<p>well, usnews says the acceptance rate for transfers at bc is 25%</p>
<p>im not sure if the link will work but transfer admission for Fall 05 was as follows: 1007 applicants, 148 acceptances or 15%</p>
<p>I think that derekc4 was trying to say that FIT isn't the greatest fashion school in the land, but that they have an extremely low acceptance rate (please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong), thereby refuting your statement that it can't work that way. When I read his statement, it actually seems like he's also trying to give you a little bit of encouragement and advice about getting into BC (maybe i'm wrong?). </p>
<p>Just because FIT is a fashion school, that does not mean that it's not "traditional". At a lot of liberal arts colleges, you have requirements that everyone must take, and then you move on the classes that concern you and your major. It's the same thing at FIT - there is a core curriculum that entails math, science, english, and the likes (just like every other "traditional school"), and after that you move on to what your major requires. </p>
<p>It's okay for you to stand by your statement - I am by no means saying that you can't have an opinion and I understand where you are coming from. I would just like to maybe encourage you to not make generalizations about every college - at some schools like FIT, it actually may work the other way around...</p>
<p>
[quote]
and BC has better name recognition since when?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since Doug Flutie played there and beat Miami in a bowl game by throwing an AMAZING hail mary pass. Also since they have been a rival with Notre Dame, and beaten them during times when ND was king of the hill in football prowess.</p>
<p>When Tufts does this stuff, then come ask your questions.</p>
<p>I have no knowledge of FIT, and I def dont think he was saying FIT ISNT the best fashion school in the world, I think he was putting that stat out there to refute my previous statement (the quality of FIT is irrelevant). My entire point is that specialty schools often have much lower acceptance rates than mainstream (i realize traditional wasnt the best word although seeing how commercialized fashion schools etc didnt really exist 200 years ago its not too far off) colleges. Im sure its not neccesary for me to explain why, but its a fact. Ill go ahead and clarify once again that I was only talking about schools that concentrate in the arts and sciences, engineering, etc not speciality schools. These schools can be found in the USNews rankings (even most of the tech schools offer arts). Within the USNews ranking, if you click on National Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges and sort by acceptance % youll find only quality schools - that was my whole point. Anyways, no harm intended with any of these posts - lets just move on</p>
<p>your logic is flawed aca, the number of transfer students accepted has almost nothing to do directly with the quality of the school. It is usually the number of people who study abroad, freshman retention rate and size of the school. </p>
<p>Yes, if you want to go to BC, you should apply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the number of transfer students accepted has almost nothing to do directly with the quality of the school. It is usually the number of people who study abroad, freshman retention rate and size of the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ACA also fails to consider the quality of the applicant pool at BC. BC will not admit subpar applicants to maintain a certain acceptance rate, and most, if not all, other competitive schools will not either.</p>
<p>nspeds - ill give u that much about the quality of the applicant pool bubt at the same time, BC reached record transfer apps last year for fall 06 so i dont think they faced this problem. Its acceptances were also one of the best in its history for transfer admissions.</p>
<p>while acceptance rates arent EVERYTHING, they are certainly a factor in determining the quality of a school. I mean, there is a reason as to why USNews chooses to use acceptance rates in its formula. If you make a graph with one axis as acceptance rate and the other as overall rank (i realize the ranking is an imperfect, subjective measure of quality but its the closest thing available) ull see an almost linear pattern. Obviously there will be some outliers but you cant deny acceptance rate as a measure of selectivity, and therefore as one of the measures of quality</p>
<p>
[quote]
ill give u that much about the quality of the applicant pool bubt at the same time, BC reached record transfer apps last year for fall 06 so i dont think they faced this problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The quantity of candidates in an applicant pool is not indicative of the pool's quality. I am surprised this needs mentioning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there is a reason as to why USNews chooses to use acceptance rates in its formula.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As is noted often on this board, what USNews does is not always right. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Obviously there will be some outliers but you cant deny acceptance rate as a measure of selectivity, and therefore as one of the measures of quality
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are committing the post-hoc fallacy: schools are not good because they accept few students; all such a graph would indicate is a correlation between good schools and low acceptance rates.</p>
<p>1) if ud finish reading my post before typing away ud realize that i said a) BC had its largest applicant pool in history b) BC accepted the most qualified applicant pool in history (not only is this on the website, this was verified by admission)...they had no problem with unqualified applicants last year, period.</p>
<p>2) This correlation is precisely what im talking about. Its stronger than you may think</p>
<p>just out of curiosity, are you saying USNews should cut acceptance rate from its formula?</p>
<p>
[quote]
b) BC accepted the most qualified applicant pool in history (not only is this on the website, this was verified by admission)...they had no problem with unqualified applicants last year, period.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay...
Here is a sample applicant pool for a college that has been running for two years:
2004: -,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,+
Of 10 applicants, only one is qualified, and thus accepted. Admit rate: 10%
2005: -,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,+,+,+
Of the 20 applicants, only three are qualified, and thus accepted. Admit rate: 15%</p>
<p>This imaginary college now announces that they had the largest applicant pool in its history, and that they accepted the most qualified applicant pool.</p>
<p>Now expand this to all the years of BCs existence, put the numbers in proportion, and my reductio is proven.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) This correlation is precisely what im talking about. Its stronger than you may think
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly, it is correlation, but nothing more. Do not draw a conclusion where there is none to be found.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just out of curiosity, are you saying USNews should cut acceptance rate from its formula?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, am arguing that even though the USNews is used as an indicator for good schools, the methods it uses or its rankings are not necessarily right.</p>