<p>“I feel like the issues in the UC System might bring Berkley down, same for Michigan…”</p>
<p>May I ask what issues with Michigan?</p>
<p>How far do you guys think Northeastern will move up? 80 seems a little high for a school that has a 35% acceptance rate and an average SAT score over 1900.</p>
<p>Northeastern only has a 35% acceptance rate?</p>
<p>Answer to this question may tell more: If money is not an issue, which school do you want to go to? Current ranking is likely to change, and UChicago may be up a few spots, for example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UChicago might break the tie with Columbia, but I’m not sure that it’ll quite jump up to the next level yet (sadface). Remember, the massive increase in applicants won’t be counted until the 2012 rankings, and the guidance counselor rankings (if they do get incorporated) won’t help any, especially since so many of them may only know the gritty and grim UChicago of the 80’s . . .</p>
<p>Also, to clarify that questions, if money, neither cost of attendance nor future earnings, was not an issue, to what school do you want to go?</p>
<p>EDIT: Translation: Let’s get the Michigan guys AND the Duke guys to start bashing UChicago! Because we think self-deprecation is funny :)</p>
<p>I guess, the Ivies will again top this years list</p>
<p>
Projected incoming freshman class of 7,000…;)</p>
<p>When in August is this coming out?</p>
<p>It seems as though most of the proposed changes will cause UChicago to drop a few spots rather than rise.</p>
<p>Duke=Northwestern=WashU>Michigan</p>
<p>It’s probably true Michigan will go down. This is it’s first year debuting it’s data with a highly impressive 50% acceptance rate :-/</p>
<p>It’s PA score has been on a downward trend as well. With the high publicity budget problems Cal will probably go down as well. I see UNC, UVA, and UT rising though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you elaborate? I have no clue…
Besides, why GC’s will look back some thing 30 years ago?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, Alexandre. Inasmuch as asking people to control their emotions and tone down the rhetoric IS a good call, I hope you slowly start to realize the reasons why DIALOGUES are nearly impossible and who the culprits are. </p>
<p>Best of luck keeping your public universities fellows in line. It will be just as hard as trying to keep the Duke fans to throw them more red meat and rattle their cage. </p>
<p>One day those pugilists might discover that the secret to CC happiness is to NEVER push your own alma mater. At least, not in such insensitive manner. Actually, I should rephrase that as having never set foot on a US campus has not stopped our Manila friend to be the worst offender. </p>
<p>Oh well, can we call the Duke versus Michigan a tie? After all, it’s more fun to debate the greatnedd of … Cal. :)</p>
<p>Alexandre, thank you very much. I greatly appreciate your support and wouldn’t want to take it from anyone else. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its true he has done much to Duke, but I strongly doubt Duke sports in general made its name high public. For instance, USC’s legendary football team is well regarded here in California. So is UCLA’s basketball team, but these universities aren’t usually on the radar (Is USC the University of South Carolina? Huh?) for east coast high achievers. Almost half the people at California don’t know what Georgetown is (Huh? George Lopez town?). Its basketball team is unheard of here.</p>
<p>Anyways please listen, especially rjkofnovi: Most schools are PEERS with everyone. You will get an amazing opportunity at both Harvard and UMich. No secret doors will open just because you attended Harvard.
This is a fact. There is no HYPSM in the real world. In fact, my dad, who went to IIT and his co-worker from MIT, work UNDER an Iowa State graduate at Yahoo!
Its also a fact that Duke should not consider it superior to UMich. Its also a fact that MIT shouldn’t consider it superior to Boston College.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Y’know, 60+ acceptance rate, near-bankruptcy, terrible relations with Hyde Park, depressed student body . . .</p>
<p>Northeastern had a 38% acceptance rate this year, Boston University 58%. A great table:</p>
<p>[2010</a> Admissions Tally - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010-admissions-tally/]2010”>http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010-admissions-tally/)</p>
<p>^^^Just another example where acceptance rates are not a sign a high quality.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi, I still haven’t heard from you: “Yes Mr. Saiyans666, I can see you’re not against UMich, which is <b>not</b> a 2nd rate university, but one of America’s best universities. I’m glad you acknowledge this.”</p>
<p>I’m still waiting :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, Novi, it is a well known fact that most Deans of Admissions who work at highly selective schools are striving to attain or maintain an admission ratio of 50% and are usually hoping -or praying-- for a yield of 40%. </p>
<p>Fwiw, you should be ecstatic to see how consistent Michigan achieves such a remarkable and lofty goal. </p>
<p><a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning;
<p>
</p>
<p>First, you have no idea if the counselor’s rating is going to be any different this year than in the previous years. I would add that there is no reason why it should be any different this year. Again you have provided nothing to support your feeble point</p>
<p>Second, you make no sense whatsoever with this argument either, which makes be believe you just like to argue for the sake or arguing.</p>
<p>Third, I could not care less of what whatever666 is doing with his life. That is not the point here either. You do not know me. You have no idea which school I chose to attend and which ones I turned down and the fact that you need to use an ad hominem attack, indicates that a debate with you…is not possible and rather useless. </p>
<p>I will revisit this thread to call on the necessary people after the rankings come out. We will see what happens. Love each other people, just love each other.</p>