US NEWS 2007 Predictions

College Search & Selection
101

<p>College2332, Vanderbilt does not have students with higher credentials than Michigan, Cal or UVA, nor does it win the cross-admit battle. </p>

<p>Mid 50% SAT range:
Cal 1200-1450 (one-sitting)
Michigan: 1240-1400 (one-sitting)
UVA: 1230-1430 (one-sitting)
Vanderbilt: 1270-1440 (multiple sittings)</p>

<p>Average unweighed GPA:
Cal: 3.82
UVA: 3.8
Michigan: 3.75
Vanderbil: 3.6</p>

<p>% graduating in top 10% of class:
Cal: 98%
Michigan: 90%
UVA: 87%
Vanderbilt: 77%</p>

<p>Peer Assessment Score:
Cal: 4.8/5.0 (tied with Columbia and Caltech)
Michigan: 4.5/5.0 (tied with Brown, Chicago, Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn)
UVA: 4.3 (tied with Brown, Dartmouth and UCLA)
Vanderbilt: 4.0 (tied with Emory, Georgetown, Notre Dame, NYU and USC)</p>

<p>Graduate school placement (Wall Street Journal Top 50 Feeder School rank, among research universities):
Michigan: #18
UVA: #19
Cal: #23
Vanderbilt: Not among the top 25 (unranked)</p>

<p>Vanderbilt is a great school...no doubt about it. It has great resources, a gorgeous campus, an approachable faculty etc... But have you even visted UVA and Michigan. They have a very "private" feel, whatever that means. Their classes are small, especially past the Freshman level and their faculties are very accessible. Their endowments/student exceed $140,000. Overall, Vanderbilt is definitely a top 25 university. but is it as good as Cal, Michigan and UVA? I don't think so.</p>

102

<p>Exactly.</p>

<p>(10 characters).</p>

103

<p>
[quote]
Sakky,
To answer your question... for the graduate professional programs, the class sizes are much smaller and hence you can be very selective even though in-state students do have an edge for the public law and medical schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly, and so that just begs the question of why can't the undergraduate public programs also have much smaller class sizes?</p>

<p>As a case in point, I would point out that the class sizes at the Haas undergrad program are also quite small, although Haas is a taxpayer supported program and therefore you would think that they would have the mandate to serve the public. While I would have to ask Alexandre, I would imagine that the class sizes of the undergrad program at the Michigan Ross School are pretty small too. Hence, that proves that a public school can have small and highly selective undergraduate programs. Which just begs the question - if they can do it, why can't the rest of the undergrad programs be like that?</p>

104

<p>GoBlue, I am with you. The schools you mentioned are better. I take offense when schools like UCLA and Michigan are put in the same category as Duke, Dartmouth, Penn, etc. They blow both Vandy and UCLA out of the water in my opnion.</p>

105

<p>Right, Blue. (You're post on page 1 of the thread, & the biases against Publics.) The "chuckle" that someone else mentioned turned into a guffaw for me when I saw Notre Dame above Berkeley on posts #2 and 18.</p>

<p>Right.</p>

106

<p>Use UCB as an example. The UC system is supposed to hold the top 12.5% of CA students; and even with UC Merced the whole UC system falls short of this goal. The quickest method for UCB to increase selectivity is to decrease undergraduate spaces; would the CA legislature (or whole of the CA, or even the other UC campuses) allow the student body of UCB to, for example, halved?</p>

107

<p>"Let's examine that Vandy vs. Michigan logic. If acceptance rate is a key criteria, we must conclude that both UCB(25%) and UCLA(23%) are 'more selective' than Vandy(38%). In fact, they are 'better' than Northwestern(30%), Cornell(29%), Notre Dame(30%) and Johns Hopkins(30%). In reality, we all know that the student body at UCB and UCLA are on par with Michigan and UVa. They are 'more selective' because there are more in-state students to choose from in California."</p>

<p>Your Vanderbilt numbers are outdated (33% acceptance rate) and should decline moreso this year as they recieved over 12,000 apps. Anyways -- I don't think your assessment is completely accurate. I might be mistaken but I think all UCs fall under one application. Therefore, a kid while applying can check off several UCs (even if he is not qualified) as he has "nothing" to lose. Making the acceptance rates lower. </p>

