<p>
[quote]
But xiggi, there's no reason to believe that these LACs' yield will be the same as it was in 2006 and 2007, and every reason to believe the LACs will lose accepted students to public schools. If they've got the same number of applicants as they did in 2006, and they want to fill the same number of dorm rooms, they're going to have to admit more students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>May I ask why there is a belief that yield is more important --and troublesome-- at LACs than at similarly ranked non-LAC schools? Should we discuss the importance of yields at the Ivy League schools that rely on early admission to fill a VERY large percentage of their class? Should we discuss how the use of a large wait list and subsequent important admission from such pool provides a "saving grace" to schools that missed their numbers? Perhaps we should compare how Stanford, Duke, and the top ranked LACs reacted last year to the problematic situation Harvard and Princeton created when abandoning their early admission programs? </p>
<p>Fwiw, the median yield at the top 30 LACs was about 36% for the Class of 2012. Amherst has a 15% acceptance rate but a 38% yield. Harvey Mudd had a 28% admit rate and a 28% yield. Swarthmore was 16%/35%. Schools have learned how to deal with the vagaries of the market, but it would be a mistake to think that LACs schools (at least the LAC schools that are often debated on CC) would suffer more than competing schools and have issues filling the Class of 2013 with competitive admitted students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So again; if you are going to get a masters or PhD, where you go for your undergraduate is not that important. If you get your masters or PhD, no one is even going to ask where you went for your undergraduate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK. That's one perfectly valid point of view. Of course, not all college customers share the view that the undergraduate experience is meaningless.</p>
<p>The data does suggest that the undergraduate college does make a difference in grad school admissions, although there are presumably many complex factors why that would be the case -- not the least of which is that some undergraduate schools have stronger students than others.</p>
<p>The wonderful thing about the US higher education system is that we have such a rich tapestry of varied options to suit virtually any preference. Public or Private. Vocational or liberal arts. Large or small. Residential or commuter. Expensive or cheap. And, everything in between.</p>
<p>Back in 1974, when the economy was in worse shape than it is today, it was just as hard to get into the SUNY university centers as it was to get into most really good liberal arts colleges, (and the name-brand liberal arts colleges weren't that much harder to get into either). As the recession lengthens, it is logical to assume that the same thing will happen again.</p>
<p>The ONLY change to that in decades has been the increasing emphasis on diversity has wiped out some number of slots for white kids who may have gotten accepted 20 years ago.</p>
<p>It's a tricky concept, but an important one, IMO. A larger number of applications doesn't really change the likelihood of an invidual applicant being accepted.
Say what?
The kid who got accepted to a particular school (say Williams) 10 years ago probably wouldn't get in last year. Perhaps the concept of time invariant in college admissions limits to a few AR 1 students, but I doubt it can be generalized to AR 2 or, god forbid, AR 3.
A larger number of applications means there are a few more AR 2 (who would have been admitted 10 years ago) and now have to fight tooth and nail with other AR 2 who also fed brown children over the summer for the purple folder. =).</p>
<p>While I certainly realize that everyone's experiences are different, I have to disagree with interesteddad. My undergraduate degree opens many more doors than my graduate degree. People assume my "pedigree" because of where I went to undergrad. However, I must add, that I think my undergraduate degree was just about worthless (except for the job interviews that I have received over the years from it). I was one of tens of thousands of students with no personalized attention. I can't even remember any names of any professors. But potential employers know that name and value it - even though I don't.</p>
<p>Let me clarify.
