<p>I sincerely doubt there was any Obama effect at either Chicago or Columbia. He added no luster to either of those schools, they both had plenty of luster already. And if there was one, why not also include Occidental and Harvard? Similarly, there has been no loss of prestige at any of those schools as his numbers have returned to Earth. The links between any president and a college are simply too remote for most HS seniors and their parents to think about in picking a school.</p>
<p>I did add a little bump to Occidental, especially abroad. Same thing for Wellesley and Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. Those two colleges however werenât well-known abroad.
However, I agree with MrMom: I doubt Columbia, Chicago, Yale, or Harvard benefited from their presidential connections. They were very well-known before :)</p>
<p>^Although one could argue that the fact that George Bush was able to get into Yale might have contributed to a rise of applications thereâŠ</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt that. She went to college there about 45 years ago (and was a member of the Young Republicans club IIRC).</p>
<p>I would think there could be a bump if she had returned for several years and was prof or speaker or was on the board of Trustees.</p>
<p>LBJ went to Texas State, and no one with above a 3.0 GPA has ever applied there. I doubt presidential influence has much to do with anything.</p>
<p>not related to republicans or democrats as they are not âperceivedâ. (Remember, I speak as seen from abroad) Speaking in simple recognition - name totally unknown, that suddenly appeared on radar. When a personality visits, a little blurb is provided, and in some countries that includes college attended. Went from zero to a little recognition, but thatâs huge when you start from zero or near zero. (Just to be clear: again, speaking from abroad.) Identification isnât always successful. The term âcollegeâ may bring about confusion. Recently I saw someone whoâd attended Hampshire College qualified as having attended University of New Hampshire, and even South Hampshire University. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also wonder how much of a bump they got when they officially started referring to themselves as âOxyâ. LOL.</p>
<p>Makes you wonder what would happen if Methodist University starts referring to themselves as âMethâ.</p>
<p>There are always so many accusations of provincialism on these boards - and whatâs odd is that the insistence that all the top 20 or top 30 schools are the same is always based on the stats of the people who apply. That to me is the real provincialism. Of course the SAT scores of the applicants are very similar and of course, bright people are applying to all these schools and can have great experiences there! Why would anyone think they couldnât? It doesnât make the schools themselves the same or even similar. </p>
<p>There exist large cultural differences among the schools and contrasts in what the schools have the resources to offer and thatâs okay. Heads of state, famous authors, and Supreme Court justices, for example, might appear regularly at a world famous university like Harvard simply because of the myriad connections that tie them to Harvard and its administration/profs. It might be more a little more rare if they show up at WashU or Brown. WashU is a fabulous school and has an applicant pool that also fits the Harvard profile, but for the right kid, Harvard might be the clear choice for one kid simply based on the spate of speakers. The scores of the admitted donât make the schools all the same or even make them close to being the same. Broad and critical analysis of what schools can offer different students is what leads to a good fit (in my example, many kids might not care one whit about whoâs on the lecture circuit while others might drink in these opportunities), not the old defensive "XYZ college is just as good as Harvard and youâre provincial if you donât buy into thatâ thinking. Every top school isnât for every smart kid - thatâs why itâs great we have so very many of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably because there is a lot of overlap among the people who apply to those schools.</p>
<p>NoCookm, there is no question that Harvard is the clear choice for some kids, as you say. What I find objectionable is when another poster labels a school as no better than âeveryoneâs backup school, thatâs about it.â </p>
<p>In a contest between Harvard and most every other school (perhaps Stanford is an exception?), Harvard usually wins the yield battle, so by the âbackup school logicâ every non-Harvard school is a backup school. But that neglects the fact that a) some kids actually pick Brown or WashU or Tufts or Smith or their state school as their first choice and b) others may not have gotten into their first choice but are excited about attending a school where they have been accepted. To insult the 17 and 18 year olds who read these posts by saying that they are at no more than a backup school (no matter where they are attending) is not just unkind, but also incorrect, given the 25,000+ kids who are trying to get into each of these schools.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, my family situation illustrates how some kids make their choices based on fit. My spouse is a professor at a HYPSM school. Faculty children can get a boost if the parent talks to the right people. (The fairness/unfairness of this is a topic in itself). Neither of my children wanted that. Despite being whatâs referred to on this site as âhigh stats applicants,â, one didnât apply to spouseâs school at all, and another applied, but it was not a top choice, so the child did not want my spouse to have that conversation. </p>