<p>goblue -- you also cite business school (one of Michigans strength vs. a Vanderbilt weakness) yet neglect Vanderbilts stronger grad programs. Michigan's graduate programs are highly respected. Nevertheless, the focus of the discussion is on undergraduates.</p>

<p>Vanderbilt was ranked higher on the revealed preference ranking. This survey was done to show where cross-admits would likely attend when deciding between two schools.</p>

<p>I think SATs are a better indicator than GPA. I went to an extremely competitive high school and was not 10%. Yet if I went to an average public school in Michigan I think I could easily rank top 5% if not higher. Those numbers are deceptive. </p>

<p>Maybe my high school was atypical, but the seven kids who enrolled at Michigan were not as accomplished as the Notre Dame, Vandy, & Georgetown kids. I guess its wrong for me to be bothered about going to a school where kids with lower scores can get in (even if the faculty is more renowned). Also -- I applied to Michigan (was accepted) but never visited so I could be mistaken with the "larger" feel. I agree UVA feels like a private school. I was actually very surprised the first time I was told UVA and William and Mary were publics.</p>

108

<p>College2332, the "revealed preferences" ranking is as respected as the Gourman Report rankings. Nobody who knows anything about universities takes it seriously. Venderbilt's yield rate is 37%, Michigan's is 45%, so I doubt Vanderbilt wins the cross-admit war against Michigan, although few people who consider one of those schools will consider the other.</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
you also cite business school (one of Michigans strength vs. a Vanderbilt weakness) yet neglect Vanderbilts stronger grad programs.

[/quote]

Right, I did neglect to mention that ... so here it is:
Vandy's Owen Graduate School of Management (it's called Owens...I had to look that up) is ranked #45, 3.18 ug GPA, 68.5% acceptance rate.</p>

<p>Should we now talk about Vandy's engineering program? How about Far Eastern studies, social works, nursing, economics, mathematics, computer science, history, political science, psychology... Being in Nashville, the music capital, how good is Vandy's music school? Exactly which are Vandy's top 10 programs?</p>

<p>I got the acceptance rates from US News which is a year behind. Vandy did improve to 35% in 2005 but the yield was a meager 39%.</p>

<p>And I still don't see why Vandy's SAT scores are that much better than Michigan/UCB/UVa given that the latter schools are much bigger.</p>

<p>Re: Notre Dame
Great school and great campus...but have you ever been to South Bend?</p>

110

<p>The reason UCLA and Berkeley's acceptance rate is so low is because there are many people who apply to schools like UC Santa Cruz, and UC Riverside, who are obviouly not qualified for Berkeley, check off berkeley in their application and pay the extra app fee, just for the hell of it. If the UC's didnt all have the same application, the acceptance rate would be higher, because people who knew they wouldnt get in wouldnt waste their time on the application</p>

111

<p>A very similar argument could be made for any school on the common app with limited to no additional materials required. While I agree that it does occur somewhat, guess what? Each "lower UC" is made to look easier to get into because strong students apply to each and every one (because they can afford it and want to see where they can get in). I got into every UC, and thus made the acceptance rates of every UC go up. Also, plenty of people fill out entire schools applications and apply just for the heck of it, be it for a whim guanrenteed acceptance or a whim dream program and location.</p>

112

<p>"I doubt Vanderbilt wins the cross-admit war against Michigan" -- yet you claimed this earlier without proof.</p>

<p>goblue -- If you read my complete post, I was discussing Vanderbilt vs. Michigan at the undergraduate level. If you want to keep talking to yourself about grad schools, be my guest. </p>

<p>"have you ever been to South Bend?"
--- what does location have to do with quality of the undergraduate students. </p>

<p>"Vandy did improve to 35% in 2005 but the yield was a meager 39%"
--- If Michigan remains public, it will keep accepting 50%+ every year. Vanderbilt is not the same university it was a couple years ago and I think it will continue to rise in the rankings. </p>

