremost. Notably, 10% of the legacy students in the Class of 2029 are first-generation legacies (e.g., only their sibling, not their parent, has attended the college), a part of legacy consideration that Bock suggested has contributed to campus diversity.
To manage enrollment targets, Swarthmore defers fewer than 10% of fall early decision candidates. The college also welcomes gap years, even for students admitted from the waitlist, a flexibility afforded by its small size and student-focused culture.
