<p>
</p>
<p>1) UC randomly audits 10% of all applications before decisions are rendered.
2) Transcripts are matched against applications after HS graduation. If significant discrepancies are found, admissions will be rescinded.</p>
<p>Well, needless to say I completely disagree that a school that doesn’t post a CDS is obfuscating data. They simply don’t post all the data YOU want to see, or they don’t post it in the form you want. But to make as big a deal out of it as many people have, including you in my opinion, is completely out of proportion to the issue. Does it really matter if the number is 10,563 or 10,723 or 10,389? I cannot imagine how. Sorry you feel like you are deprived by this missing information. Personally I think there is more than enough out there to provide people with the ability to evaluate the schools.</p>
<p>You DID ask me to explain how they do obfuscate data. I gave you my answer. If you do not agree, that is fine. </p>
<p>However, let’s go back to the SIMPLE example I gave you. The question was not about 10,563 versus 10,000. It was about historical data AND early action results. Don’t you think that a prospective applicant might be interested in knowing the admission data for the past 3 years? Don’t you think that it is important for a prospective applicant to understand the differences between EA, SCEA, and RD … and the statistical differences in admission? </p>
<p>This is not a futile exercise for a bored statistician … it is something that thousands of students and their parents might find rather relevant. </p>
<p>
Again, please let me know how a student interested in comparing SCEA at Tulane with several similar schools would do … just that? Why would Tulane not make it EASY to access such data?</p>
<p>Actually you asked why they just didn’t post the number instead of saying 26%. That’s what I was addressing with the statement. But whatever, clearly you are right, saying 26% instead of posting the number is a dangerous and nefarious obfuscation.</p>
<p>Not to be picky, but SCEA only has one year of data at Tulane. As far as why they don’t post the other data, I don’t know, ask them. I don’t think in this case calling that obfuscation is particularly appropriate, it implies motivation as to way they don’t post it. Negligence, perhaps. Laziness, maybe. Or maybe they have a good reason. Or maybe they disagee that it is useful. I have no idea, but I doubt they do it to “obfuscate”. Actually no, I don’t think knowing the statistical difference in admission EA, SCEA and RD is particulatly useful, because it depends so much on the stats of the students that applied that way. One can see the stats for all students, but it doesn’t break out what the stats for ED or EA students are, so it really doesn’t tell you much. At many schools, the ED apps tend to be higher achieving students, so the acceptance rate is higher. At others not so much. The CDS doesn’t address that issue as far as I can see. However, Tulane explains the difference in their 3 options just fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was that all I asked? Here, try again with the five questions you missed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forget the obfuscation part, I do not care why they do not post it. The fact is that is that YOU cannot find the data on their site. You or anyone else for that matter. Again, this is not arcane information … it is about a very important element of Tulane’s admission. It if wasn’t important, they would not offer TWO EA rounds.</p>
<p>
With numbers? I doubt it!</p>
<p>
That is for the applicant to decide. Most schools do agree that this is important information.</p>
<p>I thought it was obvious that I chose to answer only that one question. You are certainly entitled to your opinion about the others. I am not sure most schools agree it is important information, they just answer the question asked (sometimes). USNWR also uses data that you have agreed is not particularly useful for ranking, but schools provide it anyway. However, I highly doubt the data you talk about or the lack thereof makes a student decide to apply EA or not. I know people get all caught up in all sorts of false premises for deciding where to apply, like what is the higher ranked undergrad program for X. This is similar, IMO. Anyway, you can go on getting all caught up in dozens of arcane statistics, I choose to think they are mostly worthless. End of story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, it is the end of the story. It is very clear that facing the reality that this information is nowhere to be found on the Tulane site, you decide it must be worthless information. Obviously, we all know that students do not care about the rates of admissions when considering early admissions! And, yes that IS sarcastic!</p>
<p>Ok, wow…this thread is ridiculous. For the most part undergraduate rankings do not matter, unless you go into a specialized program, like business or engineering, or are applying for PhD programs. If you want to go to medical school or law school, just get a good GPA and study for the MCAT/LSAT. For the latter two graduate programs, your standardized test score matters a lot more than your alma mater.</p>
<p>I understand why people obsess over graduate department rankings, because they actually matter…but undergrad?</p>
<p>^Is that why the elite schools place students into the top law/med schools exponentially better than lower-ranked public institutions? You could argue that the strength of the incoming student body plays a large role predetermining the success of these elite university grads but that doesn’t explain the whole story.</p>
<p>^ I think the strength of the student body plays the largest role in determining the success in medical/law school admissions. People who do comparably worse on the SAT/ACT tend to do worse on the MCAT/LSAT as well. </p>
<p>For medical school/law school admissions, your alma mater plays a small role. Get a high GPA, rock the MCAT or LSAT and you will get into a ton of great programs.</p>
<p>
You may be right, or you may be completely wrong. How do you know one way or the other? Can you cite evidence, a study of any kind, that supports your contention?</p>