<h1>Here's an article from today's paper:</h1>

<p>The number of applications to Vanderbilt rose again this year, with the total number of applications for undergraduates just passing 12,100.
That number represents a total increase of 4.3 percent over last year, with early decision numbers up 17.3 percent for the first round and 8.4 percent for the second round. </p>

<p>Another notable change is the 17 percent increase in minority applications. African-American applications are up 16 percent while Asian applications are up 22 percent. </p>

<p>“I see this as a sign of our increasing momentum as a community that clearly values diversity,” said Dean of Admissions William Shain. </p>

<p>With an even larger applicant pool this year than last, Shain said that Vanderbilt can expect incoming classes to continue to be more qualified than the ones before them. </p>

<p>“I’m finding that our average applicant is just stronger every year,” Shain said. “We’re not able to take people now whose records are just phenomenal. Now, part of that is cool, and part of that, I absolutely hate.” </p>

<p>Though Shain said that numbers, such as GPA and SAT scores still play a crucial role in the process, he stressed that they are by no means everything. </p>

<p>“We are turning down some people with extraordinary records to take people who seem like a better fit,” Shain said. “It really isn’t all about the numbers.” </p>

<p>As application numbers seem to be on the rise for all top-level universities, Shain said that it’s likely the same students are just applying to more schools. </p>

<p>The best chance of getting accepted, according to Shain, is still early decision. “We are trying to hold early decision acceptance to about 30 percent of the class and we are failing,” Shain said. “You hate to look at those kids and say no.” </p>

<p>Though it is impossible to say exactly how many of the accepted students will eventually decide to come to Vanderbilt, Shain said that he intends for the class of 2010 to contain approximately 1600 students.</p>

113

<p>Actually college2332, Michigan is expected to accept fewer than 50% of its applicants this year. But what does acceptance rate have to do with quality. It is sometimes correlated, but not always.</p>

114

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>But --
50% is a magical number. As if it is lower than 50%, it suggests that more people can get in the school than can not get into the school. </p>

<p>In this light,
Are there any other schools with acceptances over 50% that you would consider elite?</p>

<p>If Michigan had the same excellent faculty and great resources but accepted 90% of its applicants would this bother you? Since your 32, you will probably have a more noble answer than a teenager. In high school, you work hard for four years and I think (maybe wrongly) that you deserve options other people can't have. I'm wondering if their is a threshold in which people would agree.</p>

<p>Also -- I feel people are heavily biased towards southern or conservative schools on this board. Practically, every day there is a post bashing Bob Jones University (ie. FreddyGV). I also disagree with their ideas, however I think we should respect their customs. Liberals always claim they are "open-minded" yet rarely show it towards ideas that conflict with their personal beliefs. </p>

<p>I admit, as a New Yorker I initially had sterotypes about TN. However, after visiting the school I realized kids were from all over the country and quickly fell in love. People still typecast Vandy as a regional southern school which is funny because in the last few years Southeners have made up less than 50% of enrollment. The school is split 50/50 with liberals and conservatives and seems to get more liberal every year. This makes it "conservative" next to other top private universities (as most top schools are predominantly liberal), but most people still have misconceptions of a southern aristocracy of sorts which is not true.</p>

115

<p>In all honesty, it's way too soon to even talk about this yet.</p>

116

<p>
[quote]
Use UCB as an example. The UC system is supposed to hold the top 12.5% of CA students; and even with UC Merced the whole UC system falls short of this goal. The quickest method for UCB to increase selectivity is to decrease undergraduate spaces; would the CA legislature (or whole of the CA, or even the other UC campuses) allow the student body of UCB to, for example, halved?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're exactly right, but that just gets down to what I was saying before. This is a political problem - but it's a political problem of UC's own making. The UC administrators willingly signed the UC Master Plan back in the old days. They didn't have to do it. They could have opted for a differently structured deal. </p>

