<p>Anyone have data on the missing schools: Wash U St. Louis, Rice etc.</p>
<p>I just happened to notice that Duke, Chicago and Northwestern, indisputably some of the best universities in the nation, have slightly higher acceptance rates than the Ivies and their peers in the Northeast/West.</p>
<p>There definitely seems to be a regional bias against the South and Midwest that even affects the number of applicants among top tier American universities.</p>
<p>"There definitely seems to be a regional bias against the South and Midwest that even affects the number of applicants among top tier American universities."</p>
<p>Acceptance rate is not just a function of applicant number... One has to look at expected yield, ED acceptances, class size, etc. Northwestern got more applications than 5 of the 8 Ivy League schools, but because of other factors. its acceptance rate is higher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Acceptance rate is not just a function of applicant number... One has to look at expected yield, ED acceptances, class size, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right, I understand that acceptance rate is affected by multiple factors. In fact now that you mention it, I'd say class size would be one of the reasons why Northwestern and Duke might have higher acceptance rates than their peers. I still think these schools are more often than not underrated by the general populace due to their location and that this could potentially play a role in their acceptance rates.</p>
<p>But If class size is a primary reason for Duke and Northwestern's acceptance rate, I wonder what the case is for Chicago? Chicago's acceptance rate is unusually high despite being a relatively small university.</p>
<p>Chicago has suffered IMO because their application, while really interesting, is also more difficult to complete thereby discouraging all but the truely interested. I think they are planning on accepting the common app in the future (a controversial decsion at Chicago) which should improve their numbers.</p>
<p>Several schols operate under stereotypes/myths/disadvantages that hinder their selectivity. For instance, Cornell's known for having a high suicide rate (not true), grade deflation (not true), and being in a "rural" town (kinda true). Chicago's known for being very grad-focused and not very fun. These actually make such schools educational bargains because they offer tremondous education but are not quite as selective as other top institutions (or are more self-selective).</p>
<p>Rensselaer's acceptance rate for 2007 has dropped to 49%, a drop of another 18% (!). That means its gone from 78% to 49% in 2 years. </p>
<p>There are a lot of major changes going on the campus under the "Rensselaer Plan" spearheaded by the president, Shirley Ann Jackson to move the University "into the top tier" of research universities, and they're definitely starting to attract more students, in addition to the overall trends.</p>
<p>Columbia really needs to move up on that list, as far as I'm concerned its acceptance rate this year was the lowest of the ivys at 8.9%</p>
<p>I don't get it?, wheres amherst on the list?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone have data on the missing schools: Wash U St. Louis
[/quote]
</p>
<p>WashU's rate this year is going to be around 18-19%.</p>
<p>So Authentic,</p>
<p>There is a similar thread somewhere for the LAC's but it has fallen off the current list.</p>
<p>it had Amherst on the list?
so whats the link?</p>
<p>So athentic,</p>
<p>I bumped it up to the top or the list for you. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=372045%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=372045</a></p>
<p>hmmm but those are just liberal arts colleges. Shouldn't Amherst be among Top national universities in general?</p>
<p>That's what Amherst College is. No graduate school, about 1600 students. It is a really good one, but it is a separate catagory. Some people prefer LAC's but they are different. A university by definition has graduate programs and is typically made up of multiple colleges.</p>
<p>hmmmmm. Well excuse my ignorance. But yeah, I see. so thats why they couldn't call it Amherst University. Instead they'll call it Amherst college. Very <em>interesting</em></p>
<p>LoL... You don't know the difference between a college and a university!?!?!?</p>
<p>I'd be interested in seeing net changes from further back... say.. 2000 to 2007... if someone is looking for something to do.</p>
<p>kk. <em>sigh</em> Yes I do know the diff; I just didn't get the whole undergraduate thing && how amherst works.</p>
<p>According to a good source Wisconsin will be around 50-51% this year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Acceptance rates for the top med schools:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard 4.7%</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins 6.2%</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania 4.4%</li>
<li>Washington University in St. Louis 10.5%</li>
<li>UCSF 4.4%</li>
<li>University of Washington 6.2%</li>
<li>Stanford 3.1%</li>
<li>Duke 4.0%</li>
<li>Yale 6.5%</li>
<li>Baylor 6.4%</li>
<li>Columbia 4.5%</li>
<li>University of Michigan 8.0%</li>
</ol>
<p>Someone always has it worse...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>haha</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chicago has suffered IMO because their application, while really interesting, is also more difficult to complete thereby discouraging all but the truely interested.
[/quote]
no, and like kk said, it has to do with more than just applicant numbers. </p>
<p>In fact, Chicago has a relatively low yield, defying the "only interested applicants" argument. Their admissions rate is high because they lose a lot of cross-admit battles, likely with HYP, Columbia et al.</p>