Acceptance Rates

<p>^Hahahah! I only want to be friends with this person!</p>

<p>And although I refrain from arguing with people on CC I HAVE to express my opinion on this situation, and I have to agree with ModestMouse (I’m not sure if I have the name correct, in which case, sorry!). But I in a similar situation at my school. I know two kids in my class who are applying to “all (yes, you heard me, ALL!!!@#!@#!_@#) the ivies, stanford, mit and caltech” because those are the only “good” schools. I could have ripped their heads off. Prestige is NOT the only reason you apply to a school and it certainly should not be the most important reason. </p>

<p>And these 2 kids with GPAs higher than mine (just slightly). Now I don’t want to compare my ‘stats’ with theirs, but what I’m saying is, yeah a lot of people out there are (as someone said) good researchers and fakers, which is not fair to those who actually, passionately want to go to a school. </p>

<p>Unless a school could really make out (which as much as I’d like to believe, I doubt it/they can) whether a person really wanted to attend a school or not, if 2 people seemed to offer similarly “passionate” reasons for wanting to attend, who is more likely to get in? The person with the higher GPA (even if it is by 0.3, ■■■). Which I personally feel is really unfair to the other kid. </p>

<p>I’m speaking from personal experience here. I just don’t understand how someone can apply to a school they explicity said that they don’t actually want to go to and are only applying because it’s prestigious, when they know that by their applying they MIGHT hinder another person’s chances, someone who REALLY wanted to go. Or even taking away a spot from another applicant (anywhere in the world) whose first choice was that school. I guess I just can’t comprehend how people can live with their moral conscience by doing such a thing. </p>

<p>Simply devastating. Yes sir.</p>

<p>Just some food for thought. Please don’t rip me apart for expressing my opinion. :)</p>

<p>@Stupefy:
Graduated, in graduate school at Brown for a fifth-year master’s, have no immediate friends who sought employment who didn’t find a job, and I already have options lining up for next year. My friends who sought admission to graduate school are at MIT (biochemistry/chemical biology), Princeton (or maybe it’s Yale, Russian Lit), UChicago (one Chemistry, two Econ), Scripps (biochemistry/chemical bio), Duke (law), Harvard (law), John Hopkins (medicine), etc etc.</p>

<p>I have never heard of an employer looking down on Brown, even at top firms for consulting/ibanking or whatever prestige whoring industry you can think of. Also, if she doesn’t have a job, how did her employer look down on it?</p>

<p>@HMJ- hm well said, I agree with you in that it’s not “fair.” but honestly take a minute to think about what you JUST SAID. college admissions is the farthest thing from fair (lets not get into affirmative actions/legacy/athletic recruit debate please). humans are inherently selfish- and high school students are no exception. I don’t know many people who would decide not to apply to a school just because someone else wants to go there more. you can call me a meanie or a bully if you want, but thats not going to change my decision to apply. I have every right to do so. I’m paying the fee, I’m putting in time to write my essays.</p>

<p>@modest- sorry, I didn’t mean employer, prospective employer</p>

<p>Yeah you do have every right, obviously, I know that. And yeah I know that high school kids, like everyone else, are selfish. But all I’m saying, IMO, people should stop chasing after prestige, and should just stop hoarding everything, and simply give others a shot. What about the person who slaved to write their essays (like I’m sure you did too) and didn’t get into any school because overachieving name-whores just applied everywhere.(I’m not pointing fingers, just FYI, I’m making a general statement). But obviously that’s not going to happen anytime soon. And I am not going to call you a meanie or a bully, because I don’t know you well enough to say that. Everyone has their good points and bad (as I’m sure you do too), and I only know this facet about your personality so it wouldn’t be “fair” for me to call yout that. Although, it would be fair to call those 2 people in my school that because they have NO good points - they are exceptions. :smiley: Anyway, good luck to you, and I hope you get in to all your ivy league schools, if that is what really makes you happy. Toodles.</p>

<p>^haha thanks. what you said it true, obviously, but unrealistic. for the same reason that communism is a “good idea” but never feasible because of human nature</p>

<p>I don’t know what communism is…hahaha maybe I’m really not “ivy league” material. Oh dear…?</p>

<p>^OH GOOD GOD!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>read up buddy
[Communism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism]Communism”>Communism - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Testing format commands

