<p>except that look at their wording....it's misleading</p>
<p>it says "successful US applicants" meaning that applicants who didnt get into the US colleges arent included in the data..making the pool smaller....a typical way to skew the data</p>
<p>It also says that the data inculde students who left RJC in previous years. Does this mean if someone attended RJC for one year and graduated from a different school they're included in the acceptance rates?</p>
<p>
<p>it says "successful US applicants" meaning that applicants who didnt get into the US colleges arent included in the data..making the pool smaller....a typical way to skew the data
</p>
<p>Great pickup! It's very misleading. There are about 300 students per class and they have info on about 450 admission decisions per year the last few years and 300 per year before that. Most applicants to competitive schools in the US apply to 6-9 schools (so for 300 students there should be 1800-2700 admission decisions). 1800-2700 divided by 300-450 admission decisions shown comes to 6 (one sixth of what should be shown). So you figure they are only showing you the top 6th of the class. Therefore you should divide their acceptance rates by 6. Even if their students are only applying to 3-5 schools each, one should divide the acceptance rates by 3 which still isn't all that special.</p>
<p>Or they don't even allow poor students to apply to US schools (skewing their admission stats upward)</p>
<p>also, they post admit rate, not matriculation rate which most schools do..again...misleading</p>
<p>nobody leaves RJC for a year and graduates elsewhere =P actually, come to recall, 1 person i know got a UWC scholarship, but i'm sure the total numbers are insignificant</p>
<p>the college itself does not pay for your education, it does snap up the lion's share of government scholarships (of which there are many)</p>
<p>the Singapore system is strongly skewed towards sciences/engineering, the arts faculty in RJC is only 1/6th the total population. even more importantly, there's also a heavy emphasis on picking up degrees with employability because we pay full freight, and in a lot of cases, applicants are constrained by their scholarship bonds and are only able to take up certain majors.</p>
<p>the sheet DOES show final admit percentages, but those are skewed against the school! they mostly show only the most competitive of colleges, i suppose the rates for non-HYPSM are much higher.</p>
<p>and unfortunately, it doesn't take into account a possibly substantial number of males who applied only when they were conscripted, and did not feedback their acceptances to their school (i'm going to NU, but didn't report)</p>
<p>the poor students theory is absolute bollocks, and really insulting too. i would admit that there's a certain level of self-selectivity (why apply if you can't pay for it in the end), especially considering we have a pretty decent national university system to fall back on. even there, we pick up a huge percentage of slots in the most selective faculties- NUS med and law, our final graduation + admitted to college rate hovered around 98%, within the group of drop-outs, most of them were national-level atheletes who chose to take gap years (;</p>
<p>serf-</p>
<p>They should simply post admits vs acceptances of all students not just those successful in getting into a US college. This would solve all doubts about RJC's straightforwardness and the meaning of their statistics. Otherwise the stats don't mean much. If a college only posted the stats of their applicants who got into med school, every school in the US would look fairly impressive since you would be listing the 90% of Ivy League applicants who got in vs. the 10% from an unknown college who also got in.</p>
<p>Also, for applying to med school, many colleges have a screening process and only let students who meet a certain criteria (gpa/mcat threshold) apply to med school. This boosts their med school acceptance stats. I actually was giving a legit way for RJC to have their stats (by doing something similar but for the ability to apply to a US school) and not trying to be insulting. Otherwise they should post everyone's stats since they are hiding the stats of applicants (the poorer students) who applied but couldn't get in a US college.</p>
<p>Looking at those numbers, I am glad that I went to a public school with better output than a costly private school that has subpar yield.</p>
<p>also, since the numbers are self reported, i assure you that people who applied and get in would be more willing to report than people who applied and DIDNT GET IN</p>
<p>wow, take off those blinders man</p>
<p>the schools with self-reported figures aren't listed with admit%s anyway, for good reason- they don't report figures, and of course self-reporting rates are not reliable</p>
<p>the wall street journal didn't refer to rjc as the gateway to the ivy league quoteunquote for nothing.</p>
<p>I made an error-
There are only two years at RJC not 6 as I assumed. So for 1700 students at the school, there are about 850 graduates per year, yet RJC shows only 300-450 application decisions per year which is about one application decision per two graduates. If 98% go to college, one would think there should be many more application decisions. Of course not all the graduates applied to US schools but clearly many applied who didn't get in, as one would think that some graduates would have applied to more than one US college.</p>
<p>However, it is impressive that they do get a good number of graduates into excellent colleges, especially for an international school. And it is unfortunate that we have focused on negative aspects of RJC instead of the clearly beneficial services that this school obviously must provide. They should simply state all their stats because it leaves too much room open for speculation of what there real stats are.</p>
<p>despite being referred to as an Ivy factory by the WSJ, a plurality of students do not apply to the united states- the average student is more attracted to courses in the UK, or at home (with a minority choosing non-traditional locations like Australia, France, China, Japan)</p>
<p>btw I counted 935 applications from 30 colleges for the class of 2004, which in itself is a very incomplete list- notice how it doesn't include Cal, Chicago among other schools, which RJC consistently feeds a large number of applications to. The list you used was from the class of 2005, which only has application numbers from 10 (!) schools</p>
<p>what stats should they provide? self-reporting is done once during the following March from graduation, when we receive our A level results. admit percentages are provided by universities themselves because of the structure of the school term (with decisions coming in 2 months after graduation) it's impossible to get a definite picture. obviously, including matriculation rates would be beneficial as well, but considering the number of schools that sent out admit percentages, you would think that such data would be even harder to procure.</p>
<p>i have to admit though that RJC's reputation specifically for getting students into the Ivy League is largely distorted because of a single college. Admissions to Cornell here is treated somewhat like a joke. Any person interested in a US education is taken for granted to be applying there as a matter of course, as a very safe school in the Ivy league while also pleasing the parents. Ancedotally, my class of 19 had 6 (very mediocre) students applying there, with 6 accepted... and none matriculating, including one who got in through ED but decided to attend Imperial instead =D</p>
<p>"wow, take off those blinders man</p>
<p>the schools with self-reported figures aren't listed with admit%s anyway, for good reason- they don't report figures, and of course self-reporting rates are not reliable"</p>
<p>dude read the posts, i said they shouldnt report admits but should report matriculation numbers....
