Acceptance Rates for Top National Universities

Applying to College
81

<p>Okay, even if those weren't significant differences (they are, though), we're ignoring the crucial fact of tuition. It doesn't necessarily matter how much a student is being given as much as it matters how much a student HAS TO PAY.</p>

<p>I've taken the following data from USNews.com. It's tuition + room/board. The other expenses most likely come out to the same for every university as they're mostly personal expenses and how one manages his money.</p>

<p>Princeton:
Tuition and fees: $33,000
Room/board: $9,200
Total: $42,200</p>

<p>Harvard:
Tuition and fees: $33,709
Room/board: $9,946
Total: ~$43,650</p>

<p>Yale:
Tuition and fees: $33,030
Room/board: $10,020
Total: $43,050</p>

<p>MIT:
Tuition and fees: $33,600
Room/board: $9,950
Total: $43,550</p>

<p>Penn:
Tuition and fees: $34,156
Room/board: $9,804
Total: ~$44,000</p>

<p>Duke:
Tuition and fees: $33,963
Room/board: $9,152
Total: ~$43,000</p>

<p>Dartmouth:
Tuition and fees: $33,501
Room/board: $9,840
Total: ~$43,340</p>

<p>Chicago:
Tuition and fees: $34,005
Room/board: $10,608
Total: ~$44,600</p>

<p>This means that Chicago has a pretty damn high tuition, so even though students are ALREADY given the 2nd least average aid among the Ivys, they also have to pay more tuition (in most cases over $1000). In most cases, the difference between the total amount a student has to pay between Chicago and another school is over $2,000, which is over $8,000 after 4 years. That's quite a sum of money for those already in need of financial aid (which is who this figure applies to).</p>

82

<p>by the way, even more evidence, here is a revealed preference survey adjusted for cost of attendance, including financial aid packages:</p>

<p><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"we show how to account for the potentially confounding effects of tuition
discounts, financial aid, and other factors that might make a college "win" when it would lose
on the basis of its intrinsic desirability"</p>

<p>"instrinsic desirability," hmm...</p>

<p>Chicago: #28, behind every other school in the top 15 besides WashU based on "intrinsic desirability" hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm</p>

83

<p>
[quote]
AND, schools with indisputably worst financial aid programs (northwestern, stanford) regardless maintain higher yields than uchicago

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stanford:
Tuition and fees: $32,994
Room/board: $10,367
Total: ~$43,350
Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $26,639</p>

<p>Umm, Stanford has a higher average need-based scholarship AND a lower tuition than Chicago. "Indisuputably worse?"</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
This means that Chicago has a pretty damn high tuition,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>pretty damn high tuition? besides the fact that UChicago seems to have a grossly inflated "room/board" estimate, it is still only about $1,000 more expensive than any of those other schools!</p>

85

<p>I don't think you should brush Brand_182's point away so lightly. Depending on how a school counts business income and/or home equity, one school could end up having fewer people qualify for aid at all--or, have them qualify for less because their EFC is higher. Such a school might look generous in meeting 100% of need, and may even boast a fabulous grant aid percentage. But in reality they are significantly less "generous" because of their need formulas, and more students and paying more of their own $$ to attend there.</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
not more aid, more cases of providing aid to affluent students, ie: students with less need, thus lower aid packages, thus bringing down the average aid grant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, ceteris paribus, this would CERTAINLY raise the average aid figures, since giving these students SOME aid is BETTER than giving them NO aid. The only way your scenario would actually lower the average financial aid numbers is if these affluent students already had significant aid packages, which is clearly not the case.</p>

<p>
[quote]
as shown by what? surely not the specific data just posted.. you mean by your own anecdotes and supposition?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The average data sets for need-based scholarships and awards speak for themselves. Look, the basic idea is that if Chicago were more aggressive with its aid packages, then it could win over more of the cross-admits. But you said:</p>

<p>
[quote]
financial aid imbalances do not play a role in cross-admit battles like you imply.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? Not even one bit?</p>

<p>
[quote]
AND, schools with indisputably worst financial aid programs (northwestern, stanford) regardless maintain higher yields than uchicago, further supporting my argument that uchicago's low yield is not a result of inadequate financial aid packages, but rather a result of simply losing cross-admit battles based on appeal.</p>

