<p>
Exactly my point. My point was not that Case is somehow more selective than it seems (it’s not). My point was that acceptance rate is a poor measure of quality and often selectivity. </p>
<p>(1) Admit rate is often more indicative of popularity than the bar for admissions. As an example, it was not so long ago that Chicago had a remarkably high acceptance rate - nearly 50% the year I was admitted, in fact. The school was nevertheless selective; someone with poor grades and an essay of dubious quality would not have been able to skate in. As another example, Caltech has a relatively high admit rate (13%), yet its test scores are through the roof and often the highest of any college. As yet another example, Hendrix has test scores and class ranks roughly comparable to Pitzer, yet the latter boasts an admit rate only 1/4 that of the former. In fact, Pitzer also has a lower admit rate than Wellesley, which has noticeably higher test scores and class ranks. </p>
<p>(2) It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately compare schools with different early admissions practices. As an example of this, you might look at Princeton (8.39%) and Brown (8.70%) and conclude that they are of virtually identical selectivity. However, this fails to take into account that ~20% of Brown’s admits were admitted early. Put more simply, ED drives down a college’s admit rate without necessarily making it more selective. You start to see the differences between the two when you start looking at the numbers more closely – Princeton’s admit rate for people with a perfect GPA (14.1%) is scarcely higher than Brown’s admit rate for all applicants in the top 10% of their class (12.9%). </p>
<p>(3) Even schools with the same early admissions practice take different numbers of students early. As noted, ED applicants make up about 20% of the admits at Brown, but they make up over 30% at Penn. Having more ED admits results in a raised yield and lower admit rate.</p>
<p>Admit rates MUST be looked at in the context of test scores, GPAs, class ranks, etc. in order to be at all relevant. Dartmouth is considered more selective than Ozarks because it expects amazing extracurriculars, strong grades, superb test scores, unique essays, etc. – NOT because it has a lower admit rate (which it doesn’t).</p>
<p>That NYU has lots of applicants shouldn’t surprising to anyone. How many hundreds of posters over the years have clamored to go to college in NYC or California? :rolleyes: A low admit rate is thus to be expected…though extraordinary selectivity may or may not be present.</p>