<p>penn is a state school. enough said.</p>
<p>It has less name recognition than most other ivies, unfortunately. Is it overly optimistic to think that Penn accepts 1/2 its class ED because those are the kids who genuinely want to go there?</p>
<p>EATYOURCEREAL, go to the Penn State board. You’re not welcome here.</p>
<p>Columbia accepts 46% of its class ED, very close to Penn’s number. Are they also trying to inflate their yield?</p>
<p>Also, nyccard - you’re an idiot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must be joking. It’s possible that you’re just an uninformed west-coaster; I pray that this is the case. Otherwise - for a philosophy major - you’re terrible at any sort of meaningful evaluation. Your school’s selectivity is disgustingly reliant on sycophantic Californians. If there were any similar sized schools of the same caliber on the west coast, your admit rate wouldn’t be close to as good as it is now. I’ve met a number of cross-admitted Stanford kids at Penn - in CAS, not Wharton. Your school loses the majority of cross admits to every one of HYP. </p>
<p>In other words, your selectivity is every bit as shady as any school’s - perhaps more. So run, lad, run for the hills. Get your mangy butt out of here.</p>
<p>Muertea - the answer is probably, YES. Columbia is probably also trying to inflate their yield. ALL of these schools, from Harvard on down, compete in the contact sport that is student recruitment. All of these schools are intensely aware of yield, selectivity, etc. Whenever possible, schools will try to inflate their numbers to boost their position relative to their peers. It’s only natural for the actors in the marketplace to behave in this fashion.</p>
<p>To those that mentioned that Chicago is somehow “above” this sort of behavior - I disagree. In the past, Chicago’s admin was NOT concerned with college selectivity, and very few resources were devoted to this endeavor simply because racking up the best faculty possible was THE goal for the school. Now, the admin realized that a selective college is necessary for a healthy institution, and the Chicago administration is, so to speak, lacing up their cleats and jumping into the game. </p>
<p>In the near future, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Chicago went to ED as well. Their yield right now without it is about 40%. With ED, yield could easily go up to 50% or so. The only reason I feel Chicago does NOT do ED right now is because if U of C went ED, they might not be able to attract enough ED applicants. How many kids could be convinced to lock into a school not located on a coast, in a very very cold, wintery climate, that’s focused on seriousness and bookishness? 800? 900? I doubt you could get much more than that initially. </p>
<p>With a new director of college admissions (Jim Nondorf) who seems to be a wizard at getting applications, if the numbers can support it, I’m sure Chicago would go to ED as well. All colleges - from Penn to Columbia to Chicago to Wash U to Williams - will push the boundaries of the rules to maximize success for the institution. It’s the rational move to make.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ever heard of Dartmouth? Columbia? These are a few schools that generally do the same.</p>
<p>And why do Dartmouth and Columbia do this Muertea? Refer to my post right above yours…</p>
<p>Cue7, can’t schools like choose to have both ED and EA??</p>
<p>If schools offered BOTH EA and ED, how would that really benefit the school? Yes you might get more applications overall, but you’d have to deal with the highly unpredictable EA admits, who can go through another round of admissions for the regular cycle. For most colleges concerned with yield and their position with their peers, ED - and accepting a large % of the class ED - makes the most success from an efficiency standpoint.</p>
<p>Colleges are rational actors, and they’ll generally make whatever feasible decisions they can to maximize their own status and position.</p>
<p>Fair enough, Cue7, but I heartily defend these actions. Here’s my explanation.</p>
<p>What does an elite college want, more than anything? To attract the brightest minds. This leads to better research, more popularity, more gov’t $$$, more prestige in the long run. But how does one attract the brightest students?</p>
<p>By appearing to do so. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the early 90’s, Columbia was ranked 18th, and had been in a slump for 15 years. Suddenly, in '95, it rocketed into the USNWR top-10. Within 3 years, its admissions changed dramatically, in response to those rankings. Admissions officials caught on, and - following strategies that had been developed at Brown in the '70s - started leveraging ever-lower admit rates through cunning use of Early Decision. 3 years later, the same thing happened to Penn, and it followed the same path. Acceptance rates to Penn and Columbia in the mid 90’s hovered around 35% - within 10 years, both institutions had shaved off 20% (25% at Columbia).</p>
<p>So is it morally wrong? No. Each school is doing what is personally best - they are not public institutions, and are NOT obligated to help poor people. The fact that they both have such forgiving financial aid packages is outstanding, even if it does heavily favor RD applicants, who go through a much more rigorous selection.</p>
<p>And ultimately, it works. Even schools that simply “appear” to be good - Brown in the '70s, Columbia in the mid '90s, Penn in the late '90s - become the illusions that they represent, precisely because these methods WORK. Face it, folks: admit rates and USNWR = god for all high school seniors.</p>
