<p>oh good I was worried that someone did care about my opinion.</p>
<p>Duke seems to have won this contest. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/933263-most-obnoxious-student-body.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/933263-most-obnoxious-student-body.html</a></p>
<p>
That’s assuming a resident would pay more. </p>
<p>13% of Duke students come from NC, and a lot of them are on financial aid. I was accepted to both schools, and even with a minor scholarship at UNC, I got much more $$$ at Duke (and, oddly enough, NC State).</p>
<p>
People don’t just choose universities based on their PA score or strength of their graduate programs. Most high schoolers care way more about the academic ability of the peers they will be surrounded with and where their college degree can take them such as to Wall Street, top professional schools, top graduate programs, nationally recognized companies, etc. etc.</p>
<p>In this regard, Duke beats out state schools like Michigan and UNC by a wide, wide margin.</p>
<p><a href=“WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights”>WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights;
Duke: 8.61% (139)
Michigan: 2.73% (156)
UNC: 0.74% (26)</p>
<p>Duke has 1/4 the undergraduate population as Michigan but yet on aggregate, it places only 15 fewer students into the top law, biz and med schools in the country. Keep in mind that the geographic bias in this survey ACTUALLY FAVORS Michigan since Chicago’s MBA and Michigan’s Law schools are considered while none of Duke’s professional schools are included and there is no representation of any schools in the South whatsoever which would skew results in Duke’s favor.</p>
<p>MORE THAN FIVE DOZEN of Michigan’s 156 undergrads who enrolled in the top professional schools went to Michigan’s Law School meaning that if the WSJ had chosen another law school besides Michigan, UMich probably wouldn’t even crack the Top 50 in the WSJ Feeder survey. In fact, common intuition would suggest that UVA is a stronger feeder to the top professional schools than Michigan and removing the UMich bias in this survey, that would indeed be the case.</p>
<p>I won’t even bother to analyze UNC’s performance in this survey since it is not even in the same league as Duke so I won’t waste my time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am no fan of Michigan or UNC (or any large state schools in general). But this is really tough talk from a ■■■■■ who goes to a school that has been begging people off the waitlist since the middle of April. As usual, Guttentag overplayed his hand and overestimated Duke’s yield. AGAIN. Fwiw, Duke’s yield is consistently lower than that of UNC and not much different from Michigan’s. Of course, it’s probably unfair to compare a private school’s yield to that of publics. But it should be duly noted that Duke has a lower yield than all the Ivies including Cornell, which is not surprisingly yet another school that Duke students love to bully. (I am no fan of Cornell either, but it’s funny how Duke students think they’re better than Cornell when in fact they are peers.) Also, let the record show that Duke seems to have placed more people (3,382 to be exact) on the waitlist than UNC or Michigan, a school which the Duke ■■■■■ so observantly pointed out, has a student body that is 4x greater than that of Duke.</p>
<p>Last but not least, it is true that some prospective students don’t select colleges on the basis of PA scores, although others apparently do. But it is no less true that the overwhelming majority of students do not choose schools based on inherently flawed and completely un-scientific surveys that relied on, of all things, facebook data.</p>
<p>
Duke’s in good company, then. After all, Caltech and Chicago also fit into that category. 
Early decision is irrelevant here; I’m speaking of RD yields. Incidentally, the RD yields at Cornell and Duke are virtually identical.</p>
<p>
On the contrary, it makes quite a lot of sense (from the university’s perspective) to admit few students and waitlist as many as possible, as it lowers the admit rate and raises the yield. It may possibly dilute the strength of the enrolled class, however, so it’s a fine line to walk.</p>
<p>I really don’t see much to debate. Duke <em>is</em> stronger academically than UNC, it <em>is</em> more selective, and it <em>does</em> have better placement. The only thing up for debate is whether the differences between them are significant enough to make Duke a no-brainer…personally, I do not think that is the case, especially for an in-state student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Caltech and Chicago are more self-selective than Duke. And please do not try to argue that Duke is as selective as Caltech. But since you’re a Duke alum, you’ll probably try (and fail).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which means a higher percentage of Cornell vs. Duke applicants are willing to commit themselves to ED. Also, don’t forget that Cornell (like all the other Ivies) cannot boost their RD yield like Duke with merit and athletic $$$.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Despite this blatant gaming of the yield and admit rates, Duke still has a lower yield rate than all the Ivies and a higher admit rate than all the Ivies (except Cornell).</p>
<p>And thanks for belaboring the obvious by stating that “it makes quite a lot of sense (from the university’s perspective) to admit few students and waitlist as many as possible.” But this does not necessarily excuse the disservice done to so many Duke waitlistees by giving them false hope. It says a lot about Duke’s institutional priorities that it treats its applicants so poorly, just so it can create an illusion of greater perceived selectivity. Not to mention, no other top school (save Penn and WashU perhaps) does this so shadily.</p>
<p>
Meaning their yields should be higher than Duke’s, not on par or lower. MIT, for example, has nearly double Caltech’s yield, despite also having only EA. </p>
<p>
They do, however, have far superior financial aid packages. At least 60% of most of the students at these colleges are on financial aid, as opposed to the roughly 3% of Duke students on merit aid. Duke is loan-free only for students earning less than $40K a year; this pales in comparison to the Ivies that have eliminated loans altogether or eliminated them for many more students. Duke’s financial aid falls behind even Rice’s, unfortunately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s Duke’s problem. Not the Ivies’.</p>
<p>
Oh, indeed. You seem quite concerned with the state of affairs at Duke, though. Care to make a donation? Posts are cheap. ;)</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.gifts.duke.edu/[/url]”>https://www.gifts.duke.edu/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. The applicant pool at Caltech or Chicago can be more self-selective than that of Duke despite slightly lower yield. This is because even more self-selectiing applicants may not want to deal with higher academic rigor when other attractive options are available. Of course, none of this changes the fact that Caltech is much harder to get into than Duke. Their seemingly similar yield (and admit) rates are incomparable because prospective students without (inter-) national math & science talent need not apply to Caltech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s 3% more than at all the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s sort of embarassing when un-funny people try to be funny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true since the study wanted to include only top programs and Duke’s law and business schools are ‘also rans’ unlike Michigan’s.</p>
<p>trollnyc,</p>
<p>What’s your point? I’m not talking about the quality of Duke’s law/biz/med schools here but rather the success that Duke undergrads have at gaining admission to the top grad schools. Stop trying to change the subject…Duke’s law and business schools are peers of Michigan’s by the way. They all fall in the “same tier”.</p>