All this really depends. I want to say: of course, educated folks know a range of schools out of their areas. Tons of kids in CA, IL, TX apply to top eastern colleges.
Not that I enjoy the USNews rankings, but of the top 20 Natl U, 7 are outside the east: Chicago, Caltech, Northwestern, WUSTL, ND, Rice and then, at 20, UCB. Of the top 20 LACs, only 5: Pomona, Carleton, CMC, HMC, Grinnell. So of course you can get more attraction to eastern schools, among a set.
@BatesParent2019 In the world.
The only people in the Bay Area who really go to CMU (even SCS) are the ones that didn’t get into Berkeley and LA. Going to CMU over these schools is an exception, and by no means the norm. The case is the same in terms of the lower ivies.
I don’t think you can make a universal statement like that, puzzled. Perhaps you meant to word it another way. Or maybe you’re confusing recognition of sports teams with knowledge of academics. I do feel more know, say, UArkansas than Swarthmore or Wharton, but…
No. This just does not compute with my results. And I work in college admissions.
@puzzled123 Just curious, who gets into CMU but not UCLA?
“But yes, Berkeley has much better name recognition than Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown (IMO a much better school too), and probably even Penn and Columbia.”
In California, perhaps. Not elsewhere. You Californians really get very arrogant about how you think the rest of the country is so enamored with you and your schools. I work with a lot of USC grads. It’s a great school. It also has relatively little name recognition here in Chicago. It’s just not on radar screens unless someone has a connection to CA.
"In my opinion, most schools below say rank of 15 (many schools such as Penn and Northwestern are above 15 and only recently instituted tracks such as integrated science programs which will cater to the more ambitious among STEM oriented students) "
I can’t speak for Penn, but Northwestern’s integrated science program is at least 30 years old. Nice try.
Re#428: “Really in California the east coast schools are invisible.”
FWIW, as of Fall 2011 (the most recent breakout by state I found), California was the third most represented state of residence of undergraduates at Cornell, with nearly 1,200 of its undergrads hailing from there.
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in suggesting a lot of those people probably got into a UC too. Or could have. If this even needs backup, there are about a zilliion (Berkeley/UCLA) vs Cornell threads on CC
re# 436:
“For example, if they are accepted to Cornell, they usually choose a U.C. instead.”
There are obvious reasons (eg proximity, weather, cost) why this should usually be the case,. But if you actually read the relevant threads on the respective CC college subforums, you will find no such unanimity of results, in the actual cases posted on CC over the years. Actually it might swing a bit the other way. Not that CC is necessarily a representative sample.
IIRC California residents who chose Cornell cited on CC various reasons for, or benefits in, doing so, including:
That’s what I recall off-hand.
It seems like there is substantial support at a 95% confidence interval that UCB/UCLA is preferred over CMU (and this data includes OOS too, it is likely the disparity is even greater in-state).
@BatesParents2019 3 kids from my school are attending CMU (out of over 20 admits), and 2 of them in SCS. All three of them were rejected from Berkeley/LA. Obviously a small sample size, but I don’t imagine a lot of people want to pay a premium (CMU is known for being stingy with the FA) and go to a cold place when Berkeley/LA are fantastic STEM schools, and pretty good in the humanities as well.
Multiple people at my school also picked UCSD over CMU. Not meaning to bash on CMU- it is a great school- its just that very few Californians pick it over Cal/UCLA.
Where’s Carnegie Mellon ?? >:)
I’ve read many people on this website talk about how the prestige of Berkeley is internationally recognized, especially in Asian countries. I wouldn’t know, I’m just parroting what I read on here. But I don’t think it’s a matter of arrogance. And USC and UC Berkeley are quite different.
Probably a lot of people, since their acceptance rates aren’t too far apart. They are 16.7% and 18.6%, respectively.
No. You’re not going out on a limb. Almost all CA students who get into east coast schools apply and get accepted to UC’s, including Berkeley.
“Unanimity” is YOUR word, not mine. Do you understand that “unanimous” has a different meaning than “usually”?
Among MY students, all except ONE has chosen a U.C. over Cornell. She applied ED anyway. She had no choice. The rationale is “value.” “Value,” among these students’ families is seen as not a significant difference, vs. cost, for the product. These are not families who will qualify for even mid-level F.A.
Again, someone else has a reading problem. The statement was made that:
This is simply FACTUALLY incorrect, and I would know.
