2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

The school experience. School related queries, discussions, and stories that aren't specific to a subject.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:36 pm UTC

The solution there, then, is to make informed Internet posts. There are better ways to do this than calling the front desk at Harvard's admissions office and asking whether they can tell you anything about Harvard's secret plans to distort its acceptance rate. The articles you posted before, for example, would be a better start toward an informed argument, even if those particular articles didn't present particularly damning evidence.

Seriously. It is not the most helpful front desk in the world.
Last edited by TheGrammarBolshevik on Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

equivocating ostrich
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby equivocating ostrich » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:43 pm UTC

the situation is similar in england. all the intuition fees have gone up. this is because a select few elite universities like Cambridge and oxford decide to boost up their fees to about 9000 pounds per year. that's about 15000 us dollars a year. of course this put enormous pressure on other universities to appear good, so they bumped up their fees too.

you can't escape how competitive education is, can you?
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:50 pm UTC

equivocating ostrich wrote:the situation is similar in england. all the intuition fees have gone up. this is because a select few elite universities like Cambridge and oxford decide to boost up their fees to about 9000 pounds per year. that's about 15000 us dollars a year. of course this put enormous pressure on other universities to appear good, so they bumped up their fees too.

you can't escape how competitive education is, can you?
And the connection between this and acceptance rates is...?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Bakemaster » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:The student received a letter from Harvard asking them to apply. The students academic record would all but guarentee they not be admitted.

The only thing this tells me is that the student was on a mailing list, not how they got on the list. Doesn't have to be from College Board exam scores, and even if it is, could just as easily have been AP, PSAT or CLEP scores that got him flagged. If he ever toured the Harvard campus, he or his parents may very well have shared his address. If he ever made a showing in any large academic event—spelling bee, history day, science fair, academic decathlon, etc.—or even high school sporting event, and he placed, his name would have been published and his information may have been made available to recruiters. There are a million ways he could have gotten on a mailing list.

As to why the school would continue soliciting applications if they're being overwhelmed, marketing and publicity operations are separate from admissions. Even if you're getting a ton of applicants, a school like Harvard wants to exert some measure of control over their image, and one huge way they do that is through information packets for prospective students. The marketing and solicitations will have slowed greatly at many schools, but when you're at the top of the rankings it becomes very important to stay there; a certain amount of paranoia from the leadership is to be expected, and so I very much doubt Harvard would ever stop advertising their undergraduate program completely. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they cut down their efforts some in light of the situation. On the other hand, with the trend of students applying to more and more schools simultaneously, perhaps they feel a need to increase their marketing to keep students from turning them down in favor of a school with a glossier packet.

It's possible that there are efforts to reach out to underperforming demographics in hopes of attracting a more diverse applicant pool, but in my experience demographic and statistical twerking is performed on the pool through the review process, after the pool has been formed, not before. The only reason I can think of (which isn't to say it's the only one possible) for manipulating the applicant pool from the get-go is if the school is taking all the under-represented minority (URM) candidates it possibly can, and running out; but I would reject that possibility outright where Harvard is concerned for two reasons. First, their incredibly high applicant-to-offer ratio, which ensures that they have plenty of URM candidates from which to choose. Second, their insanely competitive pool which makes it unlikely that trawling disadvantaged communities for more URM applicants would have any significant return in terms of students who would ever actually be accepted by the school. They'd be increasing the size of their applicant pool without significantly affecting the size of their qualified applicant pool, which is the accusation that's on the table, and which I think is irrational and improbable for reasons already stated; it would represent a substantial cost and no significant return in terms of reputation for a school like Harvard, which is already one of the most selective institutions in the world.
equivocating ostrich wrote:the situation is similar in england. all the intuition fees have gone up. this is because a select few elite universities like Cambridge and oxford decide to boost up their fees to about 9000 pounds per year. that's about 15000 us dollars a year. of course this put enormous pressure on other universities to appear good, so they bumped up their fees too.

