Selectivity rank vs. SAT rank

Parents Forum
21

<br>


<br>

<p>Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. Actually, it's what Admissions Directors at the schools say.</p>

<p>An interesting example is international applications at Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore -- three essentially identical schools that have swapped the top 3 spots back and forth in the LAC rankings over the last 25 years. These schools see an direct and immediate change in international apps when they move up or down a spot.</p>

<p>It doesn't have anything to do with "sophistication". It has to do with the inability by many international students to base a selection on overnight visits, subtle differences in campus cultures, etc.</p>

22

<br>


<br>

<p>No need to sell me on Davidson. My daughter visited, had her application ready to drop in the mail, and was strongly considering Davidson. We all loved the campus and the location.</p>

<p>It is a fact, however, that excellent schools outside the northeast (Davidson, Grinnell, etc.) do not get as many applications and, therefore, have higher acceptance rates than comparable schools in New England. That's what I meant by geographic "penalty".</p>

<p>BTW, I see this as a good thing. Places like Davidson and Grinnell are particularly good "admissions values".</p>

23

<p>I think I've said this before, but I suspect that as we see the peak of the college admissions boom over the next five years (I think 2010 will see the highest number of applicants ever as I recall), market pressures are going to mean that many schools outside of the northeast are going to become more popular and selective as well. This trend has already started to a certain extent. Look at schools like Kenyon, Carleton, Davidson, Grinnell, even the U of Chicago. They're all great schools but have only recently become more popular and selective. Some of that is probably the result of certain schools of comparable quality in the northeast reaching a point where their selectivity and quality aren't quite in synch any more - if getting into Swarthmore is impossible, why not consider Carleton? If Colgate isn't within reach, why not Kenyon or Grinnell? Why go to NYU when you can go to USC? I predict that these types of market pressures are eventually going to make more colleges in other parts of the country (beyond the northeast) both more attractive to college shoppers and possibly more selective. Thus, we may end up with more "national" schools than we have now - or at least more beyond the northeast.</p>

24

<p>It appears to me, just based on feel (as all these numbers whiz by my head too fast to make permanent purchase in my mind) that along with the geographic penalty that afflicts some schools , there is an additional and separate penalty for women's colleges . That appears fairly "obvious" ,too. May not be true but it feels true. </p>

<p>Does it also appear that rural schools in general fare somewhat worse than schools in or near urban centers? One more idea to pass by the pros ,does it appear that schools in what I will call The Deeper South ( I am thinking of South Carolina , Georgia , Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana) and the upper Midwest (think Chicagoland and North, Iowa, Minnesota) fare worst of all against their statistical peers? Those two groups appear to do worse than any other including the Mid-South or the lower Mid-west in attracting students to their finest schools. Not even a full opinion, just an observation or two and I am sure there are many exceptions.</p>

25

<p>ID; My question referred to Ivies and by extension Oxbridge...which are world reknowned. I can't imagine that those schools see big jumps with an increase in rankings. I would bet their international applications are a set percentage of the total number of international applications.</p>

<p>However, I can believe that international apps at W-A-S do rise and fall with rankings. They are not as well known outside--or inside--the US. Still, I'd love to see the corresponding data. </p>

<p>I'll bet the increase or decrease is not dramatic because the number of international students taking the SAT isn't dramatic, especially when you consider that a good percentage of those test takers are ex-pats. </p>

<p>It reminds me of the comment another poster made when she said, "I don't want to go to Indiana University. There are already too many Indonesians there." </p>

<p>171, as it turned out. At a school with 30,000 undergrads. </p>

<p>Out of how many hundreds of millions of Indonesians?</p>

26

<p>Why go to NYU when you can go to USC?</p>

<p>I believe that has already happened. USC admissions dropped to 25% in 2004--from 33%. </p>

<p>Here's another possiblity. The US dollar drops another 50% and US schools start to look like a bargain to the Chinese.</p>