<p>xiggi - I always thought it was worthless information, as evidenced by the fact that I never looked at those stats for either of my kids, nor did they, when they chose where to apply and whether to apply for EA or ED. Again, you presume to know my thoughts and motives. Still arrogant after all these posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to play devils advocate: how do you know? Where are the “studies” that show a different “story”? Harvard students have the highest mean SAT scores. Harvard students also have the highest mean LSAT scores in the country/world. How can you separate the two? Do you honestly believe that Harvard’s undergraduate teaching is that much better than a good LAC? (Is H known for its undergrad teaching prowess?) Do you really believe that someone who had the chops to be accepted into HYP would not be star at most public Unis or mid-tier LACs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do have a very unusual conversational style and a great knack to reverse roles. There is no arrogance in my posts nor positions. I do not presume to know your thoughts or motives. Obviously, you do not seem to realize that, according to your theories, whatever is not important to you or whatever you fail to comprehend must not be relevant nor important to others. </p>
<p>Again, since you or your children had no use for EA or ED statistics, this must mean that the rest of the applicants must share your belief. That this flies in the face of the factual evidence that most schools DO report this data, voluntarily for EA and as part of the CDS for the ED, AND that you can find thousands of posts on CC discussing the early admission process and statistics. </p>
<p>My point remains the same. Schools SHOULD disclose their admission data truthfully, completely, and preferably on a timely and easily accessible basis. I’ll assume that you endorse the current practice of a number of schools that like to play “hide and force to seek” games. </p>
<p>I am not telling ANYONE which data should be important to them; I am saying that the schools should report ALL data and let the applicants decide which data is relevant to their individual situation. And that is where we seem to have different opinions!</p>
<p>
I will let people judge for themselves if those things contradict each other.</p>
<p>“Is that why the elite schools place students into the top law/med schools exponentially better than lower-ranked public institutions? You could argue that the strength of the incoming student body plays a large role predetermining the success of these elite university grads but that doesn’t explain the whole story.”</p>
<p>It explains a lot of it. There’s a diff between selection effort and treatment effect. The girls chosen to join the most elite modeling school wind up being amazingly pretty and getting modeling jobs. How did that happen? They were selected that way in the first place. </p>
<p>By contrast, the military is an example of treatment effect. They take uneven incoming quality and turn them all into excellent soldiers.</p>
<p>I think an earlier post on the LSAT scores of undergraduates should establish it. Berkeley students are best grouped with students from BYU, Colby, Emory and Johns Hopkins.
But Berkeley’s mission is different from the others (with the possible exception of BYU with its population), to educate a wide swath of those in the state.
I think there should be a separate ranking for state schools and privates.
I am ready to concede that the publics are much more “democratic” in a crude way than the privates. I say crude rather than “pure” by striving to admit a population similar to the voting public by race or ethnicity, even in spite of the law in California.
Of course the privates come with their own source of outsized proportion of legacy admits, skaters and rowers, celebrity and politician kids, etc. I’m not claiming any necessary meritocratic superiority here.
I just think the places are are so different that they should be ranked separately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I believe the average LSAT score for Berkeley undergrads is a 159 or 160, which is really quite bad. That’s good enough for tier 2 schools and definitely not good enough for the t-14. On the other hand, the average LSAT score for Harvard undergrads is a 166. Standardized test taking abilities explain the difference. But to be fair, while a 166 is okay, it is still not good enough to get into the top 14 law schools.</p>
<p>“Is that why the elite schools place students into the top law/med schools exponentially better than lower-ranked public institutions? You could argue that the strength of the incoming student body plays a large role predetermining the success of these elite university grads but that doesn’t explain the whole story.”</p>
<p>This thread is not about lower-ranked public universities, it is about big-name public universities, such as Cal, Michigan and UVa. Their placement of their undergrade students into top law schools is comparable to the placement of undergrads into top schools from peer private universities. Unfortunately, I have only found 4 universities (Cornell, Georgetown, Michigan and Penn) that have accurate data. However, I doubt that other private elites such as Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins or Northwestern have significantly different Law school placement rates than Cornell, Georgetown and Penn and I am fairly confident that Cal, UCLA and UVa do as well as Michigan. I do not see “exponential” differences between private and public universities. </p>
<p>YALE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: N/A
Georgetown University: 34 applied, 3 admitted, 9% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 33 applied, 3 admitted (3 matriculated), 9% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 68 applied, 9 admitted (5 matriculated), 13% acceptance rate</p>
<p>HARVARD UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 138 applied, 14 admitted (12 matriculated), 10% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 99 applied, 10 admitted, 10% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 119 applied, 13 admitted (9 matriculated), 11% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 159 applied, 26 admitted (19 matriculated), 16% acceptance rate </p>