[quote]
Penn

[quote]

because I don’t know how the Internet works and am proudly ignorant,

thank you very much.</p>

<p>Testing format commands:

Help please.</p>

<p>

Never mind. I found the answer over in the complaint department: There are no format buttons in College Confidential.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you haven’t gotten in anywhere yet, you won’t know if that’s true until April 1. I’ve seen the smartest people fall to that trap. And from what I know (from close family friends and high school alums that I keep in touch with that go to Brown), they had a number of jobs lined up for them upon graduation. I guess it depends what field you want to enter (two studied engineering, and the other was in the entrepreneur program), but I think if you put the work in while at Brown, you’ll definitely get a job.</p>

<p>

[quote=Stupefy]
@modest- one of my friends’ older sister (anecdotal evidence I know) graduated from brown undergrad and couldn’t find a job :confused: she said her employer looked down on brown[\quote]
I’ll behave here as if “Stupefy” is in fact 17 years old and not a middle-aged ■■■■■ from the University of Pennsylvania.
Seventeen is young and Stupefy may be forgiven the things she hasn’t yet encountered in the wide world. Including the massively connected Brown network in the job-seekers’ world.
Ten years from now, when she’s in a skyscraper on Pine Street surrounded by graduates of Brown COE (and Brown rugby players, like the brand-new CEO of Bank of America), and when she’s interviewed by media types who are Brown alumni, or supports non-profits founded by Brown alumni, or goes to plays written by Brown alumni and mounted by production companies started by Brown alumni, or dresses in fashion designed by Brown alumni, or has her loft made over by companies run by Brown alumni, or goes to the Met or other entity whose board chairwoman is a Brown alumna, et cetera – Stupefy will know just whose world she inhabits.<br>
Out in the grown-up world – and in employment categories encompassing publishing, journalism, theater, film and television, non-profit organizations, creative consultancies, fashion, writing at the Pulitzer-winning level, creating at the MacArthur-winning level – there are only a tiny handful of universities in America as impactfull as Brown.
Here is Newsweek’s (and Cornell alumna) Barbara Kantrowitz writing in Vanity Fair on Brown:
“[It has] years of graduates who have who have gravitated toward high-profile, glamorous professions in the media, publishing, show business and music. There is this network out there, and this incredible word of mouth.”
(That famous VF cover story on Brown, by Jennet Conant, granddaughter of the Harvard president, is now rather dated – Brown’s impact has only increased since Conant and Kantrowitz examined it.)
Here is Laura Linney on the network referred to: “People talk about the Brown Mafia but it’s really true.”
Most “insiders” of the power-centers of the country – New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Westport, CT (lol) – encounter Brown alumni in their work every day, but “outsiders” (including youngsters who post to CC) do not, and that’s why the “outsiders” are baffled by Brown’s decades-long power-selectivity and imperviousness to the U.S. News roller-coaster ride.
On April 1, 2010, Brown will have accepted 9 percent of its applications, which this year – the grapevine tells us – are ridiculously through the roof. The Watson Effect? Only marginally.
One hates to invoke Watson, but “insiders” will understand precisely why she chose Brown, while a school like UPenn was never even on her radar.
After all, two Hollywood studio heads are Brown alumni, two network TV creative heads are alumni, two of Watson’s co-stars in Tale of Despereaux are Brown parents (they helped persuade), several of Watson’s chief London influences are Brown alumni, the fashion-column guru of W (Watson’s fashion bible) is an alumnus, the special effects animation of Harry Potter are created by a company dominated by graduates of Brown computer graphics, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera – Brown’s connectedness could be tediously extended here.<br>
I’ve just come from a CC thread in the “University of Chicago Renaissance” category (UC is another of my institutional connections), where the incisive “Cue7” has been leading a strategic conversation.
Will UC ever tap into the Brown power-pool and applicant pool, is the question. Cue7:
“Through my college years and beyond, I had the chance to become quite connected to a few other top schools … At a place like Brown, for example, I was astonished by the behind-the-scenes work of wealth and influence on campus. The students mostly came from the most coveted zip codes in the US, and the parents were oftentimes chiefs of surgery, partners at the most influential law firms, and oftentimes the sons and daughters of famous politicians or celebrities.”
Stupefy, those power-parents must know a little something about employability.
(Confining ourselves to politicians, indeed to Presidents and Presidential candidates alone – and leaving aside Hollyowood and Wall Street – Brown parents have included President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, President Jimmy Carter, Vice President Walter Mondale, Governor Michael Dukakis, Senator John Kerry, Congressman Paul Tsongas, Governor Lamar Alexander, and right-wing mogul Steve Forbes.)
All of this is to say, Stupefy, that from the employment-prospects aspect alone, you’ll be fortunate not to be among the 91 percent of the liveliest applicant pool in the country who won’t get into Brown next April.</p>