almost all schools use matriculation numbers because it is more fair..it doesnt look as good but that is what they are asupposed to use. For example. Hotchkiss says 25- 30%s of our graduates "matriculate" at ivy league colleges..matriculation means end up going..
10 successful applicant can yield 80 ivy acceptance letter, but it's still 10 people</p>
<p>bearcats,</p>
<p>I was from the class of 2005, and there were about 760 students that year. Cut the figures if you like, because many guys usually don't apply until the next 2 years when they complete National Service and these figures may not be reported. </p>
<p>There's a reason why they don't report matriculation numbers. When I returned to collect my certificates in March, they had us fill up a form of schools that we were accepted to/matriculating. Problem is, for many of us at that point, we hadn't decided which school we were going to enroll in, as scholarship results/results for local universities had not been released yet. I only made my decision very late in April. I personally know people who did not matriculate at Columbia, Cambridge and even Stanford to go to the local medical school. Matriculation rates are only an accurate reflection if the majority choose to go to US schools, but cost remains an inhibiting factor for many here.</p>
<p>ps. If you want an accurate indication of matriculation, why not check Facebook then? There's a Facebook group for the Class of 2005 (if you really want to know) =p</p>
<p>I was NEVER once told not to apply for US universities out of my reach. Everyone here applies if they like; they just have to pay the application fee. This admittedly leads to self-selectivity - people who aren't interested in the US won't apply. Besides, US colleges aren't the only schools that students go to; I'm at a UK university now.</p>
<p>SQL, </p>
<p>If you meant that this is a costly private school, I actually paid 16 dollars a month. =)</p>
<p>Yes, i know about this college, i lived in singapore for 6 yrs. they're beastly</p>
<p>that means now you are comparing apple to orange, the numbers arent shocking at all if they are self-reported numbers of admits...</p>
<p>and dont you say it's the andover of singapore, andover, exeter, hotchkiss ,choate and such prestigious boarding schools didnt get their name just because of the college matriculation rate and such, these schools are so special becoz of the humongous amount of resources they use on their students and the world class facilities and faculty..... the quality of education you get here is unmatched...what other schools have 400+ Million endownment???</p>
<p>i'm not an expert on private schools, but I suppose the comparison is pretty false, considering our school fees used to be SGD$24(US$16), because we nominally turned 'independent'- more autonomy over policy in exchange for slightly higher fees. </p>
<p>Blame us for being the creme of the crop of Singapore who entered through competitive examinations, rather than a bunch of rich kids who came from background who couldn't fail and bought their way to a nice looking place where they can play polo. I suppose a better comparison would be to the NYC magnet schools? RJ's quite dominant in athlethics/ECs too... so I'm not sure how good a fit that is...</p>
<p>That's about my school except 40-50 a year at Ivies with about 200 a year accepted at UVA as their safety - 420ish class size. If only I was one of those smart cookies ;)</p>
<p>"Blame us for being the creme of the crop of Singapore who entered through competitive examinations, rather than a bunch of rich kids who came from background who couldn't fail and bought their way to a nice looking place where they can play polo."</p>
<p>are you kidding? we have a SSAT average of 93% after counting in all the legacies and developmental candidates... SAT average was 2150 last year....</p>
<p>And FYI - my school is a public school with holes in walls, ceilings leaking, disgusting bathrooms, and 2 days of school missed so far this year because of electrical problems...</p>
<p>I'll just say that our educational system is based entirely on merit; there really aren't that many people who get to buy their way into a good school. </p>
<p>Our SAT average was 2123; but that said, I can't see how a SAT average necessarily equates a good academic standard. </p>
<p>There isn't a need to argue on how pathetic their actual admission standards are. It doesn't really matter. No one is really going to take comparisons with Andover seriously. They don't have that sort of money or facilities but it doesn't make it a lesser school.</p>
<p>Sorry if I sound defensive, but I get the idea from your post that you seem to be attacking a school that really is too far away for you to actually understand how the system works. =) They send international students; not US citizens. I'm sure you realise that the standards are very different. Whatever you say about the matriculation rate, they can report what they want. The statistics are not there for showboating purposes; it's to help applicants understand their chances.</p>