27

<p>Carolyn:</p>

<p>I actually think that the trend may have gone in the opposite direction. I would guess that the willingness to go to college more than a few hours drive away from home is stronger today than it was 25 years ago. This has eroded the regional base of schools like Davidson and Vanderbilt a bit, offset by an increased willingness of kids from the big population centers of the Northeast and California to consider southern schools.</p>

<p>When I look at the relative selectivity scene today compared to the early 1970s when I applied, I don't honestly see much difference at the elite schools. Where I see a huge difference is at schools like BU and NYU.</p>

<p>There has also been some increase in selectivity at schools that have done a masterful job with the merit aid strategy: Duke, Emory, WUSTL, etc. -- but these were already very selective schools in 1970.</p>

<p>There has also been an increase in selectivity at HYPSM. But, this is largely the result of their staying at 1970 yield levels whereas the "normal" elite schools have seen signficant reductions in yield as students apply to more colleges. For example, Swat is fairly typical: they dropped from 60% yield in 1970 to 40% today. The boom international apps also impacts HYPSM to the greatest degree.</p>

<p>Curmudgeon: No question that the remaining all-female colleges represent the best "admissions value" among elite colleges. By admissions value, I mean schools that are easier to get into than they should be relative to their academic excellence and impressive endowments. The remaining Seven Sisters schools are as good as any academically. I believe that, had Wellesley been co-ed, it would be the hardest LAC in the country to get into because of its huge endowment, tremendous resources, and desireable location.</p>

<p>There's a reason that all of the all-male schools went co-ed. They correctly predicted that the demand for single-sex colleges would decline and make it impossible for them to maintain their applicant pool following the end of the baby-boom application glut of the 1960s and 1970s.</p>

<p>I'm not sure that many students even know that virtually all of the highest ranked private univerities and colleges (Harvard, Yale, MIT, Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia, Williams, Amherst, etc.) were all-male as recently as one generation ago.</p>

<p>It's interesting that the all-male schools that went co-ed have had no problem attracting women, but the all-female schools that went co-ed have struggled to attract men.</p>

28

<br>


<br>

<p>I think just the phrase "the Ivies" proves my point. There is very little similarity between Dartmouth and Harvard or Cornell and Columbia. Yet, they all get a very large number of applications (both international and domestic) because they are "Ivies". Isn't that really a "ranking" issue?</p>

<p>The schools are well-known because they are highly ranked in the "guidebooks" or in the equivalent word of mouth rankings before the days of guidebooks.</p>

<p>Look at it this way. Suppose we could magically create a brand-new Harvard on the opposite bank of the Charles river. Identical in every regard to the current Harvard -- professor by professor, brick by brick, endowment dollar by endowment dollar. We'll call it Alston University and open its door next September. Do you think it would get as many international applications as Harvard?</p>

<p>So, are the international applications driven by quality measures? Or prestige/ranking measures?</p>

29

<p>Cheers, The Chronicle of Higher Education has been talking a lot lately about how many international students are actually choosing schools in Canada and elsewhere as cheaper options to US schools these days. And, apparently, as higher educational options improve in China, many students there are just deciding to stay home. Of course, visa issues are a big factor right now as well in the decision to come to the US to study.</p>

30

<p>In my mind, prestige is not the same thing as ranking. Ivy/Oxbridge are old and well established universities with well-deserved prestige, imo. They have a history of successful international graduates, a history that is often personal to international apps. Lee Kuan Yew at Cambridge, for example. </p>

<p>But we digress. I thought I asked for the stats behind your inference that Ivies get more international apps based on slight movement in rankings? Apparently no stats are available? </p>

<p>I'm not interested in the whole 'ranking' debate. Snooze City.</p>

<p>I do like "What if" conversations such as "What if the Dollar Drops Another 50%?" or "What if the US Invades Iran?" </p>

<p>But I don't like hypothetical-make believe "What Ifs?". Too many of those conversations at the dinner table, (boys). Sorry.</p>

