Sundai Pulls the Plug on Admissions Boasts After Tokyo University Numbers Don’t Add Up

The reporter, after two years of setbacks, was admitted to a private university in Tokyo. Since it was an acceptance to his first-choice school after failing the entrance exams twice, he remembers how he and his parents rejoiced from the bottom of their hearts. Still, there was something puzzling.

“I only took a few days of summer classes at that cram school, though.”

Despite having hardly attended, his name appeared on the list of successful applicants published by a certain prep school. It was 30 years ago, but this kind of padding of successful applicants is said to still go on today.

On August 1, the major prep school Sundai Yobiko announced that starting with the 2026 university entrance exams, it would stop publishing the number of successful applicants. The school explained the reason as: “Since it has become common for examinees to study using multiple cram schools, prep schools, and online materials, the number of successful applicants from a single institution has lost much of its original meaning.”

Indeed, the numbers published by prep schools and universities don’t add up. For example, this year’s general entrance exam at the University of Tokyo admitted 2,997 students. However, the combined number of successful applicants claimed by four major companies (Sundai, Kawaijuku, Toshin High School, and Tetsuryokukai) reached about 4,500. University journalist Reiji Ishiwatari explains:

“Since the 1960s, when university entrance exams became fiercely competitive, each prep school has been padding their numbers. In addition to regular year-round students, they would include short-term students from summer courses, exaggerating their achievements. Some even counted those who only took mock exams. To curb this rampant padding, the Japan Association of Private Education tightened its voluntary standards for reporting success rates in July 2024.”

“Is this based on last year’s results, or this year’s?”

Under the association’s new standards, only students who either (1) were enrolled during the six months leading up to the exam and actually took at least 30 hours of classes under a course contract, or (2) continuously attended for at least three months, may be counted as part of a school’s record of successful applicants. However, these standards are not always strictly observed. Ishiwatari continues explaining the tricks behind this:

“After all, there are plenty of cram schools and prep schools that don’t belong to the association. Even if there is a formal enrollment contract, some schools treat high-achieving students as if they had attended, accepting them as scholarship students. It’s simply in the nature of prep schools to want to boost their track record, even a little.”

So, is there any way for examinees to tell whether numbers are “padded”?

“The key point is whether the school publishes detailed and specific data, such as year-by-year results and the final schools that students actually attend. For example, Nichigaku, a long-established prep school that went bankrupt this January, used vague wording for its results. Even though it promoted large numbers of successful applicants, it wasn’t clear whether the figures were from last year or this year.

With the declining birthrate, prep schools that casually pad their success numbers are likely to be weeded out. Especially in urban areas, integrated middle-and-high schools are providing more thorough education, which reduces the significance of cram schools and prep schools. Students and parents are becoming much more discerning. Only prep schools that make their results transparent and provide stronger support for students may survive.” (Ishiwatari)

Entrance exam formats are also diversifying, with school recommendations and comprehensive selection exams. Instead of the old-fashioned style of teaching multiple subjects to hundreds of students at once, prep schools are now expected to adopt more tailored methods that meet the diverse needs of examinees.