<p>For NC applicants, 59% of legacys were admitted (Yield was 73%).
For OOS applicants, 39% of legacys were admitted(Yield was 47%).</p>
<p>FWIW, of the 10,900 OOS applicants, only 4.6% (less than 500) were legacy. Of the 8,800 NC applicants, 16% (1,400+) were legacy.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<p>SherBear:</p>
<p>My point about your son's Emory acceptance (and scholarship), which is one of his top choices, apparently, is that he is already quite successful. You and he both should be proud and happy. Knowing by January 1 that you are already accepted to one of your top choices, and it will be affordable, is certainly something to celebrate.</p>
<p>As I stated before, a deferral is not a rejection. I also agree that college admission is much more competitive than years ago. At UNC, because many more top students are applying, both from instate and out of state, that does make it more difficult and more competitive-- for everyone. </p>
<p>While I do believe that UNC looks at more than SAT scores, your son's scores (that he posted here) were at 730 and 620, not "750" as you posted. I doubt that was a deciding factor in his deferral, but in the EA round, I can believe that the competition is much tougher than in the RD round. Most students who wait to apply in the RD round probably do so because they want higher SAT scores, want a better GPA, or want to improve their academics in some way, and so wait later to apply. While academics is only one factor in admission consideration, those who apply as early as Nov 1 are probably fairly confident of that aspect of their application. Consequently, the competition in the EA round is most likely tougher than in the RD round, though I do not have any statistics to support that statement.</p>
<p>Again, congratulations to your son on his Emory acceptance, and all the best to him in the RD round.</p>
<p>janieblue,</p>
<p>hello again.</p>
<p>first, my son has NOT yet been accepted to Emory.
i intended for my first sentence above to clarify this.
"my son's emory scholarship, should he get accepted there, is a courtesy one based on my husband's affiliation."
second, i apologize for the 750 error.</p>
<p>and thanks for your congratulatory words. let's hope it works out.
and thanks so much for your best wishes, as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For NC applicants, 59% of legacys were admitted (Yield was 73%).
[/quote]
That's not too much greater than the instate acceptance rate.</p>
<p>So the average OOS SAT for fall 2006 was 1334. Looks like UNC's OOS admission isn't nearly as competitive as some people may think.</p>
<p>For some reason, many people have similar misconception about other public universities also. Berkeley is a classic example. I've seen people, even the ones that go there, say how much more competitive its OOS admission is when the fact is the admit rate differ by only few percentage points.</p>
<p>If admissions were based solely on SAT scores, perhaps you might be correct. However, I suspect that that UNC values other factors as least as much, and perhaps more, than high SAT scores. An 18-20% admit rate for OOS applicants is pretty competive by any standard.</p>
<p>Sam</p>
<p>Remember that the number you refer to also includes recruited athletes in a much smaller pool which based on statistics alone would have a greater negative impact on overall GPA for OOS than in-state students.</p>
<p>For OOS non-athletes the bar is still significantly high.</p>
<p>tyr,</p>
<p>there's no evidence UNC somehow values other factors more than other comparable schools. If anything, public schools usually care less about those things than privates.</p>
<p>eadad,
there are about 800 student athletes at unc, averaging 200 per class. even if we assume half of them are out of states, you are talking about only 100 students. even if you assume all of them are the ones with the lowest scores, you are still left with less than half with score over 1400 (see the distribution from that table). football, basketball, and baseball players usually have the lowest average and if you look at the roster, you will see actually most of them are from NC. there are also many smart athletes as 150/800 made the dean's list in 2006. so the two assumptions are already too conservative and the impact of recruited athletes on the overall SAT seems to be rather limited. i am not saying oos admission isn't difficult but just trying to dispel the myth that you need at least 1400 or whatever to get in (e.g. post #14).</p>
<p>Sam,</p>
<p>It is true that there is nothing I can direct you to that would prove that UNC does not place as much reliance on SAT's as other schools. However, there is plenty of evidence on this board from this year and other years that applicants with significantly higher scores than the reported average are deferred and rejected. This indicates to me that the UNC admissions process is at some level something other than, as you suggest, a simple a numbers game. I certainly hope this is so as the results of one test, particularly one that can be “gamed”, do not necessarily reflect the worth or potential of a person.</p>
