<p>A few schools did go to the waitlist because some of the top schools are under accepting and expect to use the waitlist because their yields are really unpredictable and dont want to risk going over their yield. By under accepting and going on the waitlist, the top colleges can hit the yield number they want. </p>
<p>Yes, the next few years will have the toughest competition and most applications Universities and colleges have ever seen. However, our views are skewed. The top 100 schools in the nation will have their acceptance rates lowered and there will be an obvious shift in what it takes and how easy it is to get into a school. But most schools outside of the top ones will still be really easy to get into and will still have really high acceptance rates. </p>
<p>What concerns me is the mentality students go into hs with now. School is no longer about learning and gaining basic life skills but has become almost solely grade/result oriented. On top of that, applicants who want to go to the top schools feel pressure to be the complete package: good gpa, good sat, hundreds of volunteer hours, and a Varsity athlete. The future looks scary because it seems like it has turned applicants into robots.</p>
<p>I was not trying to say that getting into UNC OOS is more difficult than the Ivies, just that it's very difficult. </p>
<p>Sorry if my math is not correct. I'm not sure what the yield refers to. Is is the number of students offered admittance, whether or not they accept? </p>
<p>Whatever the case, my d did not get into UNC. As it turns out, that's probably a good thing because she has decided to major in engineering.</p>
<p>Well the idea at NC is getting into UNC OOS is just as hard if not harder then getting into Duke. So your daughter not making it OOS should not make her feel bad at all.</p>
<p>The flip side of the numbers crunch is that more and more really outstanding students are going to schools that previously would only have had a more average student body, and by their presence lifting the educational quality of those schools. Colleges aren't like cars - with a top tier school having more "horsepower" than a second tier school, etc. To a great extent the academic experience is driven by the quality of the student body even more than by the size of the endowment, faculty honors, class size, etc. A college full of bright students will provide a better education than one populated by plodders. So to a great extent all the "Ivy quality" students who end up not going to an Ivy League school will be creating their own "new Ivies" simply by populating the schools they will end up attending. </p>
<p>Of course, they won't have the "name brand" to fall back on, and will have to succeed in life on their own merits, but that's not a bad thing, is it?</p>
<p>SportsMama, yield is the percentage of students who were offered admission and matriculate. The higher the yield, the more competitive the school appears to be. Harvard's yield is (80% highest in the country) with Yale around 72% and Princeton 68%. Schools always offer a lot more admissions than places they have; so for the 3600 class of UNC, they offer a place to thousands more (hence the rate of 38% admit ) to account for those people that will be accepted to another institutions and will choose to attend elsewhere. This year, Columbia had the lowest admit rate at 8.6% followed by Harvard 8.9%. All the ivies had record low admissions rate this year.</p>
<p>Don't be too obsessed with the admit rate. To know what is really going on, you'd have to know much more about the applicant pool. For example, what percentage of the applicant pool to the school is uncompetitive? You'd want to know what the admit rate is among applicants whose statistics are within the range of admitted applicants.</p>
<p>I'm interested in the yield rates, also. Harvard (80%), Yale (72%) and Princeton (68%). This means that relatively few students were admitted to more than one of these. It could be because of early admissions--it will be interesting to see how that might change next year. I've got to think that quite a few people apply to all three, and I suppose that most of those people don't get into any of them. Perhaps for the rest, it's such a crapshoot that the most likely alternative to none is one.</p>
<p>U.S. News and World Report publishes that data in their big college book. Wash U is the worst culprit as they wait-list many MANY more than they could ever accept into their freshman class... it's some ridiculous number.</p>
<p>Thanks, flong. My d really felt like a failure when she did not get into UNC ("I must not be very smart.") I told her she WAS smart and she would probably be considered smart enough to be admitted if she lived in NC. Unfortunately, at the time I told her this I thought she would be admitted to UVA, so it would be a moot point. When that didn't happen, it really crushed her. I wish things had turned out differently. </p>