<p>STANFORD UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: N/A
Georgetown University: 57 applied, 3 admitted, 5% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 60 applied, 3 admitted (1 matriculated), 5% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 107 applied, 13 admitted (7 matriculated), 12% acceptance rate</p>
<p>COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 186 applied, 31 admitted (16 matriculated), 17% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 141 applied, 23 admitted, 16% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 162 applied, 21 admitted (9 matriculated), 13% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 205 applied, 36 admitted (11 matriculated), 18% acceptance rate </p>
<p>UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 98 applied, 23 admitted (4 matriculated), 23% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 82 applied, 15 admitted, 18% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 137 applied, 24 admitted (6 matriculated), 18% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 110 applied, 22 admitted (0 matriculated), 20% acceptance rate </p>
<p>UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-ANN ARBOR LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 133 applied, 28 admitted (8 matriculated), 21% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 73 applied, 15 admitted, 20% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 342 applied, 92 admitted (59 matriculated), 27% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 117 applied, 32 admitted (8 matriculated), 27% acceptance rate</p>
<p>NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 185 applied, 40 admitted (7 matriculated), 22% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 123 applied, 23 admitted, 19% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 148 applied, 34 admitted (12 matriculated), 23% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 189 applied, 61 admitted (22 matriculated), 32% acceptance rate </p>
<p>UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL
Cornell University: 125 applied, 18 admitted (4 matriculated), 14% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 93 applied, 14 admitted, 15% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 142 applied, 10 admitted (2 matriculated), 7% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 126 applied, 20 admitted (4 matriculated), 16% acceptance rate</p>
<p>UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 152 applied, 31 admitted (10 matriculated), 20% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 107 applied, 19 admitted, 18% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 128 applied, 20 admitted (4 matriculated), 16% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 237 applied, 68 admitted (24 matriculated), 29% acceptance rate </p>
<p>UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 128 applied, 32 admitted (8 matriculated), 25% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 107 applied, 25 admitted, 23% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 160 applied, 12 admitted (3 matriculated), 8% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 128 applied, 37 admitted (7 matriculated), 29% acceptance rate </p>
<p>NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: N/A
Georgetown University: 89 applied, 18 admitted, 20% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 128 applied, 20 admitted (10 matriculated), 16% acceptance rat2
University of Pennsylvania: 88 applied, 29 admitted (5 matriculated), 33% acceptance rate</p>
<p>CORNELL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 229 applied, 70 admitted (16 matriculated), 31% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 52 applied, 9 admitted, 17% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 80 applied, 20 admitted (1 matriculated), 25% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 74 applied, 30 admitted (3 matriculated), 40% acceptance rate</p>
<p>DUKE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 147 applied, 50 admitted (5 matriculated), 34% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 81 applied, 25 admitted, 31% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 125 applied, 25 admitted (0 matriculated), 20% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 143 applied, 47 admitted (4 matriculated), 33% acceptance rate </p>
<p>GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 245 applied, 66 admitted (11 matriculated), 27% acceptance rate
Georgetown University: 294 applied, 86 admitted, 29% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 227 applied, 54 admitted (12 matriculated), 24% acceptance rate
University of Pennsylvania: 221 applied, 85 admitted (16 matriculated), 38% acceptance rate </p>
<p>TOTAL MATRICULATIONS IN TOP 14 LAW SCHOOLS:
Cornell: 101 (not including Yale, Stanford and Northwestern due to low volumes)
Georgetown: N/A
Michigan: 131
Penn: 135</p>
<p><a href=“Career Services | Student & Campus Life | Cornell University”>Career Services | Student & Campus Life | Cornell University; (scroll to last page)
[Law</a> School Admissions Statistics for Georgetown Students (2008)](<a href=“Cawley Career Education Center | Georgetown University”>Cawley Career Education Center | Georgetown University)
[College</a> of Literature, Science, and the Arts | Students](<a href=“http://www.lsa.umich.edu/advising/advisor/prelaw/um_stats]College”>http://www.lsa.umich.edu/advising/advisor/prelaw/um_stats)
[Career</a> Services, University of Pennsylvania](<a href=“http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/law/law_stats.html]Career”>http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/law/law_stats.html)</p>
<p>I see no exponential difference so far.</p>
<p>“Yeah, I believe the average LSAT score for Berkeley undergrads is a 159 or 160, which is really quite bad.”</p>
<p>ericsson, everything is relative. Only 15 research universities have average LSAT scores higher than Cal and only 20 higher than GT, Michigan, UCLA and UVa. That’s in line with selectivity rankings. Cal’s selectivity rank usually hovers around #15 and Michigan, UCLA and UVa’s selectivity ransk usually hover around #20.</p>