<p>

I’ll behave here as if “Stupefy” is in fact 17 years old and not a middle-aged ■■■■■ from the University of Pennsylvania.
Seventeen is young and Stupefy may be forgiven the things she hasn’t yet encountered in the wide world. Including the massively connected Brown network in the job-seekers’ world.
Ten years from now, when she’s in a skyscraper on Pine Street surrounded by graduates of Brown COE (and Brown rugby players, like the brand-new CEO of Bank of America), and when she’s interviewed by media types who are Brown alumni, or supports non-profits founded by Brown alumni, or goes to plays written by Brown alumni and mounted by production companies started by Brown alumni, or dresses in fashion designed by Brown alumni, or has her loft made over by companies run by Brown alumni, or goes to the Met or other entity whose board chairwoman is a Brown alumna, et cetera – Stupefy will know just whose world she inhabits.
Out in the grown-up world – and in employment categories encompassing publishing, journalism, theater, film and television, non-profit organizations, creative consultancies, fashion, writing at the Pulitzer-winning level, creating at the MacArthur-winning level – there are only a tiny handful of universities in America as impactfull as Brown.
Here is Newsweek’s (and Cornell alumna) Barbara Kantrowitz writing in Vanity Fair on Brown:
“[It has] years of graduates who have who have gravitated toward high-profile, glamorous professions in the media, publishing, show business and music. There is this network out there, and this incredible word of mouth.”
(That famous VF cover story on Brown, by Jennet Conant, granddaughter of the Harvard president, is now rather dated – Brown’s impact has only increased since Conant and Kantrowitz examined it.)
Here is Laura Linney on the network referred to: “People talk about the Brown Mafia but it’s really true.”
Most “insiders” of the power-centers of the country – New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Westport, CT (lol) – encounter Brown alumni in their work every day, but “outsiders” (including youngsters who post to CC) do not, and that’s why the “outsiders” are baffled by Brown’s decades-long power-selectivity and imperviousness to the U.S. News roller-coaster ride.
On April 1, 2010, Brown will have accepted 9 percent of its applications, which this year – the grapevine tells us – are ridiculously through the roof. The Watson Effect? Only marginally.
One hates to invoke Watson, but “insiders” will understand precisely why she chose Brown, while a school like UPenn was never even on her radar.
After all, two Hollywood studio heads are Brown alumni, two network TV creative heads are alumni, two of Watson’s co-stars in Tale of Despereaux are Brown parents (they helped persuade), several of Watson’s chief London influences are Brown alumni, the fashion-column guru of W (Watson’s fashion bible) is an alumnus, the special effects animation of Harry Potter are created by a company dominated by graduates of Brown computer graphics, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera – Brown’s connectedness could be tediously extended here.
I’ve just come from a CC thread in the “University of Chicago Renaissance” category (UC is another of my institutional connections), where the incisive “Cue7” has been leading a strategic conversation.
Will UC ever tap into the Brown power-pool and applicant pool, is the question. Cue7:
“Through my college years and beyond, I had the chance to become quite connected to a few other top schools … At a place like Brown, for example, I was astonished by the behind-the-scenes work of wealth and influence on campus. The students mostly came from the most coveted zip codes in the US, and the parents were oftentimes chiefs of surgery, partners at the most influential law firms, and oftentimes the sons and daughters of famous politicians or celebrities.”
Stupefy, those power-parents must know a little something about employability.
(Confining ourselves to politicians, indeed to Presidents and Presidential candidates alone – and leaving aside Hollyowood and Wall Street – Brown parents have included President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, President Jimmy Carter, Vice President Walter Mondale, Governor Michael Dukakis, Senator John Kerry, Congressman Paul Tsongas, Governor Lamar Alexander, and right-wing mogul Steve Forbes.)
All of this is to say, Stupefy, that from the employment-prospects aspect alone, you’ll be fortunate not to be among the 91 percent of the liveliest applicant pool in the country who won’t get into Brown next April.</p>