I'm sorry, but I find this causality completely implausible. For most college students, cost of attendance is a critical factor in their matriculation decisions. If a university can offer a much more affordable education than a more prestigious institution such as Oxbridge, that represents a significant draw for excellent students who have money concerns. There is a student on this very board who chose a state university, and not a particularly prominent one, over CalTech for financial reasons—and he's a physics major. (For those who might be unaware, CalTech is easily in the top 5 for undergraduate physics programs in the US; some would argue it's the best such program in the country.) If the state university weren't so much cheaper than CalTech, it never would have managed to attract such an exceptional student. Colleges are very aware of the role that cost plays in the formation of their student body. The idea that other schools in the UK would find it necessary to raise fees in order to "look good" compared to Oxbridge is incredibly dubious. A far more reasonable and likely explanation would have to do with the harsh economic climate and the financial pressure that every large institution has come under as a direct result.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby achan1058 » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:39 am UTC

Bakemaster wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:The student received a letter from Harvard asking them to apply. The students academic record would all but guarentee they not be admitted.

The only thing this tells me is that the student was on a mailing list, not how they got on the list. Doesn't have to be from College Board exam scores, and even if it is, could just as easily have been AP, PSAT or CLEP scores that got him flagged. If he ever toured the Harvard campus, he or his parents may very well have shared his address. If he ever made a showing in any large academic event—spelling bee, history day, science fair, academic decathlon, etc.—or even high school sporting event, and he placed, his name would have been published and his information may have been made available to recruiters. There are a million ways he could have gotten on a mailing list.
That to me is spamming, which would be even worse than what Ixtellor claimed.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Azrael » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:12 am UTC

Not so much. Remember, until a student applies, a school does not know if they are qualified or not. They have no idea about test scores, grades, anything. Hitting up students that appears to be the best and brightest is the very essence of recruiting.

I'd blame the student, their parents and their high school guidance counselor if they applied to a school they had no chance of getting in to before I'd blame the school.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:05 am UTC

Why is spam even worse than what Ixtellor is alleging? I mean, sure, it's annoying to be overwhelmed with letters, but sending too much mail does not really seem like the sort of charge you'd bring in a trial for Most Evil University Ever. Unless you mean that Harvard is spamming for nefarious purposes, but in that case, wouldn't that just be a particular implementation of the scheme that Ixtellor thinks might be under way here?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby achan1058 » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:20 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Why is spam even worse than what Ixtellor is alleging? I mean, sure, it's annoying to be overwhelmed with letters, but sending too much mail does not really seem like the sort of charge you'd bring in a trial for Most Evil University Ever. Unless you mean that Harvard is spamming for nefarious purposes, but in that case, wouldn't that just be a particular implementation of the scheme that Ixtellor thinks might be under way here?
Aren't there laws against spam now? Or does it only cover e-mails?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:31 am UTC

I kind of doubt that any university's mail recruiting campaign is illegal. But that's not my question. Legality aside, why is sending annoying mail more evil than deliberately wasting people's time, money, and expectations on hopeless applications?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby achan1058 » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:41 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I kind of doubt that any university's mail recruiting campaign is illegal. But that's not my question. Legality aside, why is sending annoying mail more evil than deliberately wasting people's time, money, and expectations on hopeless applications?
They are still wasting people's time, money, and expectations on hopeless applications regardless of whether it is intentional. It's just whether they are spamming in general, or spamming to boost rejection rates.

You are right about spamming not being "worse", since regardless of reason, they are already spamming anyways.

equivocating ostrich
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby equivocating ostrich » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:20 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
equivocating ostrich wrote:the situation is similar in england. all the intuition fees have gone up. this is because a select few elite universities like Cambridge and oxford decide to boost up their fees to about 9000 pounds per year. that's about 15000 us dollars a year. of course this put enormous pressure on other universities to appear good, so they bumped up their fees too.

you can't escape how competitive education is, can you?
And the connection between this and acceptance rates is...?

instead of assuming that i'm an idiotic bumpkin, perhaps you might realise that i'm talking about how competitive universities have become.
as the original post said,
So after some research I am reading that the top competitive schools are trying to UP their rejection rates to appear more competitive
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:15 pm UTC

Still, the thread should at least try to stay about acceptance rates.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

equivocating ostrich
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby equivocating ostrich » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:32 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Still, the thread should at least try to stay about acceptance rates.