<p>C--The Chinese are huge consumers of overseas education. My bet is that every western country is chasing that multi-billion dollar business. English language schools are a billion dollar business in New Zealand for instance. Or, WERE a billion dollar business until the dollar jumped up 80%. The Chinese, as it turns out, are very price concious, lol.</p>

<p>Every Chinese friend has assured me that--other than Ivy/Oxbridge type applicants--the students that go overseas are not the cream of the crop. The cream of the crop goes to Bei Da, or Beijing University--is my understanding at least. Keep in mind how rarified the cream must be at the top of one billion people....There are a few other prestigious universities that I know less about.</p>

<p>Below that, I'm not sure whether or not an overseas degree would hold more prestige for the Chinese. Any Chinese national parents wish to comment?</p>

31

<br>


<br>

<p>I fail to understand the distinction. The guidebook rankings are predominantly weighted towards "prestige" as indicated in polling of academics. Rankings are simply a printed version of prestige.</p>

32

<p>On the international issue...</p>

<p>There are many reasons international kids are choosing Canada, Australia etc over the US. Cost is one, but visas for the US are much tighter than they used to be- this is a huge factor, especially for kids from Moslem countries.</p>

<p>Last week there was an article in the Herald Tribune about students in countries in Asia choosing to learn Mandarin instead of developing their English...and then planning on studying in China! Outsourcing of higher education?</p>

<p>Many Internationals are much, much more familiar with schools like UCLA, NYU or USC than they are with Williams or Amherst. This reflects, in part, the fact that universities have grad schools, and internationals might come to the US for grad school after undergrad education in their own countries. IN addition, for some internationals there is a big focus on education in business and engineering, neither of which are available at an LAC. Even my French friends have struggled somewhat with understanding the notion of a LAC as a prelude to medical school, as the format is so different for undergrad education at an LAC in the US...</p>

<p>I have no idea if the international applicants are sensitive to the vagueries of US News in terms of #1-3 or whatever for the LAC's...it is the more general issues that are apparent to me. </p>

<p>On Regionality in the US....
It was clear to me early on when looking with son#1 that the best "admissions values" for schools were outside New England, where I had grown up and gone to college.. This coupled with my feeling that my son might find the whole "east coast-megalopolis-suburban-urban- preppy or not preppy-hurried" mind set a bit overwhelming was the other factor that pushed us westward for most of our search. Thus far, the match seems a favorable one.</p>

<p>Oh, and his roommate at Grinnell is Chinese. First generation to learn a word of English, first in his family to ever leave China!</p>

33

<p>You see the opposite effect among the "an Ivy, any Ivy, I don't even know the difference" crowd. This generate a lot of extra apps for places like Dartmouth and Brown, some from applicants who probably couldn't even find New Hampshire or Rhode Island on a map. Of course, these kids aren't very likely to get accepted, but they inflate the number of apps and make the acceptance rate look more daunting than it really is for a qualified applicant. There is also an impact from international apps, which are highly driven by guidebook rankings.</p>

<p>That wasn't a reference to Ivies? My bad.</p>

<p>R-
There is a huge emphasis on Mandarin in places like Singapore but are there other Asian tigers as pro-active? And, given the intense competition to get into Bei Da, for instance, would Bei Da really accept full time international students? I don't know the percentage of acceptances at Bei Da or National University of Singapore--but I imagine they are under 10%. Does anyone know?</p>

<p>The majority of ESL students travelling to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore are Chinese. In fiscal 2003, they represented the majority of the NZ$1B ESL industry--and New Zealand must be a tiny market compared to Canada and Australia where subsequent immigration is easier. Plus, our newspapers detail frequent visits from Chinese education officials as well as frequent marketing forays by New Zealand education providers. There is BIG outsourcing happening--for the very wealthy, though not super academic Chinese at least. </p>

<p>Had dinner with a half dozen Chinese national students last night, in fact.</p>