<p>which goes back to my ORIGINAL claim that uchicago does not have a "self-selecting" applicant pool, the argument that is commonly made re: its high acceptance rate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course, but nobody really ever disputed that. However, lagging financial aid offers simply aren't going to win over most of these cross-admits. My point is should Chicago choose to be much more aggressive with their "real" aid packages, then it could win over many more students. Stanford has a pretty strong brand name, so its higher yield is not difficult to fathom. If Chicago wants to fight with a behemoth like Stanford, then it needs to give more aid than Stanford does, NOT less.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
Umm, Stanford has a higher average need-based scholarship

[/quote]
</p>

<p>lol, by $283, and it provides financial aid to only 42% of its student body. and no merit scholarships.</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
Uh, ceteris paribus, this would CERTAINLY raise the average aid figures, since giving these students SOME aid is BETTER than giving them NO aid.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>no... just... no. it would raise the % of the student body receiving aid and lower the average grant. this isn't an argument it's mathematics.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
Stanford has a pretty strong brand name, so its higher yield is not difficult to fathom.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yes! this was what i was arguing, that it's not financial considerations that are to blame, because as we have seen financial aid packages are comparable across all top 15 schools (and any arguments against this are absolutely splitting hairs), but that it's rather pure appeal of the school! that's all i was arguing!</p>

<p>
[quote]
If Chicago wants to fight with a behemoth like Stanford, then it needs to give more aid than Stanford, NOT less.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yes yes yes! that was my whole argument, that given equal financial considerations (which is essentially what exists), chicago loses cross-admit battles at a high rate. the argument got started when phuriku started claiming that financial considerations were actually what was to blame.</p>

<p>AKA the chicago applicant pool is not self-selecting!</p>

<p>my initial statement:

[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

90

<p>
[quote]
no... just... no. it would raise the % of the student body receiving aid and lower the average grant. this isn't an argument it's mathematics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you fail at mathematics. Think about what you just said again. Maybe it will help you to know that I used to be a heavy participant in mathematical olympiads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
pretty damn high tuition? besides the fact that UChicago seems to have a grossly inflated "room/board" estimate, it is still only about $1,000 more expensive than any of those other schools!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Only $1000? I'm sorry, I don't know where you come from, but $1000 here in America goes a long way. With $1000, I could give my room a snazzy makeover, go out with friends often, and eat out instead of depend on my college's dining hall all the time. $1000 is a pretty crucial thing to have when you're a college student just trying to enjoy your surroundings.</p>

91

<p>
[quote]
And you fail at mathematics. Think about what you just said again.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>if you provide financial aid to more wealthy applicants, the average financial package drops, and the percent of the student body receiving aid rises.</p>

<p>consider:</p>

<p>three students go to school X.</p>

<p>Student 1:
Estimated financial need: $10</p>

<p>Student 2:
Estimated financial need: $20</p>

<p>Student 3:
Estimated financial need: $30</p>

<p>if you only provide financial aid to students 2 and 3, the average grant is $25, and the % of the student body receiving aid is 66%</p>

<p>if you then provide aid to the more affluent student 1, the average grant is $20, and the % of the student body receiving aid is 100%.</p>

<p>if you provide financial aid to more wealthy applicants, the average financial package drops, and the percent of the student body receiving aid rises.</p>

<p>maybe you misunderstood what i was saying... now do you understand?</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
yes! this was what i was arguing, that it's not financial considerations that are to blame, because as we have seen financial aid packages are comparable across all top 15 schools (and any arguments against this are absolutely splitting hairs), but that it's rather pure appeal of the school! that's all i was arguing!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not really. What you said was that financial aid had nothing to do with Chicago's low yield, which is patently false. But phuriku has shown that Chicago's loan/work study packages aren't exactly highly favored upon either, and ALL of this combined with a low general preference makes Chicago a tough school to take in.</p>