i see your point. i was merely trying to make a link between countries.
Image

Outis
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:29 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Outis » Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:04 pm UTC

I disagree with a lot of the decisions which the Harvard admissions office has made, but I wouldn't rush to be so cynical in this particular case. Harvard, like any other school, wants to be able to pick the best class it can, however it decides what the "best" would be. And if more people apply, the admissions officers have more choices so they can necessarily pick a "better" class. I know a handful of students with "sub-Harvard" numbers who ended up being admitted (and going) to Harvard because of some of their other accomplishments; I wouldn't immediately conclude that these students never had a chance and are just being exploited by the school.

equivocating ostrich
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby equivocating ostrich » Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:25 pm UTC

Outis wrote:I disagree with a lot of the decisions which the Harvard admissions office has made, but I wouldn't rush to be so cynical in this particular case. Harvard, like any other school, wants to be able to pick the best class it can, however it decides what the "best" would be. And if more people apply, the admissions officers have more choices so they can necessarily pick a "better" class. I know a handful of students with "sub-Harvard" numbers who ended up being admitted (and going) to Harvard because of some of their other accomplishments; I wouldn't immediately conclude that these students never had a chance and are just being exploited by the school.

that's a very good point.
Image

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Bakemaster » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:59 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Why is spam even worse than what Ixtellor is alleging? I mean, sure, it's annoying to be overwhelmed with letters, but sending too much mail does not really seem like the sort of charge you'd bring in a trial for Most Evil University Ever. Unless you mean that Harvard is spamming for nefarious purposes, but in that case, wouldn't that just be a particular implementation of the scheme that Ixtellor thinks might be under way here?
Aren't there laws against spam now? Or does it only cover e-mails?

The term "spam" has only ever applied to e-mail. Unsolicited paper mailings are junk mail, and there's never been laws against junk mail that I'm aware.
Outis wrote:I disagree with a lot of the decisions which the Harvard admissions office has made

I'm curious to know to what specific decisions you're alluding. Examples?
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:12 pm UTC

Well, they make tens of thousands of controversial decisions every March (both the rejections and the acceptances). :P
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Solt » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:39 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Solt wrote:Harvard is defined as number 1 on the US News and World Report Rankings. Every other college is evaluated in terms of Harvard.
[citation needed]



Took a bit of searching because they don't seem to put the info on the main list or profile page, but here ya go, look under "score" they get 100/100: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandrevie ... 5/rankings

And here is the score for No 2 Princeton, 99/100: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandrevie ... 7/rankings

The other schools seem to have pulled closer to Harvard. I remember looking at the list years ago and noticing how far ahead Harvard was.

If I were doing the rankings I would define the perfect (theoretical) university and then compare all others to that one. They choose to pick Harvard as that perfect university instead.
"Welding was faster, cheaper and, in theory,
produced a more reliable product. But sailors do
not float on theory, and the welded tankers had a
most annoying habit of splitting in two."
-J.W. Morris

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Bakemaster » Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:05 am UTC

Looks to me like they're evaluating in terms of centiharvards, really.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:20 pm UTC

Solt wrote:here ya go, look under "score" they get 100/100
That doesn't mean they decide ahead of time to rank everything against Harvard. More likely, they decide what the best university is, and then scale that year's list so the best university has a perfect score. If it happens to have been Harvard every year, it's because Harvard is a really really good school, not because Harvard automatically gets a 100, no questions asked.

So it's not even centiharvards. It's centi-best-school-this-year, which usually turns out to be Harvard. They grade on a curve. If you think they should grade instead based on some theoretical perfect university, then start publishing your own college rankings.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:22 pm UTC

Bakemaster wrote:Looks to me like they're evaluating in terms of centiharvards, really.

Then how do you explain Yale's score of 98?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Kurushimi
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Kurushimi » Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:45 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Bakemaster wrote:Looks to me like they're evaluating in terms of centiharvards, really.

Then how do you explain Yale's score of 98?


...with Yale = 98 centiharvards?

