<p>Juniata , high acceptance rates from there into med/grad schools</p>
<p>Nervouscollege (post #38)…yes, they are very selective but for an Ivy caliber student, they are in the likely range.</p>
<p>^^and many of the schools that Nervouscollege mentions have high acceptance rates for ED (therefore creating a “falsely” low rate of admission for RD)…especially F&M…</p>
<p>Just a word of caution in appraising selectivity-it hinges on more than acceptance rate.</p>
<p>For example, both Lehigh and U of Chicago had a 28% admission rate last year. However Lehigh’s “middle range” SAT score profile was 590-690 (CR) and 640-720 (M). Chicago’s was 660-770 (CR) and 650-760 (M). While it is probably a mistake to regard Lehigh as a “sure-bet” for an Ivy League candidate, it is certainly a mistake to call Chicago one.</p>
<p>Of course, geography plays a role, too. UNC, UCLA, and UC-Berkeley are far more attainable for in-state applicants than for OOS ones.</p>
<p>Not to get off track, but nervouscollege posted his/her stats on a chances thread, and has well below average stats and if his/her college list is to be believed, it is mostly made up of elite colleges and Ivies, where such stats have no chance of admissions, and the “easiest” college on the list is Penn State (a big drop from the others on the list). For what it is worth. :D</p>
<h1>44 post is correct that acceptance rate is not the sole criteria in terms of selectivity.</h1>
<p>I also think that a specific program (such as nursing) may be “respected” at a University that many would consider to be non-selective. This list would include some State schools and smaller schools as well.</p>
<p>Acceptance rates are quite misleading. Especially at larger schools, they don’t take into account different admissions standards for different programs. Chicago is every bit as selective as the Ivies, despite its “high” acceptance rate. Also, schools like Michigan, UVA, NYU, etc are more selective than their acceptance rates imply. Conversely, sometimes schools with lower acceptance rates are actually less selective, for reasons I don’t know.</p>
<p>I agree using acceptance rates as a gauge to being accepted can be quite misleading, especially if you just use standardized test scores. UChicago, for instance, may appear to be ‘less selective’ vs an ivy, but I believe that’s because they are self-selective. That is, many who apply there have the high caliber stats, the fit, and really want to go. UChicago’s reputation as a ‘very academic environment’ and the application isn’t an easy one to complete. Compare that to some of the ivies: how many students applied to those just because their parents thought, “they should”.</p>
<p>But to get back to the thread, I’d say an awful lot of LACs are exactly right. They may be less selective, but the education they offer is very highly regarded. Take a look just at those in PA: Lafayette, Lehigh, Bucknell, F&M. In fact, F&M’s deadline is 2/1! The attention students get there is superb, and their alums have great records of employment.</p>
<p>The acceptance rate is often a better indicator of how many people are applying and how many are enrolling. The College of the Ozarks and Amherst both accept between 10-15% of their applicants. Amherst still has much more competitive admission standards. The reason why they have similar acceptance rates is because almost 90% of the accepted applicants for the College of the Ozarks enroll there.</p>
<p>Virginia Tech- 65% overall acceptance rate, highly respected STEM programs and respectable athletics.
You can’t go wrong with UMCP. It’s one of the public ivies, its rapidly climbing the ranks with most respects and is a popular “safety” for ivy bound applicants.</p>
<p>Here’s guidance to which colleges have respect: </p>
<p>[Harvard</a> Number One University in Eyes of Public](<a href=“Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public”>http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/Harvard-Number-One-University-Eyes-Public.aspx) </p>
<p>(Thanks to the CC participant who first told me about this poll result.) Culling that list for those with the easiest admission barriers should zero in pretty well on what the thread-opening post is asking for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, yes, and yes. I have a FAQ about this: </p>
<p>SELECTIVITY </p>
<p>It’s NEVER a valid procedure to compare base acceptance rates alone to derive an inference about selectivity. That’s because different pools of applicants apply to different colleges, based on their own estimates of their chances. I’ll repost here an example I have posted earlier.</p>
<p>If Podunk Community College started a more vigorous marketing campaign, and encouraged many more applications than it has received before, it might find that the number of applications submitted was far above its capacity to enroll students, and thus find, even taking into account less than 100 percent yield of admitted students who actually enroll, that it could not admit all applicants. If Podunk has a 10 percent yield, a new first-year class size of 1,000, and receives 200,000 applications, it might issue a press release, after it admits 10,000 applicants, saying “Podunk admission rate down to 5 percent, lower than any Ivy League college.” But a thoughtful reader of that press release, even one who believes everything that Podunk reported, might still have genuine doubts that Podunk is more selective than Columbia, not to mention Harvard. Base acceptance rate is one interesting statistic about a college’s annual admission cycle, but it is not the sole competent evidence about which college is most selective. Scholars of the college admission process have some genuine disagreements about how to show which college is most “selective,” but NO ONE thinks that base acceptance rate is the last word on that subject.</p>
<p>Lake Forest College - along with Dennison and Kenyon</p>
<p>I think Rutgers is pretty underrated.</p>
<p>University of Maryland, Baltimore County and some of the various Canadian Universities (some have international tuition rates comparable to OSS tuition rates of some Public state universities; see UWO).</p>
<p>The Evergreen State College</p>
<p>yes soozievt, those are not my real stats. I wanted to see if people would be honest with me when I posted my real stats under another name and to some different schools. But listing tier 1 schools in your list of those that are not “highly selective” is simply incorrect.</p>
<p>University of Connecticut</p>
1 Like
<p>nervouscollege…you are new to CC. Welcome. Already, you are saying that a thread you started included false information that misled others who were responding to your so called “stats”. Further, you are saying you have posted here under two different names. When forum members read posts by posters, they have to weigh how valid the posts are based on a member’s posting history. And so it is. If you are interested in whether members will be honest with you (as you stated above), try being honest on your own end as what goes around comes around. Just sayin’. </p>
<p>I listed schools that answered Sally Rubenstone’s query which was to find well regarded colleges that would likely admit top applicants (Ivy caliber), and were in the realistic range for very good but not stellar students. I never said these schools were not very selective. But for a tippy top student, most of those schools are in the likely range. The schools themselves are still quite selective overall, however. The tippy top students in the country can have likely bet colleges that are quite selective and are reaches for some other candidates.</p>