@NotVerySmart You truly live up to your username. First, I never stated that Johns Hopkins was a worse institution in 2009 , it was still excellent but lets not pretend that it is any better now that its more selective. Second, Nobel prizes are irrelevant to this discussion and this is because Johns Hopkins get the highest amount of federal research income like $2-$3 billion every year.
Also it doesn’t matter how many they admit but the acceptance rate aswell as the % of enrolled students from early decision as opposed to regular decision. ED admits probably make 40%-50% of the class and the jump in yield is mainly because of the higher number of ED admits every year.
Oxbridge uses a different system called UCAS. Students are only limited to 5 universities to apply to. Plus you can’t apply to both Oxford and Cambridge. If these restrictions didn’t exist they would be as selective as most ivies.
Again the higher yield rate is mainly caused by a higher amount of ED admits every year if the ED admit rate was similar to the regular admit rate I guarantee you the yield would drop dramatically. Plus there is no good reason for reducing class size that is simply cheating students of places and I suspect its caused by false yield rate predictions.
Not arguing against benefiting the college but having a fair admission process where every potentially excellent student is considered.
Because LACs are not major research institutions and have a smaller overall influence.
No, but other institutions like Duke, Dartmouth and Cornell should stop this disgusting practice because its unfair. I would like to see them convert to an early action non binding admission instead but they risk lowering their yield rate and looking less prestigious as a result.
UPenn(ED)- reach
MIT(EA)- reach
CMU- high match
Columbia- reach
Cornell- low reach
Michigan- match
Southern California- high match
Berkeley- low reach
UWashington- low match
CalTech- high reach
UIUC- low match
JHU- low reach
It looks like we’ll just need to agree to disagree on this point, because I suspect we could sidetrack this thread for a page or two without one of us convincing the other.
In any case, whatever you may think of ED, I don’t believe OP should be responsible for making some sort of moral stand on the issue and not applying to an excellent university in so doing.
Just another excuse to avoid my flawless logic and rationality.
Yeah but Johns Hopkins being as selective as Harvard in Regular decision isn’t going to give him a fair chance. It is an excellent research institution however, but dishonest and unfair in its admissions process.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, so I will only note that if universities are to be condemned for giving some applicants a better chance than others, there are advantages - legacy, athletics, famous parents - which are far more egregious, and a “dishonest and unfair” admissions process really shouldn’t be a reason to forgo an application.
I will reply to the rest of your points via PM if you so wish, but this is all I’m going to say on this thread.
I don’t think I can do anything about their admission practices and don’t really see them as “dishonest” or “unfair” but back to original point, chancing and also more importantly, I’ve decided not to include my Spanish 4&5 grades on my UC application(they’re B’s) is this against the rules since I’m technically not forging or altering grades for classes just excluding them.
Awesome stats! You will most likely get into most schools but MIT is a reach. Plently of prestigous schools do not tend to admit students who show potential. Some one was rejected from MIT with a 36 ACT composite and even invented a a robot of some sort, schools view students like those as already accomplished and have a harder time/chance to grow during college.