<p>(I apologize for the double post, above: Got a forward-slash wrong.)
My long message is nominally for Stupefy, but actually copy-text example for Modest Melody, Wolfmanjack, Fireandrain, and others bemused as I am by teenage nonsense of the genre “unemployable-Brownies” or “slacker-Brownies.”<br>
Henceforth – Modest, Wolf, and Fire – just quote the press or published books, which have been registering the Brown phenomenon for nearly forty years now. Adolescents and post-adolescents brush off CC posters such as yourself but can read and look up journalistic reference.
I’m in Fairfield County but work in the City in a job that resources the gamut of creative professions every minute, and I’m astonished at the reach and depth of Brown University in New York City.
Incidentally, I understand that there are per capita statistics about Brown winners of Pulitzers, MacArthurs, Trumans, Fulbrights, and Marshalls that give its “slacker” students their accurate and proper due.</p>

<p>That was a very passionate and informative post, thanks! :)</p>

<p>

Since I referenced my University of Chicago (versus Brown) post in my long message above (and since it’s a doozy), I thought I’d re-post it here. (A lot of me on this page. Sorry.)</p>

<p>[To U. of Chicago types:]
Brown alum says: This is a fascinating thread. I’ve been waiting for Chicago’s rise for thirty years.
Speaking from the other pole of the two curricular polarities of American education (Chicago and Brown) – and speaking also as an admirer of Chicago, which, I’m happy to admit, is a more important place at the graduate level – I do hope Chicago can begin to attract the applicant pool that Brown has been attracting since, roughly, 1975.
You deserve it, and you inhabit a great city (although not as quaint as the College Hill National Historic District in Providence).
APPLICANT POOL QUALITY and GENUINE YIELD (no bookkeeping tricks) are the determiners. Discussions of university selectivity must begin with these two criteria.
A superficial way to gauge your applicant pool is to look at its occurrence in the pools ABOVE it: It’s not Harvard’s incidence in Chicago’s pool; it’s Chicago’s incidence in Harvard’s pool. From that standpoint, Chicago has some heavy-duty recruiting to do.
There are problems with the NBER selectivity rankings (it’s now nearly 10 years old), but it’s the best we have and it centers on overlap dymamics. Chicago was ranked 28th by NBER and in none of the 27 Fiske overlap pools above it does Chicago even occur.
(The pools are provided by the 2010 Fiske Guide, whose methodolgy I know and which gets a very good return on its overlap questionnaire.
Now, Fiske 2011 will no doubt show Chicago’s apps leap from 2010, but Chicago really must definitively change its pool outreach to equal the diverse quality of Harvard (and idiosyncratic Brown).<br>
(Parenthetically, Brown is ranked 7 in NBER, occurs in Yale and Stanford above it, and in schools as distant as Pomona and Carleton. Brown had occurred in Harvard through Fiske 2009, always as the fifth-place overlap, but Fiske printed only the top 4 overlaps this year and Brown’s spot was phantomized.)<br>

[quote=Cue7]
overall accept rates … Harvard (8%) Yale (8%) Princeton (9%) Stanford (9%) MIT (11%) Cal Tech (16%) Columbia (10%) Brown (11%) Dartmouth (13%) Penn (17%) Chicago (18%)

[quote/]

Your projections need updating, now that the earlies are in.
Stanford, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Penn are static. Yale is down a bit. MIT is up quite a bit. Brown is up hugely.
In Providence, the numbers from November implied an overall accept rate of 9 percent and the actual ED figures support that: Up 21 percent and, even so, fewer EDs accepted.
Brown AD Jim Miller tells the press, mysteriously, that a larger piece of the RD pie must be reserved, implying significant RD apps increase. Insiders say signally significant. Hence, 9 percent.