User avatar
314man
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:03 pm UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby 314man » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:50 pm UTC

Reading this thread feels like I'm watching Accepted
I guess the solution is to make your own school and call it South Harvard Institute of Technology, where acceptance is just a click away

Anyways in all seriousness, it's mostly because student applications are raising extremely fast while university space is mostly static or growing at a much slower rate.
And for Harvard, it's better for them to pique interest in as many excellent students as possible and take more rejections than to not bother them and miss out on some excellent students. But it's stupid to put Harvard in a bad light because of that, all universities do the same.

Outis
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:29 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Outis » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Bakemaster wrote:I'm curious to know to what specific decisions you're alluding. Examples?

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Well, they make tens of thousands of controversial decisions every March (both the rejections and the acceptances). :P

Well, of course there are some people I wish were accepted who were not (and the reverse). It would also be nice if they didn't send out any likely letters, and I have mixed feelings about their reinstating early action. I understand why they are doing it, but if you have to have a subjective process to begin with, at least have everyone go through the same subjective process.

As for the U.S. News Rankings, I think the main problem is not how exactly they get these numbers between 1 and 100, but the criteria they consider when they rank. They look at some reasonable things, like the percentage of classes which are very small or very large, but then they also consider things like the school's reputation among high school guidance counselors, the acceptance rate (lower is better) and the percentage of alumni who donate money to the school. It's unclear how most of the things they consider would matter to students at all, and then they weight them more or less randomly, so that by the end we can probably safely say that Harvard, Princeton, Yale and the rest of them are pretty good schools, but not which would be best for a particular student (or if that student would even be happy at any of them). When you take meaningless data and assign meaningless weights to get a number, of course the resulting number won't be the most informative thing ever.

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby pizzazz » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:42 pm UTC

And USNWR rankings have been thoroughly criticized from a lot of angles; last I heard, the times higher education world university rankings were considered superior: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html (though that list is problematic in itself; for starters, just look at UCberkley and UCLA in the top 10 in the US, among other dubious placements.

Of course, the idea itself of college rankings has also be widely criticized. It's true that reducing everything to one number loses you a lot of information. Moreover, the lists tend to very precise (3 significant figures), which is probably much smaller than the subjective nature and error-prone data would necessarily allow for. Pretty much any sharp delineation is going to be fairly suspect.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:24 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:just look at UCberkley and UCLA in the top 10 in the US, among other dubious placements.
Why are those dubious?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Solt » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:16 am UTC

pizzazz wrote:(though that list is problematic in itself; for starters, just look at UCberkley and UCLA in the top 10 in the US, among other dubious placements.


Hey, screw you.
"Welding was faster, cheaper and, in theory,

produced a more reliable product. But sailors do

not float on theory, and the welded tankers had a

most annoying habit of splitting in two."

-J.W. Morris

User avatar
Midnight
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:53 am UTC
Location: Twixt hither and thither. Ergo, Jupiter.

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Midnight » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:55 pm UTC

Solt wrote:regarding the whole bit about people buying their way into Harvard, 81% of new students receive financial aid from the university. Yea, a den of the rich and powerful alright.

so 29% are paying a full SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR?
Also, as I recall, colleges make a ton of their money from grants & pledges and the like, not from tuition costs. Regardless, I believe Harvard is the wealthiest school in the world, so it's utterly untenable to argue that it's anything other than 'rich and powerful'

pizzazz wrote: (though that list is problematic in itself; for starters, just look at UCberkley and UCLA in the top 10 in the US, among other dubious placements.

...Berkeley and LA are widely regarded as some of the best public schools in the world. This is not dubious.




In general, my thoughts on this are as follows: Ivy is probably the only plant that makes your property value double.
uhhhh fuck.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:00 am UTC

Context, yo. Solt is responding to the accusation that Harvard is "a den of the rich and powerful" in the sense that it heavily favors wealthy students. Obviously it has a lot of money, but it doesn't follow that its policies are inegalitarian. In other words, there's a difference between being and and powerful and being in bed with the rich and powerful.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Bakemaster » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:30 am UTC

See also: Arithmetic, yo.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

chaincux
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby chaincux » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:13 am UTC

I think the admissions is strange this year, like student get in to UCLA but not UC San Diego, which I guess it might be if some lower ranking school accept the top students, the student will probably will not go to their school

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby pizzazz » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:41 pm UTC

Midnight wrote:
pizzazz wrote: (though that list is problematic in itself; for starters, just look at UCberkley and UCLA in the top 10 in the US, among other dubious placements.