@Pizzagirl : My bad, I wasn’t trying to mess up that one, I just know that Penn’s equivalent sort of program is relatively recent. I think I believed that NU’s was relatively new because such programs haven’t received much attention until recently. But programs like VIPER or the program at Princeton are relatively recent (but Princeton is one of the schools that already had heavy tiering of intro. courses). The general point is that some schools, even beyond 15 have not adopted similar tiering or programs, but most are much more tiered than schools below that threshold, with Berkeley being among the exceptions. My point is still valid in that regard. By the way, I am in no way trying to toot Berkeley’s horn (again I believe that many other schools may actually be stronger for most undergraduates, especially if you will pay OOS tuition for UCB), but it does have some good things going for it that even some top privates have yet to adopt (maybe because they don’t need to, who knows…)
@epiphany: Let’s let some data do the talking since they won’t believe you.
Also, @dsci411 : Admissions percentages never tell the whole story…like UCLA has admit rates lower than schools that yield student bodies that are, in general stronger. In general, except for the school of fine arts: Appears CMU is is a bit more selective, as are many top privates (again, some with higher admit rates). And again, it appears that if you compare the students that UCLA actually yields to those yielded at the schools I allude to, the other schools win hands down mainly because UCLA can’t hold its bottom quartile up that well (top quartile is fine). Actually, there is much more slack in the bottom quartile in terms of admissions, so I guess it is expected. Many schools will shave 20-50/1600 off of the bottom and top quartile when the smoke clears, so if you start in a weaker place, then the ending is expected (like Emory, CMU, Georgetown, and schools in that admissions selectivity range usually start in the low-mid 1300s for bottom quartile of admits where UCLA starts at like 1270). Unfortunately (I guess…not really), UCLA also shaves off more than normal from the bottom quartile and slides below 1200.
CMU:http://admission.enrollment.cmu.edu/pages/undergraduate-admission-statistics
UCLA: http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_fr/Frosh_Prof14.htm
"Here’s a little unscientific data review. I took a look at the CC results threads for Yale this year. I counted up the reporting applicants who identified as Asian, and then categorized them as STEM or non-STEM (mostly based on intended major, but on ECs if major wasn’t listed). There were 26 Asian applicants, and 16 of them appeared to me to be STEM students. "
Here’s another unscientific observation. I just attended my S’s graduation at a top research u. He was in the college of arts and sciences where they sat and graduated by major. There is also an engineering school, so I can’t report on their ethnicity by major since I didn’t attend that convocation. But within arts and sciences, it was glaringly obvious. Biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics - name after name of Asian kids. Very few in art history or classics or sociology. You would have to have been a fool not to see the concentration - and again this was within arts and sciences, not counting the engineers. Similarly, there were very few Asians in the school of communication. This is neither good nor bad and students should study what they desire, of course. But it lends credence to the concept that if certain ethnicities “crowd” certain majors, the attempt to make sure there are all majors may work against Asians but that’s not its intent.
@Pizzagirl : If you want to go even deeper (and this may fan the anti-AA flames again), one may also want to take into account that much effort is being put into diversifying STEM (pre-health and non), so naturally schools may have an inclination toward admitting either females or URM’s who are qualified and have a background (EC or otherwise) suggesting that they can succeed in STEM. “Qualified” need not be super high scoring on the SAT/ACT either. Lots of studies even attempt to show that success in STEM, especially if pursuing grad. studies is often dependent on things such as creativity and “grit”. No doubt raw intelligence helps, but other factors have lots of meaning…SAT and GRE are similar for example, and the GRE isn’t but so good (some claim it isn’t good at all) at predicting STEM doctoral success.
I’m wondering if the logic applied in yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on fair housing will set a future template for arguing college admissions discrimination cases
For example, even though the practice of giving legacy admission preference may not have racially discriminatory intentions, it does have racially discriminatory effects.
popping some popcorn and pulling up a seat…
Omg, just applying to a college that rejects X times more kids than it admits opens cans of worms. People are going to fret endlessly about what went wrong. And then point fingers. And then look for self-serving proofs.
If they can’t handle that the competition is fierce, they should stay away, spare their delicate egos. If they can’t grasp that holistic admissions is not about what your hs principal thinks of you for mastering your one little scene, then they aren’t thinking broadly, in the first place. Or they just aren’t as smart as their stats seem to indicate.
People don’t even have the vocabulary, much less understanding. You talk to a kid, explain a few things- and they either get it and move forward or they don’t. The contenders open their minds.
Legacy is not a “preference.” These colleges, ime, do not “prefer” legacies. It is a consideration. And when the app doesn’t pass muster, that’s that.