<p>
[quote]
yes yes yes! that was my whole argument, that given equal financial considerations (which is essentially what exists), chicago loses cross-admit battles at a high rate. the argument got started when phuriku started claiming that financial considerations were actually what was to blame.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, Chicago's aid is to blame. Is it solely because of the aid? No, like I said, people tend to prefer elsewhere. But financial aid is part of the blame, ESPECIALLY if you offer LESS than your STRONGER competitors. Really, does that make any sense to you?</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
Only $1000?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>when discussing near $50,000 of expenses, that amounts to 2%.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
Not really. What you said was that financial aid had nothing to do with Chicago's low yield, which is patently false.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>how is that false? i've posted financial aid data, and a revealed preferences survey adjusting for financial costs, both of which support what i'm saying. you haven't posted anything.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But phuriku has shown that Chicago's loan/work study packages aren't exactly highly favored upon either

[/quote]

no he didn't, he's splitting hairs with single points of data from a single school, whereas i posted aggregate data for all schools in the top 15 and the case was, clearly, that chicago was at the very least equal, if not moreso, in providing financial aid.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Uh, Chicago's aid is to blame.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>just saying it doesn't make it true, the data clearly indicates otherwise.</p>

<p>i don't know how much longer i can keep arguing right now, i'm putting off writing a paper (summer classes)</p>

95

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4466859&postcount=82%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4466859&postcount=82&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

96

<p>Then go. I have something to say about your recent posts, but I'll put that off for now. Going to go run!</p>

97

<p>lol, we will return ;)</p>

98

<p>The study you cited is irrelevant. Of course, Chicago IS less desirable than other universities. But in your original statement, the main claim you made was that Chicago applicants weren't as interested in the school, and you used the yield rate to give evidence to this statement.</p>

<p>In the study, we're using students that weren't applicants to Chicago. Rather, it was more of "assume that you're an applicant to the university and you got in". So the amount of dedication of the applicants to certain universities isn't even taken into account. Thus irrelevance follows.</p>

<p>
[quote]
when discussing near $50,000 of expenses, that amounts to 2%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And $10,000 is only 20%. 20% isn't that much at all! Maybe you're rich and are incapable of understanding just how much $1000 is. $1000 is 5% of my parent's income.</p>

99

<p>
[quote]
The study you cited is irrelevant. Of course, Chicago IS less desirable than other universities. But in your original statement, the main claim you made was that Chicago applicants weren't as interested in the school, and you used the yield rate to give evidence to this statement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>what? no i didn't, you're misconstruing my argument, here were my exact words:

[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>so in fact, according to your statement quoted at the top of this post, we are in perfect agreement.</p>

<p>here was your exact initial rebuttal:

[quote]
Have you seen the financial aid Chicago gives to its students? I think many of the people who get in just aren't able to afford it or are distracted by better financial offers (often from less "elite" colleges).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>my argument was exactly this: chicago is not self-selecting, this is evidenced in its low yield numbers resulting from losing many cross-admit battles. AKA: the applicant pool at chicago isn't "self-selecting" meaning isn't students who "really want to go there" because it loses many cross admit battles even after they are admitted. And this loss of cross-admits is not due to financial concerns, but inherent desirability, ie exactly what i initially claimed and exactly what every single shred of data that has been posted here reaffirms. And also, exactly what you just said yourself. So there should be no more disagreement because that was all i was saying.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And $10,000 is only 20%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>2%... 20%.. same thing...? come on, now you are just looking for a menial fight.</p>

100

<p>
[quote]
The study you cited is irrelevant. Of course, Chicago IS less desirable than other universities. But in your original statement, the main claim you made was that Chicago applicants weren't as interested in the school, and you used the yield rate to give evidence to this statement.

[/quote]

[quote]
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.

[/quote]

These are saying exactly the same thing. I'm not 'misconstruing' anything. You must not know how to read.

[quote]
but inherent desirability, ie exactly what i initially claimed and exactly what every single shred of data that has been posted here reaffirms.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This "inherent desirability" is in the GENERAL CASE. That means that if you take a random student, then a college like Columbia is going to be way more desirable than Chicago. We're talking about CHICAGO APPLICANTS, however, not random students. You're using an axiom to prove the same axiom. It's just bad logic. (You're saying that you can prove that Chicago isn't self-selective, and you're using random students to prove that Chicago's inherent desirability is low, which, upon proving this, makes the assumption that self-selection is nonexistent at Chicago.)</p>