<p>paying3tuitions,
Your comments about Oberlin and how they treat the SAT are thought-provoking. I believe that some institutions drop these students out of their calculation when they report the SAT scores of their incoming students (eg, I think that Johns Hopkins does this for their Peabody students for whom they will admit down to 530 Verbal, 480 Math). Apparently, USNWR and maybe even IPEDs ask for SAT information only for students where the SAT was an actual factor in their admission. I'm not sure how Oberlin does it, but you might want to doublecheck.</p>
<p>I always knew that my alma mater, Cornell, was big, but I never actually realized before that it was the biggest of the top 15. It doesn't seem big in comparison to state universities, but compared to a lot of other places on this list, it's a megalopolis.</p>
<p>marian,
Not all elite State Us are huge. Consider:</p>
<p>Cornell: 13,562 undergrads</p>
<p>U Virginia: 14,676 undergrads</p>
<p>Ga Tech: 12,361 undergrads</p>
<p>W&M: 5734 undergrads</p>
<p>And for UVA, you would never guess there's almost 15,000 undergrads in attendance when you're on Grounds (campus), most folks can't walk anywhere without bumping into someone they know.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, the colleges include Asians as part of their minorities as a measure of diversity. That is not my criterion. I hope you note that by including any minority group in the admissions criteria, I noted that this in no way was an indication of an admissions preference nor do I object to diversity in principle. Merely the numbers are the numbers. And for the majority of apploicant which in fact are white and designated as non-minority the numbers are formidible. For that I make no judgements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Merely the numbers are the numbers. And for the majority of apploicant which in fact are white and designated as non-minority the numbers are formidible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you do realize the numbers are equally formidable for Asians, right? If you recognize that, then your point is moot.</p>
<p>
Really? If there's no indication of an admission preference, why did you bother to differentiate:<br>
I thought your point was to show how "formidable" the numbers are for those who don't get in based on legacy, athletic talents, race...but based on pure academic merit. Am I not correct? Is that why the term "totally open"?
[quote]
We all know that many Asian, AA and Hispanic admits are just as well qualified as any other applicant, but those are the numbers. Now take out developmental admits and recruited athletes and the final number is probably in the 7000's maybe even lower.
[/quote]
That qualifier "many" suggests "some" of them aren't as well qualified. The fact that you have to state "I have no problem with in principle" just implicitly confirms you were thinking just that. For one, you should not put "Asian" and "AA"/Hispanic in the same sentence. Asians are <em>not</em> part of the beneficiaries of AA. For another, Asians, collectively speaking, are just as qualified as whites; not "many" and not "most". </p>
<p>The funny thing is you do not have to separate Asians/internationals out to get your point across; the fact that you did suggests to me you had some misconception about them to begin with. </p>
<p>Fyi, the admit rate for internationals was 4% at MIT couple years ago; for Berkeley, it's 10%. According to Stanford admission guide published about 10 years ago, Asian Americans were the most under-admitted (lowest #admits/#applicants). So if you look at just the ratio, their numbers are more formidable for them than any others. Hence, there's little point to "whine" about how formidable it is for whites as they aren't unique in the situation.</p>