<p>Sorry, CTPANJMOM, was responding to your post re "honesty, fairness, etc."
P.S. the discussion does not surround admission practices, but selectivity, which is a factual discussion.</p>
<p>Schwab, Don't underestimate the power of marketing. Unlike its peers H & Y, Princeton has done nothing from a marketing standpoint. With a small class size and nat'l reputation, achieving such a goal is not unimaginable. But I agree, I think they want to focus on quality, not quantity.</p>
<p>Until the women of America start breeding like rabbits, or a veritable flood (and I mean flood) of international applicants apply, there simply will not be enough of a college-aged population to allow Princeton's admission numbers to go down to 2%.</p>
<p>Period.</p>
<p>Unless Princeton wants to cut class sizes down to say... 500, it will not achieve a 2% admit rate until the population of the U.S. doubles or triples.</p>
<p>Why the hell would you want Princeton's admit rate to reach such miniscule proportions anyway?</p>
<p><<sorry, ctpanjmom,="" was="" responding="" to="" your="" post="" re="" "honesty,="" fairness,="" etc."="">></sorry,></p>
<p>Well perhaps if you re-read it, you will better understand the point I was making. </p>
<p><<p.s. the="" discussion="" does="" not="" surround="" admission="" practices,="" but="" selectivity,="" which="" is="" a="" factual="" discussion.="">></p.s.></p>
<p>And I asked for a definitiion of "most selective." You can't really discuss an issue as a matter of fact unless you define it. But it seems you're in good company with the powers that be at the ivies, believing somehow that redefining admission practices somehow redefines the selectivity of the institution.</p>
<p>"So you want to be Princeton's version of Byerly/NYCfan?"</p>
<p>So totally agreed. alpha, man, give it a rest, honestly.</p>
<p>Actually, there are divisions of schools (such as USC:cinema, NYU:film) that are around 2% in admission rate. The same is true for music schools, like curtis with a general 3% admission rate.</p>
<p>Well the ey to this number is population. If the population of the US was 1 billion , i guess princetons admsiionrate would have been like 2%.</p>
<p>princeton wont become the most selective college in the world because in the united states alone, it has:</p>
<ol>
<li>competition from many other elite private schools</li>
<li>competition from good and financially affordable in-state schools</li>
<li>competition from other schools which are better "fits" for other students</li>
</ol>
<p>even if it markets itself to be better than harvard, yale, stanford, mit, etc. single-handedly, it serves no purpose, because the applicant crossover rate already exists between princeton and those schools. then it would have to draw applicants from the pools of every state school, and frankly, there is a large number of smart kids who would rather stay in-state for a good education that they can afford.</p>
<p>I think Princeton can draw in more applications if you could submit an application online with an automatic fee waiver. i'd apply for the hell of it, and I know some other kids would too.</p>
<p>"I think Princeton can draw in more applications if you could submit an application online with an automatic fee waiver. i'd apply for the hell of it, and I know some other kids would too."</p>
<p>LOL i applied to the university of the pacific cuz they had a free online app. so if pacific could get my attention, im sure princeton can too ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
They call their move away from ED a "competitive risk". I call it academic and social integrity. Will the ivies follow suit?
[/quote]
And why is ED a bad thing? It is called Early Decision for a reason...</p>
<p>Secondly almost 40-50 % takes the IIT entrance just for the hell of it.</p>
<p>Does the IIT entrace examination cost money?</p>
<p>about 14 dollars, 7 if you belong to a 'scheduled cast / scheduled tribe' (that's how they do affirmitive action here. some quotas as well.. but it's still pretty damn hard)</p>
<p><<and why="" is="" ed="" a="" bad="" thing?="" it="" called="" early="" decision="" for="" reason...="">></and></p>
<p>One of the reasons why UNC dropped it was reportedly the effect it was having on the makeup of the incoming student body. </p>
<p>I guess maybe they also saw what's been happening at HYP etc. and made a conscious decision that it was not a direction they wanted to go in. Somewhere along the line, the ivies may catch on that this game they are playing with each other to raise their selectivity rating is having a negative effect on their own integrity.</p>
<p>Maybe not. I guess the ivies will always be around and will always be top choices. But I respect UNC for setting itself apart. They have taken control of their admissions process, while it is fairly obvious that the ivies have lost control of theirs. Is this really the best they can do? Shouldn't they be working on fostering a fair yet competitive admissions process that focuses on the students themselves, rather than engaging in a cyclical battle for the top selectivity spot year after year? </p>
<p>Understand that I am in no way undermining a student's accomplishment of getting into an ivy league or other top school. But I think that it should be just that - an accomplishment based on merit. And I think merit can be based on academic, social, athletic, musical and other criteria. But the ivies don't seem to be looking to create a student body that reflects and includes all types of merit students. </p>
<p>eh. What do I know? I just always had this view that the ivies were somehow leading the way. Kudos to UNC for looking ahead to make sure they were going in the right direction and deciding to take the high road. Leaders take "competitive risks" all the time, that's what makes them leaders.</p>
<p>Why would you assume schools sticking to ED are trying to stay ahead in the rankings? AFAIK (not that much, admittedly), ED's been here for a long time before rankings..? (or at least before all the hype about the yield factor..?)</p>
<p>It's worked so far to attract people who are really interested. There are always people who apply ED as a strategy, and they're the ones who get into a spot post acceptance. I don't see how ED is exploitative, or moving away from it somehow shows more integrity.</p>
<p>ED is certainly in the best interests of the college, it is often not in the best interests of the student. It gives the college a surer handle on various aspect of the incoming class earlier and lets them snag various students that they want without the risk of losing them to competition. On the other hand, there is no way to prove that ED students get as good a financial aid offer as they would get non-ED and they certainly don't have the leverage of other offers to use in negotiating, as my non-ED daughter did. Also, because of the need to consider financial aid options, ED is a process that favors students from wealthier households that can afford to apply without weighing FinAid components. Finally, many many many students change their priorities and criteria apropos of "fit" between Fall and Spring and I think it is unfair to impose a rigid ED paradigm on students when the paradigm is for the college's benefit. Single-choice EA (SCEA) has the effect of ED in forcing a student to choose one Preferred school and to make that preference clear but it keeps the options, both for FinAid and a student's evolving criteria, open.</p>
<p>I loved the fact that my first two kids got in ED. They both knew precisely what they wanted and didn't waver in their choice over a long period of time (3 years in the case of one, 2.5 in the case of the other). Knowing where they were going on Dec. 15 was a huge, HUGE relief. The schools had very specific geographical and program features that made them a uniquely good fit for each kid (one wanted to sail, but only on the ocean, not a lake, for example - but that was just a tiny consideration I am using as an example). That said, if everyone would do SCEA that'd be cool.</p>
<p>Also, as an Ivy interviewer for many years, I would respectfully disagree with ctnjpamom. I am still involved with my Ivy, very closely, and I think they do a wonderful job of creating an interesting and diverse class based on merit; and I don't think they have lost their integrity.</p>
<p>Finally, alphacdcd, I am not really impressed with the Templeton list because the schools had to apply for it, and so many chose not to go through the process. It's not like they examined every school, every honor code, etc. It was pretty much self selected.</p>
<p>Let's keep it simple. ED is a choice. It helps both parties. Don't cpmplicate it.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Gives students an edge ( or greater chance of getting into the school they really want).</p></li>
<li><p>Helps schools identify kids who REALLY want to be there (and not kids racking up offers)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Sounds like a great quid pro quo to me. And if you don't like it, apply EA or RD!</p>