<p>Muertea - I’m not defending or deriding the actions from the colleges - they simply behave EXACTLY how they ought to behave as rational actors in this sort of marketplace. I just caution the prospective students who say “well Penn does this and it’s unfair,” or “Chicago doesn’t do this and this shows Chicago’s integrity.” All these sorts of comments smack of naivete. Students need to realize that, just as they’re looking to maximize their success, the institutions are working toward their own goals as well. </p>
<p>Also, I think you need to broaden your description of what colleges want. What do they want? The answer is MORE of EVERYTHING. More of the brightest minds, more students who could go on to earn power and success in the future and thereby help the school, more of the legacies that will lead to high alum giving rates and appease certain alumni bases, more athletes to bolster the sports program, more status, more prestige, more… of everything. </p>
<p>Of course, the schools prioritize these desires, and gaining the brightest minds is one of the biggest concerns, but in short, schools are actually quite greedy actors in the marketplace. They want more of anything of value, and as much of it as possible, as soon as possible. I actually find admissions fascinating because there are SO MANY desires and goals that go into the building of a class. </p>
<p>You describe the process quite well in your post. Again, what prospective students have to realize is that institutions have their own VERY complicated set of desires that they look to fulfill. </p>
<p>As a final example to add on to the ones you present, look at my own beloved University of Chicago. I think as recently as 8 years ago, Chicago accepted about 60% (SIXTY percent) of its applicant pool. Within 8-9 years, the acceptance rate has dropped by close to FORTY percent. This is certainly not by chance - something is going on there, and it signals that Chicago - just like Columbia or Penn or Dartmouth - is putting on the pads and getting involved in the sport.</p>
<p>In terms of whether this is “morally” wrong, well, this is a thorny area. You assert that these private institutions are not OBLIGATED to help poor people, and you’re certainly right. In the court of public opinion, however, the actual behavior by these institutions would probably make most people a little queasy. Many people might have a tougher time coming to grips with the fact that most of our most famous and most lauded educational institutions actually act in such self-interested and, some would say, selfish ways. </p>
<p>It’s an arms race out there though, and it’s certainly not for the faint of heart.</p>
<p>Of course, you’re correct: the schools have an extremely complicated and multi-faceted modus operandi in the admissions marketplace. But the ultimate goal is to be seen as a school for the brightest students. That’s the real reason for bothering with the legacies and charisma cases in the first place.</p>
<p>
I agree, Slipper. I blame lackluster marketing efforts, which in turn could be blamed on the rotating-door admissions office (stetson resigns, then we get an interim dean, then the new dean’s first year on the job).</p>
<p>If however they don’t pick up the pace this upcoming year, it’s jihad on Furda.</p>
<p>Lol - jhad on furda.</p>
<p>Dartmouth only takes 34% ED, way less than Penn and Columbia.</p>
<p>Slipper - than Dartmouth has found the formula that best maximizes the school’s interests and goals. If taking a higher proportion of the class ED would lead to some sort of boost for Dartmouth, the school certainly would. I’m sure the admissions office has run all sorts of models on this though, and taking roughly 1/3 of the class ED works best for the school. I doubt there are any altruistic motives going into this on D’s part.</p>
<p>"For example: how many people do you know that were admitted to Cornell CAS and Penn CAS/Brown/Columbia CC, and chose Cornell?</p>
<p>This, I think, is the most telling aspect of selectivity. "</p>
<p>muerte – I think yield also depends on location, culture, weather etc. Not just the rank and selectivity. Selectivity should mean the admission rate, what else can it be? However, kids select places to matriculate considering a number of factors that are not directly related to the school’s selectivity such as city, course competitive or collaborative culture, weather, etc.</p>
<p>A digression – This year’s big rise in Brown’s app numbers – I have the impression that this will be temporary phenom. Kids look at the low ranking of Brown and its Ivy status and this year’s peak high school grad number, etc.-- so they apply to it as a kind of safety in Ivy, well kind of, after their other ‘serious’ schools. (this is my ‘theory’ for their big number) This has backfired on a lot of kids this year due to the jump in app # and the low admit rate. Next year, I bet it will drop a lot. BTW, Brown is financially in a bad shape – having to cut op budget by 13-14%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems all Ivies are in bad shape to some degree…but as far as I can tell Penn seems to be the least hit by its shrunken endowment payout because it has been the least dependent on the endowment (formerly known as the “free money pile” for its operating expenses) in the first place.</p>
<p>toughyear, </p>
<p>wasn’t this also the first year that brown switched to common app??</p>
<p>that’s probably why too</p>
<p>Actually Cue the ex- Dartmouth admissions head, Karl Furstenberg, stated in the alumni magazine about a year ago that he thought it was unfair to RD applicants to have more than a 1/3rd of the class ED. He said the selectivity difference between ED and RD becomes too great after this, and that the interest of the school is to have the strongest class possible.</p>