<p>And in fact, some of the UC's don't adhere to the Master Plan at all. Case in point - UCSF. UCSF does not have an undergraduate program. So they're not bound to participate in educating the top 12.5% of California high school students. UCSF's flagship program is its medical school. UCSF, along with the other UC Medical schools, are under obligation or provide some preference to state resident premeds, but no obligation to admit the top 12.5% of them. For example, let's say you graduate with high honors from Berkeley (which means you graduated in the top 10% of Berkeley), that doesn't mean that you're guaranteed admission to a UC med school. The same thing can be said for UCHastings. Hastings, along with all of the other UC law schools, are under no obligation to admit the top 12.5% of all California state prelaw students. And clearly we can all agree that there is no such obligation whatsoever for the UC doctoral programs. Just because you graduate in the top 12.5% of your class doesn't mean that you're guaranteed admission to a UC doctoral program. </p>

<p>The point I'm making is that adopting the Master Plan and having it apply only to the undergraduate programs were choices made by UC administrators. It didn't have to be this way. Different choices could have been made. Hence, the UC's have low undergrad selectivity (relative to the top private schools because the UC's made that choice. To say that the UC's are forced to be this way is just too simplistic. It's like a kid who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he says he's an orphan.</p>

117

<p>Concering some comments Alexandre made before I have a few things to say:
GPA and Class Rank are poor indicators of a students academic ability. All schools as different so their actual "grades" can not be compared in this manner, especially when the schools you use as examples are so close. Also, do you honestly think Peer Assessment, means much? I'm suspicious of it as a statistic, especially when the US News wants to look at colleges "objectively".<br>
I'll also disagree with you about how UVA, Michigan, and UCB are better than a school like Vanderbilt. These large public schools are more focused on graduate studies. The US News is about UNDERGRADUATE studies. This is why you can't beat a small LAC-type school for undergraduate school. However, it does a diservice to all of these schools to compare them.<br>
It is just unfair to compare UCB and Vanderbilt. The US News should organize their system differently. Obviously the UC schools will have such high "statistics", because California is so vast, and it is inconvienent to travel too far away, therefore most of the top California students stay instate (I'm not bashing the UC's, because they are fine schools). The US News should compare large publics vs. other large publics. They should compare larger privates against other large publics, etc. Simply put, you can't compare apples and oranges.</p>

118

<p>
[quote]
I was discussing Vanderbilt vs. Michigan at the undergraduate level. If you want to keep talking to yourself about grad schools, be my guest.

[/quote]

You were the one who brought up Vandy's "stronger grad programs", hence my comments...but 68.5% acceptance rate is hardly impressive for an MBA program.</p>

<p>I was talking about undergrad all along. Not everyone is interested in General Studies. The quality of the department(s) in your desired major areas should be a key criteria in picking your school. So if you are interested in business, engineering, Far Eastern studies, nursing, economics, mathematics ... or music, would you pass over UCB/Michigan for Vandy?</p>

<p>My point is...acceptance rate has nothing to do with the quality of the university...otherwise you will have to conclude that UCB/UCLA are better than Northwestern, Cornell and JHU. Besides, I still don't see why Vandy's SAT scores are that much better than UCB/Michigan/UVa given that the latter schools are much bigger. I do know UCB/Michigan have a lot more smart students with 1400+ SAT and you will find them in all your classes.</p>

<p>Some students prefer the small privates and some prefer the larger publics. Different strokes for different folks. Big schools do have their advantages... better facilities, better faculties, more opportunities and more choices (it's especially important if you are interested in interdisciplinary programs).</p>

<p>
[quote]
what does location have to do with quality of the undergraduate students.

[/quote]

You have to live there for four years! The city/location is one of the pluses for schools like Wisconsin, Michigan, Boston U...and yes, Vandy too.</p>

119

<p>
[quote]
I still don't see why Vandy's SAT scores are that much better than UCB/Michigan/UVa given that the latter schools are much bigger

[/quote]

Exactly, that's why you can't compare them. You are right, acceptance rate is no indicator of a schools strength. Schools like the UC's have such low acceptance rates, but that's because they are in one of the biggest states with a huge population.</p>

120

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>You are right that some of the public u's are getting too large and resources are starting to get strained. I don't have the numbers but I don't remember the study body being nearly as large in my days.</p>

<p>Personally I would like to see Michigan reducing the freshman class by 20% and the instate-oos ratio to 50:50 ... but I don't see that happening in the near future.</p>