...Berkeley and LA are widely regarded as some of the best public schools in the world. This is not dubious.


Some of the best public schools, sure. And I suppose I should have been more specific; I guess it's possible that they are among handful of the absolute best universities in the country. But this list puts Berkley above Yale, and both above Chicago, John's Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, and UPenn. That makes me guess that the listing is poorly weighting some factor(s).

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:57 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:But this list puts Berkley above Yale, and both above Chicago, John's Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, and UPenn. That makes me guess that the listing is poorly weighting some factor(s).
And your reason for thinking that's odd is what? Other lists you've seen?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Yakk » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:01 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:
Midnight wrote:
pizzazz wrote: (though that list is problematic in itself; for starters, just look at UCberkley and UCLA in the top 10 in the US, among other dubious placements.
...Berkeley and LA are widely regarded as some of the best public schools in the world. This is not dubious.
Some of the best public schools, sure. And I suppose I should have been more specific; I guess it's possible that they are among handful of the absolute best universities in the country. But this list puts Berkley above Yale, and both above Chicago, John's Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, and UPenn. That makes me guess that the listing is poorly weighting some factor(s).

So look at the details. It appears that Berkley is high because of high Research reputation and high Citation index. UCLA also has a good Research rep, but less impressive Citation index.

The private universities under them tend to be beat by that, as far as I can tell.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Bakemaster » Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:09 am UTC

No ranking will make everyone happy. No ranking will even make half of the people happy. It's not a subject that is really worth that much thought, unless you happen to work for the News & World Report or the Princeton Review or some other body that puts out rankings.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby pizzazz » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:46 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
pizzazz wrote:But this list puts Berkley above Yale, and both above Chicago, John's Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, and UPenn. That makes me guess that the listing is poorly weighting some factor(s).
And your reason for thinking that's odd is what? Other lists you've seen?


Those other schools are by and large far more selective (they're also, other than Cornell and Penn, smaller, and Times doesn't seem to divide total output by student body size). They also claim to focus on undergrads (hence why they ignore schools that don't teach undergrads and constantly harp on undergrads on the rubric), and yet...

Yakk wrote:So look at the details. It appears that Berkley is high because of high Research reputation and high Citation index. UCLA also has a good Research rep, but less impressive Citation index.

The private universities under them tend to be beat by that, as far as I can tell.


This. They have a very heavy emphasis on world-level academic research output, but it's not clear at all that this helps undergrads. The two big research output categories are actually about twice as heavily weighted, once combined, as the teaching category. There's no indication that Times even knows how many of the faculty they're counting actually teach undergrads. This is especially problematic once combined with the fact that they take a high grad:undergrad level as a good thing, even though this seems like it will lead to undergrads receiving more instruction from grad students and less from professors!

I still think it's preferable to, and less biased than, USNWR, and these quibbles are only really important for small differences near the top. But that's what we're talking about, so that's what's relevant.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: 2011 Acceptance Rates: F U Harvard

Postby Bakemaster » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Found this today (via Ms. Sun's UC Admissions Blog; emphasis mine):
Why were admissions so low? It's a numbers game. This year's graduating class is one of the largest on record. As a result, colleges saw the number of applicants soar to record-high levels, but budgetary constraints kept most of them from upping the number of spots they could offer. Harvard, the school with the lowest admission rate in the country, offered enrollment to just 6.2% of applicants, or a total of 2,158 students of the record 34,950 who applied. But it isn't just the Ivy League schools; both state schools and private liberal-arts colleges saw their acceptance rates decline as well. The University of California, San Diego, is poised to accept 34.3% of the 53,455 students who applied (down from 38.2% last year and a whopping 49% five years ago), while Amherst College in Massachusetts projects it will accept 12.6% of its 8,432 applicants.

Full article at TIME.com, "The Upside of College Rejection: Your Safety School Might Be the Smarter Choice"
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc


Return to “School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests