<p>College's popularity waxes and wanes. Yale just lost out this year.</p>
<p>The 'people think we're too good' excuse is one to cover lagging numbers.</p>
<p>Yale also took 2+ months to fill their wait list spots. It's in trouble.</p>
<p>so authentic:</p>
<p>it makes sense to flaunt CC's acceptance rate to be the 'lowest among the ivy league' because that changes people's perception of the 'prestige' of the college. Moreover, it sends a sign to already accepted CC kids that they have pretty much beaten all odds and gotten into the most selective college in the ivy and would be dumb to turn it down. I'm not saying CC is all that, I'm just talking about the effect on perception. Yeild is important to the university, they want the best acceptees to actually enroll, it also helps in the incoming class stats. so that's CC. </p>
<p>For seas, rather than talk about it's acceptance rate (18% which isn't bad), they publicize the drastic increase in applicants, and how the acceptance rate has gone from 25 - 22 - 18% over three years. This sends the message that the school is up and coming. Most applicants do not consider columbia in the same league as HYP, so if they should be scared off by a lower acceptance rate, that reasoning should have prevented them from applying these past few years. the schools columbia is often compared to: penn, brown, cornell, duke, chicago, dartmouth, all have significantly higher acceptance rates. </p>
<p>the fact that even the CC acceptance rate has been dropping considerably every year, should show you that high schoolers are applying not primarily for their chances of getting in, but perhaps for the lure of the campus, or the core, or nyc, or some department, or the general state of intellectual engagement. I'd say that that's true of practically any college (stanford is a good example). yale has other problems, if in fact it is actually possible to show that yale suffered because of their super low acceptance rate, then it would be an exception. I think it's just an excuse for larger issues. </p>
<p>so CC and seas flex those muscles.</p>
<p>Back on topic:</p>
<p>On Chicago's boards, admissions officer Libby Pearson wrote in (I'll find the exact quote later) that for Chicago, at least, the transcript was the most important piece of the app (both difficulty of courses and grades earned), then came the essay. She claimed that she has never seen an applicant's admissions decision hinge upon the SAT score, whereas she has seen it hinge upon other things (EC's, essays, recs). This leads me to believe that SAT scores are not important for Chicago, but at the same time, a low SAT score most likely indicates weaknesses in other areas reflected in transcript/essays/recs.</p>
<p>Unalove, that sounds about right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Exactly! Columbia is always taking Columbia college's admission rate to make the school look good and tough to get into. It shouldn't be that way. They should accentuate the school's admission rate as a whole. As a University. not just one division.</p>
<p>Penn doesn't go vaunting Wharton's acceptance rate only. so yeah, it is kind of bias in a way
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yea, you totally missed my point...i was saying that newsweek had a bias toward harvard</p>
<p>I see, but shraf, remember they still got the vote. They just claimed how Columbia came close</p>
<p>Unless you want to explain how you think they were being bias towards Harvard</p>
<p>The formula is biased towards Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. They change it every year to pretty much keep it that way. A few years ago, CalTech came in number one (mostly because they have the highest scores) and Newsweek changed their formula so that it will never happen again.</p>
<p>The 25% perceived selectivity/quality rating essentially assures that HYP will always reign supreme.</p>
<p>let's not be bias towards columbia, undergrad acceptance rate includes both cc and seas, so harvard was legitimately the hottest school for rejecting you, gs is not included in columbia's undergrad acceptance rate and neither should harvard's extension schools be included in theirs. they also get more qualified applicants and their incoming class stats are much better than columbia's.</p>
<p>ses i think ur talking about US news not newsweek</p>
<p>and so authentic, the reason it is biased toward harvard...as i said before...is because it's like comparing apples to the whole fruit basket ....they ignored harvard extension school while counting GS just to make it seem that harvard is better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
gs is not included in columbia's undergrad acceptance rate and neither should harvard's extension schools be included in theirs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>in the article they include it.....i love how people just argue for the sake of arguing without actually knowing what the argument is about</p>
<p>^ if they were to exclude gs and harvard's extension school, harvard would be hottest, if they were to include both, harvard would be hottest (based on numbers alone).</p>
<p>and it would be more newsworthy if columbia (as opposed to stereotypical harvard) was the hottest for rejecting you. there's an incentive to be bias in the opposite direction.</p>
<p>..........Hottest only for rejecting you</p>
<p>shraf, then you might as well saying that they were being biased towards Columbia also because they never ever include Fu. You never hear any statistics about SEAS. Its always CC</p>