<p>(My S has a Japanese roommate...but he went to a NE boarding school :)).</p>

34

<p>I did some quick checking on the international front and just as some would have suspected the top 200 list of the 2004 Times World University rankings does not have an LAC on it. It does however appear to have most all UC's listed including in the version I was reading the heretofore unknown to me UC San Francisco.</p>

<p>They say they interviewed 1800 academics in 88 countries. The U.S. placed 62 schools on the top 200 list and swept the first 4 spots, with the order being Harvard, Berkeley, MIT,Cal Tech. Some were very interesting choices. UMass , Alabama, and BU over UVA, Dartmouth and Rice. Way over. In fact UMass was the 20th ranked U.S. school on the list out of our 62. </p>

<p>I would agree that research, engineering, and business schools would be the "cuprits". I didn't find the list very helpful for D. It was interesting to glance at though.</p>

35

<p>Curmudgeon - UCSF is a graduate school, primarily focused on medical programs.</p>

<p>Re: Internationals. I found this information from the November 19 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education very interesting:
From The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 19, 2004</p>

<p>U.S. Colleges With the Largest Number of International Students, 2004</p>

<p>Source: Institute of International Education</p>

<ol>
<li>U of Southern California - number of internationals (undergrad and grad)6674</li>
<li>Columbia U 5362</li>
<li>Purdue U 5094</li>
<li>New York U 5070</li>
<li>U of Texas at Austin 4827</li>
<li>U of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 4769</li>
<li>U of Michigan, Ann Arbor 4583</li>
<li>Boston U 4518</li>
<li>U of California at Los Angeles 4320</li>
<li>Ohio State U 4263</li>
<li>Texas A&M 3815</li>
<li>U of Maryland, College Park 3726</li>
<li>Indiana U at Bloomington 3715</li>
<li>Pennsylvania State U 3693</li>
<li>State University of NY at Buffalo 3664</li>
</ol>

<p>Top five countries of international students studying in the US: India, China, south Korea, Japan, Canada</p>

<p>Of 480 US colleges surveyed, 38% reported a decline in international enrollments, 35% an increase and 24% no change for the academic year 2004-2005. Biggest reasons given for decline: visa troubles (both delays and denials (40%), Decrease in applications (40%), Cost of enrollment (18%), Other reasons (16%), choose to go to another country (7%).</p>

<p>Overall, foreign student enrollment in the US dropped 2.5% in 2003-2004.</p>

36

<p>Carolyn is correct, UCSF is primarily a bio-sci grad schoo, with a med school, pharmacy school, nursing school, etc., buta also has a law school (Hastings), which is located downtown SF</p>

37

<p>So that's why they "list" such universities as " The University of Texas Health Science Center". It would be much simpler if they labeled the list correctly, LOL. I guess it does make sense for them to be more interested in grad programs ,but that's not what it said ,now is it? (Most all of the schools in the list mentioned by Carolyn are in the rankings and that list tends to explain some of the choices.)</p>

38

<p>"there is an additional and separate penalty for women's colleges . That appears fairly "obvious" ,too. May not be true but it feels true."</p>

<p>Don't think there is a "penalty". They just begin with a pool half the size. Double the pool, and you'd double the selectivity. (At Smith, deduct the 10% of ADAs, and then double the selectivity and....) Actually, the better ones are no less selective than they were in 1970. And at Wellesley and Smith, yield is very high. </p>

<p>For HYPC, internationals are admitted at what seems like a 2-3% rate. Take their huge numbers out of the formulas, and all of a sudden they are are at about the same selectivity level as Amherst and Swarthmore, and not much greater than Berkeley.</p>

<p>The link between selectivity and academic quality is highly questionable once one gets into the top tier. Certainly the quality of education at Grinnell is not an order of magnitude different from that at Yale, especially as they spend so much more per undergraduate student. (spending per undergraduate is not a bad metric, though it does reward smaller schools that are likely to have to spread overhead over a smaller number....)</p>