Students who would get in 10 years ago, or last year, or this year only apply to a few who are Academic Rank 1.<br>
Most students who are in AR 2 or 3 will not.</p>
<p>I'm not sure where you are getting your data. The median SATs at Williams, for example, have barely budged over the last ten years:</p>
<p>1999-2000:</p>
<p>Math: 660 - 750
Verb: 650 - 760</p>
<p>2008-2009:</p>
<p>Math: 660 - 760
Verb: 660 - 760</p>
<p>The median SATs at Swarthmore haven't change much either, especially considering the significant changes in demographics over the period (much higher minority percentage, no more football recruiting, etc.):</p>
<p>1999-2000:</p>
<p>Math: 660 - 750
Verb: 655 - 770</p>
<p>2008-2009:</p>
<p>Math: 670 - 760
Verb: 680 - 760</p>
<p>I'm sure that it feels like suburban white kids have less chance of admission today. Swarthmore mails under half of its acceptance letters to white US citizens. 45% of the students are non-white and/or non US-citizens. So, certainly white students have been cut from the mix compared to the days when it was more white or nearly all white. However, that's a different issue.</p>
<p>I think there are a number of top schools where the requirements have gone up significantly over the last 20 years if not the last 10. Schools with broad appeal such as Stanford, Duke, Penn, Columbia and even Harvard.</p>
<p>If I understand what midsmith is saying, I'm not sure it's all that different from what interrestedad maintains:</p>
<p>At a hypothetical college with 5 academic ratings, nearly all the academic 1s and 2s were admitted 20 years ago and still are. Most 4s and 5s are denied, but the ones who are admitted are not unlike the ones admitted 20 years ago: they were and are admitted because they bring something unusual or extra to the table, whether it's diversity, athletic talent, or the ability to play the oboe. That leaves the academic 3s--the college's bread and butter type student, in a pinch. There are more of them and they're competing for slightly fewer spots, since College X will yield a few more 1s and 2s and is probably now admitting more 4s and 5s. (Thus the static SAT scores--a few more at the top and bottom and a smaller cluster around the mean.)</p>
<p>Many of the highly qualified but not superstar students (academic 3s) would have been admitted to selective colleges 20 years ago; at least for the last couple of years, those students had to stand out in some way in order to gain acceptance.</p>
<p>If you go back 20 years, you have to take into the account the re-centering of the SAT scores, which has tended to inflate the numbers. Many people overlook this non-insignificant change when making the claim that they "wouldn't have been accepted" today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Back in 1974, when the economy was in worse shape than it is today, it was just as hard to get into the SUNY university centers as it was to get into most really good liberal arts colleges, (and the name-brand liberal arts colleges weren't that much harder to get into either). As the recession lengthens, it is logical to assume that the same thing will happen again.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no idea how hard it was to get in the top 10 LACs or in SUNY in 1974. However, I'd say that the correlation of data of a quarter of century ago to today's is rather meaningless. Despite all the doom and gloom, there will be plenty of candidates lining up at SUNY and at competitive LACs -asumng that is what is meant by name-brand LACs. </p>
<p>The medians at Williams have barely budged because the ad com deliberately model the class that way. They could easily bring it up or down depends on how they want the class to look like. </p>
<p>What I am saying is:
last year, at the peak of admissions standard, acceptance rate for a student with SAT average 750-790 at Brown was barely 20%. 10 years ago, after the SAT recentering, I bet the acceptance rate for a student with SAT average 750-790 at Brown would be a lot higher than 20%. Perhaps even 50%.</p>
<p>Now, interesteddad asserted that a student who got accepted 20 years ago, or 10 years ago would have been accepted last year or this year. This is absolutely positively false. It is a lot tougher for Academic Rank 2 (750-790 group) to be admitted last year than it was a decade back.</p>
<p>Sure, there are some in the AR 1 group that would be accepted in any given year. They are legacy cases usually.</p>
<p>In 2008:
Neighbor, "Where did Suzy get accepted?"
Suzy's Mom, "Georgetown, BC, Bucknell & rejected at UVA"
Neighbor, "Wow-- you must be proud"</p>
<p>In 2009
Neighbor, "Where did John get accepted?"
John's Mom, "Georgetown, BC, Bucknell & rejected at UVA"
Neighbor, "ouch all the expensive schools- too bad about UVA"</p>
<p>I think that in 2008 the neighbor was thinking the line that he had the guts to say out loud in 2009, at least if the neighbor is of any class that is less than most wealthy.</p>
<p>Can someone explain the concept of AR 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5? This thread is the first that I've heard it mentioned. Is it based on just test scores? or test scores and GPA? And I'm assuming that the ranking variables vary from school to school?
Thanks!</p>
<p>It's a academic ratings scale that allows admissions offices to summarize the sum total of the academic qualifications with a single number. It was originally developed in conjunction with Ivy League football recruiting when the schools wanted to standardize on the number of dumb football recruits, really dumb football recruits, and unspeakably dumb football recruits ("standard deviations" below the norm).</p>
<p>Like most things in college admissions, the AR ratings are built on sands that shift over time and a lot of qualitative assessment. It's not as simple as SAT scores although people who publish articles about the ARs try to do so. In practice, the public use of AR rankings mostly consists of college presidents, admissions deans, and athletic directors trying to support some byzantine theory that Acme U's football recruits are now all more brilliant and accomplished in the classroom than Albert Einstein.</p>
<p>Here's a sample Business week published about Amherst's AR scale:</p>
<p>While I appreciate the information, I really wish we'd stop assuming that all football players are some shade of dumb. My son was capt of football and is capt of lacrosse; he's is an AP scholar with distinction and is noted as one of the most "broadly intelligent" of his entire class (his GC said that, not me). I can laugh at the joke slightly, but why not the dumb hockey player or swimmer (love Phelps, but he is not exactly a brain trust)? I realize it's a stereotype that has some merit (although if I made a stereotypical comment about jews and banking, I'd be lambasted), but to suggest that athletes in general are less smart than some other kid is a broad generalization that just doesn't hold. I can just imagine if I continuously said that those kids who don't play sports are socially awkward or inept.</p>
<p>OK.. little hissy fit over.. resume the conversation.</p>