Brown and Chicago have (a decade late) decided to play the Columbia game (Columbia’s legendary Eric Furda now works for Penn).
In 2010 Brown will be 9 percent and at long last single-digit, but Brown might have been single-digit a decade ago had its AO been less sleepy.
Columbia stole a march.
Chicago may well go to 11 percent, but I have to say that there is at least as much further dramatic movement available to Brown as there will be for Chicago.
Brown’s unexploited metric is its too-high numerator. For years Brown set a target class size of 1425. Then, to pay the bills, it bought an old residence hotel, scandalously grew the enrollment by 400 and made the numerator 1525, with consequent admit-rate results.
An element of the Brown AO has been agitating for years to lower the numerator and go single-digit 9 percent. Finally, alumni alarm at our US News ranking got everyone’s attention. A brilliant new AD was brought in (alumnus Jim Miller). He has grown the denominator by 10,000 in just two years and is now going to work on the numerator.
Look for Brown at 8.8 percent by 2011.
Chicago, nobody in this ridiculous game is standing still. We’re all moving targets.</p>

<p>

Since I referenced my University of Chicago (versus Brown) post in my long message above (and since it’s a doozy), I thought I’d re-post it here. (A lot of me on this and the previous page. Sorry.)</p>

<p>[To U. of Chicago types:]
Brown alum says: This is a fascinating thread. I’ve been waiting for Chicago’s rise for thirty years.
Speaking from the other pole of the two curricular polarities of American education (Chicago and Brown) – and speaking also as an admirer of Chicago, which, I’m happy to admit, is a more important place at the graduate level – I do hope Chicago can begin to attract the applicant pool that Brown has been attracting since, roughly, 1975.
You deserve it, and you inhabit a great city (although not as quaint as the College Hill National Historic District in Providence).
APPLICANT POOL QUALITY and GENUINE YIELD (no bookkeeping tricks) are the determiners. Discussions of university selectivity must begin with these two criteria.
A superficial way to gauge your applicant pool is to look at its occurrence in the pools ABOVE it: It’s not Harvard’s incidence in Chicago’s pool; it’s Chicago’s incidence in Harvard’s pool. From that standpoint, Chicago has some heavy-duty recruiting to do.
There are problems with the NBER selectivity rankings (it’s now nearly 10 years old), but it’s the best we have and it centers on overlap dymamics. Chicago was ranked 28th by NBER and in none of the 27 Fiske overlap pools above it does Chicago even occur.
(The pools are provided by the 2010 Fiske Guide, whose methodolgy I know and which gets a very good return on its overlap questionnaire. Now, Fiske 2011 will no doubt show Chicago’s apps leap from 2010, but Chicago really must definitively change its pool outreach to equal the diverse quality of Harvard – and idiosyncratic Brown.)
By the way, Brown is ranked 7th in NBER, occurs in Yale and Stanford above it, and in schools as distant as Pomona and Carleton. Brown had occurred in Harvard through Fiske 2009, always as the fifth-place overlap, but Fiske printed only the top 4 overlaps this year and Brown’s spot was phantomized.

Your projections need updating, now that the earlies are in.
Stanford, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Penn are static. Yale is down a bit. MIT is up quite a bit. Brown is up hugely.
In Providence, the numbers from November implied an overall accept rate of 9 percent and the actual ED figures support that: Up 21 percent and, even so, fewer EDs accepted.
Brown AD Jim Miller tells the press, mysteriously, that a larger piece of the RD pie must be reserved, implying significant RD apps increase. Insiders say signally significant. Hence, 9 percent.

Brown and Chicago have (a decade late) decided to play the Columbia game (Columbia’s legendary Eric Furda now works for Penn).
In 2010 Brown will be 9 percent and at long last single-digit, but Brown might have been single-digit a decade ago had its AO been less sleepy.
Columbia stole a march.
Chicago may well go to 11 percent, but I have to say that there is at least as much further dramatic movement available to Brown as there will be for Chicago.
Brown’s unexploited metric is its too-high numerator. For years Brown set a target class size of 1425. Then, to pay the bills, it bought an old residence hotel, scandalously grew the enrollment by 400 and made the numerator 1525, with consequent admit-rate results.
An element of the Brown AO has been agitating for years to lower the numerator and go single-digit 9 percent. Finally, alumni alarm at our US News ranking got everyone’s attention. A brilliant new AD was brought in (alumnus Jim Miller). He has grown the denominator by 10,000 in just two years and is now going to work on the numerator.
Look for Brown at 8.8 percent by 2011.
Chicago, nobody in this ridiculous game is standing still. We’re all moving targets.</p>

<p>

It was a CC nutcase post, but I thank you for your thank-you and am rooting for you to become a Brunonian – a COE concentrator. It’s Wharton Light but much more fun, and a way livelier student body.</p>

<p>In 5 years, check back: we’ll see what happens.</p>

<p>

Will do. But to whom and of what do you speak?</p>