<p>If I could give any advice to the class of 2008, please make sure you will be really happy at one of your matches/safeties. It 's become so competitive out there, it's hard to say what will happen. My d should have applied to more schools.</p>
<p>I always argue that people should apply to more schools. It takes little extra effort (I don't buy into the "focus" on less apps bs, no admissions officer can tell the difference).</p>
<p>If I were going to give advice to kids, I'd tell them to apply to smaller colleges. I mean I know some kids probably can't stand the idea of a smaller college...but there are good colleges you can get in to that don't have the ridiculous admit rates of the Ivies that will serve the student much better.</p>
<p>^^I absolutely agree. I had much better luck at LACs (getting into 2 in the top 10), and the top LACs equal the academics of most of the top 20 Unis or at least come very near to equalling them (they absolutely equal many of the schools ranked in the 10-20 range, in my opinion, including those Ivies). </p>
<p>In addition, I would advise students to look beyond stereotypes and see if they can see themselves at a "weird" school--a school out of their geographical comfort zone, with an odd rep, or with an odd composition. For example, many students in my suburban Chicago HS applied to Northwestern--but only a couple applied to Vanderbilt, a slightly less selective but nearly as good school that I understand to have a similar feeling to Northwestern. Not only would they have been ahead with a higher acceptance rate, but they also would have been ahead because of their location, instead of being <em>behind</em> instead of their location. Another good example is the University of Chicago--an admissions bargain because of it's high acceptance rate and Ivy equal academics. I suspect that if applicants would at least consider U of C, they would discover that it was not so bad. A third example, if it applies, are the women's colleges. Not only would students from my area get a regional boost (they tend to not draw very heavily from the Midwest), but the self-selection factor (the knee-jerk "NO!!!!" that a lot of girls would give these schools) makes it relatively easier to get in and receive a fabulous education than other similarly strong LACs.</p>
<p>I really don't know what to make of this admissions process. With more kids applying to more schools in the US, from all over the world, it has gotten so much more competitive. As more people apply and as each person applies to a larger number of schools, most of the schools - especially the highly-ranked ones have to reject more applicants (lowering their acceptance rates to all time lows) or wait-list more applicants to protect their yields. For anyone applying for 2008, the most obvious (perhaps not the most correct) thing to do would be to apply to 10-15 colleges. However if more students start doing this, it will only help to make the situation even worse.</p>
<p>Well aktiv8d, personally I dont feel its a matter of applying to more colleges but what type of colleges you apply too. With rising app numbers and steeper competition, its really a matter of appyling to more safety schools rather than applying to simply more colleges. The way I see things nowadays, you have to consider your "reach" schools your super reaches, your semi reach schools reaches, your matches semi reaches, and your safety as matches.</p>
<p>I'm still on the waitlist for TCNJ. Supposedly a small (realtively speaking)number of apps are still being held. I was told that schools like Georgetown have JUST gone to the waitlist and since some kids at TCNJ really wanted an ivy or just under-TCNJ is still keeping the waitlist alive. Doesn't sound too promising to me...</p>
<p>Advantagious, I would give LACs more credit. I'm pretty sure that the Wellesley's and the Swarthmore's of the world can really hold their own against Harvard and Yale. </p>
<p>Are they as prestigious? No. </p>
<p>Are all of their faculty the best researchers in the field they teach? Well, yes. But the difference the LACs have is that these researchers are really only focussed on their undergraduate teaching, and in fact many LACs have sibbatical years for profs to go out and research, relinquishing their teaching responsibilities.</p>
<p>One of my dad's colleagues' friends went to an ivy for undergrad and then went to UMich for grad school. She now teaches at Carleton. After all her experience at the ivies and large schools, she's convinced that it is the smaller schools that provide the better education to undergraduates. After all, at Wellesley, you're not exactly going to find large lecture halls like those at Harvard. I'm sure that the top (say 6) LACs could face up to the top 10 universities any day.</p>
<p>My D got into UNC oos, but they offered only a $1000 lap top grant! Crazy!
She's going to College of Charleston on a full scholarship. Thank God!</p>