<p>Vanderbilt is definitely a good school. However, I am confused by its acceptance rate which hovers around 13 percent. </p>
<p>It is consistently grouped with school such as WashU, Georgetown, and Northwestern, even though these schools have much higher acceptance rates? In fact, Vanderbilt's acceptance rate is nearly around that of UPenn, which is a better school. </p>
<p>I am just confused as to how Vanderbilt is still considered equal in difficulty (admissions) to schools that have much higher acceptance rates. </p>
<p>My guess about Vanderbilt is just like Stanford – many students want to go to highly selective schools and there aren’t that many that are not located in cold, snowy places – so you get a ton of students applying. You also get a lot of students apply who aren’t really qualified but with Stanford (we live in so Calif), we get the “well, I just going to apply to see what happens.” So it spikes the application numbers. </p>
<p>Do you understand what acceptance rate is? Number of seats divided by applicants. The amt of kids they admit remains fixed. More kids are applying. Admit rate decreases.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people don’t know how selective Vanderbilt is, and apply without realistic chances. My son’s adviser had it on a list for him. We realized that it was out of reach for him when we visited and attended an admissions presentation. It is a very attractive campus, an excellent university, and Nashville is undoubtedly a fun city to spend time in as a college student. They are the only academically elite college in the SEC, which might matter to some sports fans, also.</p>
<p>You’re missing a key part of the equation: YIELD.</p>
<p>Many USNWR-striving schools are agressively managing their yield rate by:
admitting a greater proportion of their student body via Early Decision (in principal, if not in practice, ED is 100% yield)
WL’ing a greater proportion of applicants, then admitting from the WL (these are also high yield rate candidates)</p>
<p>Managing the yield rate will decrease the admit rate numerator. </p>
<p>Schools can also manipulate their admit rate by employing aggressive marketing to entice more students to apply, with the school’s real intention to reject the students. </p>
<p>Increasingly the number of applicants will increase the admit rate denominator. </p>
Harvard’s RD admit rate is the lowest among academic colleges in the United States, but it’s not the lowest because everyone goes “heck it’s Harvard let’s give it a shot.” It’s the lowest because they admit a smaller portion of their class via RD than other highly selective colleges, and they admit a larger portion of their class via REA. Harvard’s REA admit rate was 21.1% this year, which was higher than the REA admit rate for Stanford, Yale, and Princeton – the other colleges I am aware of that offer single choice early action. Vanderbilt early admit rate was approximately the same as Harvard’s this year and will likely be lower than Harvard next year.</p>
<p>"You also get a lot of students apply who aren’t really qualified but with Stanford (we live in so Calif), we get the “well, I just going to apply to see what happens.” "</p>
<p>According to Stanford admission officers, about 80% of applicants are academically qualified…</p>
<p>They’re telling the truth but actually lying.</p>
<p>What does “academically qualified” really mean? Does it mean you have enough smarts to get accepted, or does it mean you’re merely smart enough to graduate from Stanford? I’m going to guess what they’re saying is the latter, but everyone thinks they mean the former.</p>
<p>Let’s look at it this way - an ACT of 25 or an SAT CR+M of ~1220 puts you in the top 20% of students who take either test. Not of all 18 year-olds but students who take the test, so among the general population, you’re better than top 20%. That should be good enough to get to a BS/BA at any school in the country in something. Maybe not physics or engineering, but something. Even Stanford, which isn’t geared at such a high level that no one at that level can’t make it. You might be near the bottom of the class, but you can make it.</p>
<p>But does anyone get accepted at those levels? Sure - athletes, developmentals, legacies with donations, celebrities, the occasion URM. The average student - virtually no way. They could succeed, but Stanford has absolutely no interest in letting them in and shouldn’t pretend that they do. They are only interested in them as it drives down their acceptance rate, but I can just about guarantee that almost no application in the ACT 25-30 is taken very seriously unless there is some hook attached.</p>
Stanford focuses less on test scores than many selective colleges, so they do consider unhooked applicants with ACT of under 31 (or equivalent SAT). I was admitted unhooked several years ago with a 1300 M+CR, which is equivalent to the ACT range you listed. There is a parent in the Stanford forum who mentioned her valedictorian daughter was accepted unhooked with a combined SAT in the 1800s, scoring low 600s on all sections. Among Parchment members, the admit rate over the past 3 years by ACT score for applicants who had a perfect UW 4.0 GPA while taking many advanced classes is below. I didn’t filter out top athletes, developmentals, and legacies with huge donations; but I’d expect extremely few of them to achieve a perfect 4.0 UW GPA while also testing low, so few, if any, would appear in this sample group. </p>
<p>There seems to be a notably higher admit rate for 4.0 UW applicants who test at or above Stanford’s reported 75th percentile score of 34, suggesting they may be concerned about keeping this reported measure at a particular level (or it may relate to a small sample size for ACT 33 applicants), but 4.0 UW applicants who don’t test well also have a respectable admit rate. I’d expect Stanford’s “academically qualified” statement relates to believing the applicant has the ability to be successful in Stanford coursework, which I’d expect to relate more to HS course rigor and grades than to test scores.</p>
<p>Mr. Mom 62, you are correct: Stanford means they believe that 80% of applicants have what it takes to graduate. And most admissions officers at other colleges agree that students self-select places where they are, for the most part, academically able to compete.</p>
<p>On why Vanderbilt has had a surge in applications, a few of the factors (my opinion only):
move to Residential College system. This was a thoughtful, well planned move that was discussed at our campus tour in fall of 2001, yet not fully executed until late in D’s undergrad experience (2007 or 2008?).</p>
<ul>
<li><p>move to eliminate student loans in fall of 2008. I think this was HUGE!</p></li>
<li><p>Nashville has become a “hot” city that is on more people’s radar.</p></li>
<li><p>increased visibility through athletic performance: some good years for basketball, for football recently, and now a national championship for baseball. Economic studies have proven that the visibility provided by athletic success drives up applications.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Some of the previous posters imply that a low acceptance rate is undesirable when it is generally considered a very good thing. It simply means that the school is highly selective. The Vanderbilt yield rate for last year was 42%. </p>