<p>âEvery year, there are many CA kids with outstanding test scores and GPAs who are rejected by Cal. They shouldnât be. Itâs wrong, and you wonât change my mind by saying thatâs only 15%. Let the foreign nationals pay state taxes retroactively and then they can attend our state-funded schools.â</p>
<p>Well, your tax dollars are only funding around 75% or less of the cost for your state universities. You will sleep better if you view it just as going toward the Cali kids.</p>
<p>Are the Cal publics funded more generously than other statesâ publics? I donât know much about the history of the Cal system. </p>
<p>Compared to how much is used to cost in-state residents to go to UC schools even 20 years ago, modern funding of UC schools by the state appears to be non-existent, even though we know that not to be true. And itâs not like theyâre throwing money at the professors either. Instead, the scandal is the vast growth of the administrative bureaucracy, as is true at all schools. Like most of the non-profit sector over those 20 years, the institutions are now run for the benefits of those who run them rather than those they serve.</p>
<p>But this thread in now WAAY off topicâŠ</p>
<p>(1) all students who are qualified to attend the U of California (as defined by the Master Plan) have the option of attending a campus of the University, (2) the quality of education for all UC students is greater because of the tuition paid by international and out-of-state students, and (3) THE role of UC is not to educate Californian undergraduates. That is ONE role of UC, the most visible one to CC commenters, but the more fundamental role, which distinguishes it from Cal State, is that it is the research arm of the state and holds the public monopoly on graduate doctoral education in California (except a few EdDs). Being the worldâs leading public research university and a major wealth engine in California would not be possible if it didnât have the freedom to recruit the best and brightest students, staff, and faculty from around the world, and the state is lucky to get them. If California residents lose sight of that fact, there are plenty of other states and universities that will gladly step in with a more welcoming attitude.</p>
<p>Just a thought - has any Ivy League / top elite non-Ivy published who actually applies to their schools?</p>
<p>I have seen posts here and elsewhere from students with no hooks at all (no legacy, no national awards, no sports, not local, not first-generation college, not minority) indicating 1800 on their SATs and a 3.5 GPA and asking about chances to get into an Ivy. </p>
<p>Iâd love to see if they really are turning away 95% of their qualified candidates, or is it turning away only 50% of their qualified candidates because so few meet the basic criteria they are looking for (GPA, SAT, hooks)?</p>
<p>rhandco: those are outliers. Most students applying to Top 20 universities/LACs are qualified. For the Ivy league in particular, adcoms have said numerous times they could chuck the admitted students and choose others, and do that again, and theyâd have three different but equally qualified classes. You can just read the âresults threadsâ on the Harvard forum, etc.</p>
<p>What is hard for people to realize, and you see it in this thread as well, is that there are so many qualified applicants and yes some of them are URMs.( Racism maybe?)</p>
<p>The Ivys use the criteria to determine who will succeed in their institutions - none offers any âofficialâ remedial work ( anyone can find a tutor) so yes your kid would do well, Heck YOU would do well, you just did not get picked, thatâs all. These schools seem happy with their methods at producing a student body that they are happy to have represent them after they are done, retention rates and success in life. ( and send $$ back) even if you are not.</p>
<p>@mrmom62 Sour grapes much?, letâs hope your student learns to live with rejection better than you.</p>
<p>Not sure what you mean, since my kid got in exactly where she wanted to - and WashU was never on the radar - too close to home. The only thing I have âsour grapesâ about are athlete admits to supposedly elite academic institutions, but thatâs another story.</p>
<p>As for the 95% rejection rate from Harvard, no, those kids are not all qualified. A large number are from overseas, which throws the true domestic rejection rate off a bit. If I look at our schoolâs Naviance stats and graph, Iâd estimate that for truly qualified US applicants, which Iâm going to define as 31+ ACT, 3.8+ UGPA, with substantial rigor, the acceptance rate appears to be in the 15-20% range over 2010-13, probably closer to the 15% end of that range.</p>
<p>@2014ProfDad âBeing the worldâs leading public research university and a major wealth engine in California would not be possible if it didnât have the freedom to recruit the best and brightest students, staff, and faculty from around the world, and the state is lucky to get them.â </p>
<p>âBest and brightestâ is key. I am referring specifically to rejected CA resident kids who have as high or HIGHER stats than the OOS/foreign students who are given slots. Itâs done purely for the $$, and I believe that is wrong. Nothing you say will change my mind. A high-stats CA kid who wants to attend Cal should not have to go to UC Merced so that a foreign student can go to Cal. </p>
<p>âItâs a matter of the limited slots available. Those should go to CA residents first, whose families have been paying CA taxes.â
I agree with you, LRP. The competition for U.C.'s this year, ESPECIALLY for Berkeley, was unreal. Outstanding CA students who should have been walking into Berkeley had to fight for it this year, with Augmented Reviews, and with some admitted to only one UC campus, despite nothing controversial on their records. No, Internatâl students should not be given an equal shot, given what the mission of U.C. is, relative to the contemporary applicant numbers. </p>