<p>While I would agree with you that many public schools tend to be more formulistic in their approach to admissions. UNC’s information indicates that it does not do so, and I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Can you direct me to any evidence to the effect that UNC values SAT scores more highly than other factors in the admissions process?</p>
<p>Well, one could check out what they write on the website, quoted on post #37.</p>
<p>I do believe they look at more than just SAT scores; in fact, in terms of consideration of academics, I suspect (and have actually been told by admissions in the past) that they look much more closely at an applicant's courseload. They want to see that he or she has taken the most rigorous course load his or her school offered, and preferably made A's (or did very, very well) in them. A high GPA doesn't mean much, when a student didn't challenge him/herself with the courses he/she chose.</p>
<p>tyr,</p>
<p>there's no evidence to suggest whatever. but private schools reject a lot of high scorers too. well, don't you think it's a stretch to suggest unc values sat less than, say, columbia, and if they use the same criteria, they would have similar score? do you really believe the quality of applicant pool is as strong as columbia? this is essentially what people are claiming. also, the stats on cc are highly skewed; most cc people have high stats and so those that got rejected (or accepted) are gonna be the group that have high stats. you forget the ones that have lower stats but they never join cc and report their results here.</p>
<p>there is your key! Both are great. Many come from all over to go to both. BUT, like it or not, UNC is mainly in state kids. Their posted sats and your input tells us that. So even though they both offer a great education, their is a certain value of those that go to private schools. my b and me choose to not go to a private college cause we have spend our entire education at private schools. we want to branch out. but a private school looks at all applicants in the same way thus you have to concede that the sats for all applicants and admitted students are higher simply because there are no state requirements like unc has.
no saying the in unc kids aren't smart. dont want to debate this. but all of you know that if you read the scores, some is unc kids got in less than os kids. emory will not have that factor. Grandparents live near emory and for all of you that are giving the rundown on emory you may not fully know the area. it is a cool, fun area and very nice. you don't have to go to downtown atl just like at unc you don't have to go to raleigh or charlotte. some of the comments here about emory is strange since schools like nyu, columbia, georgetown, etch are near or at a large city. doesn't make them less enticing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So even though they both offer a great education, their is a certain value of those that go to private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, okay. You keep telling yourself that, carnut.</p>
<p>I don't want to be rude (truly, I don't), but if your "entire education at private schools" taught you how to write, as evidenced by your above post, I'd go back and sue them. So much for the "certain value" offered by private schools, or at least the ones you attended.</p>
<p>why are you so hostile? i have read many of your posts and you seem to like to be rude. cause that response was rude so saying you don't mean to be is not true. private school taught me one thing. to not be intentionally rude just for the sake of it. way too caught up in all of this, janie.</p>
<p>I see your point but it really is more a matter of which one does the student want to go to. Seems to me that college is the time to make choices that will lead to no regrets. Go where your heart pulls you. Then you will be happy.</p>
<p>carnut: I apologize if you felt my post was rude. It was, however, valid.<br>
You weaken your own argument that private schools offer a "certain value" that public schools do not, when you can't (or won't) construct a grammatically correct and coherent paragraph. Don't expect to come on a public university forum, and make a blanket statement that private schools will always have better students and offer "a certain value" over public schools, and not have that statement challenged.</p>
<p>As has been pointed out before, UNC also looks "at all applicants in the same way." In-state students will get a tip, certainly, just as legacies, recruited athletes, and URMs will get a tip at both private and public universities.</p>
<p>I agree that school choice is personal, should be about fit, and the ultimate decision has to be based on the best information available at the time.</p>
<p>Sam Lee: Yes, I believe the quality of the applicant pool of the OOS students and the top 25% or so of instate students is equal, or superior, to those at Columbia.</p>
<p>carnut,
interesting input about the location of emory.
r u applying to or already attending university this year?</p>