<p>How hard is it to get into NYU College of Arts and Science?
I want to study IR</p>
<p>CAS acceptance rate is ~20%; the overall NYU acceptance rate is 33% including LSP and 26% not including LSP. IR is also an honors program wherein you have to accepted to NYU, complete the IR pre-reqs and then apply to the program. It is a requirement to apply that you have a 3.65 GPA and it is expected that you will maintain said GPA.</p>
<p>Uh… those numbers do not look right. How can CAS’s acceptance rate be that much lower than the overall NYU acceptance rate? That would imply the rest of NYU has something like 80% to average out to 33%.</p>
<p>If NYU’s overall acceptance is 26% not including LSP… Let’s see… Abu Dhabi, Stern and Tisch would have the lowest, CAS and Gallatin would be next, not sure what comes after those and in what order but: Steinhardt, College of Nursing, Courant, Silver School, SCPS would all factor into the overall undergraduate acceptance rate. CAS makes up 1/3 of the undergraduate student body. </p>
<p>Including LSP the acceptance rate increases to 33%. </p>
<p>So yes, it makes sense to say that CAS has an acceptance rate in the 20% range.</p>
<p>CAS acceptance rate this past year, according to NYU, was 24%. So yes my statement of around 20% was quite accurate. Since it’s probably going to continue the trend and drop even lower this upcoming admissions cycle.</p>
<p>In an email sent out in May apparently,
“… during his tenure, applications to CAS almost tripled, from 8,000 to 23,000; SAT scores rose from below 1200 to 1424; and the acceptance rate dropped from 70% in 1991 to a record 24% this spring.”</p>
<p>24% is a world of difference from 20%, and is not “quite accurate” whatsoever. Tildes denote rounding or a fractional difference, 4% is not negligible.</p>
<p>Regardless, you’re just pulling numbers out of your rear. 24% was the <em>Spring</em> number, and NYU has never been particularly transfer friendly. You also have no basis (if you do, I’d be interested in seeing them) for saying any of the schools you listed are less competitive than CAS to get into.</p>
<p>When guessing a number that you don’t have an exact statistic for anywhere, being 4% off is quite accurate. And yes, it says spring. But note however it doesn’t say spring transfer. Meaning that the following year’s incoming freshmen acceptance rate overall is 24% since that’s not fully calculated until spring. If they had specifically meant spring transfers, they would have said so. Also quoting SAT scores if you’re talking about transfers doesn’t make sense, as transfers don’t have to submit them. And if the acceptance rate is expected to drop again, as it has been doing consistently every year almost, I would expect a 22% or lower acceptance rate for CAS. Stop nitpicking small differences. The OP asked how competitive it is. I gave him an around 20% acceptance rate for this upcoming cycle. Being 2% off assuming trend continues isn’t a bad approximation considering the number I was basing it off of was the 26% college wide acceptance rate, w/o LSP.</p>
<p>Do you attend NYU? Are you currently a student? The students of NYU know approximately which schools are in which order. We know Abu Dhabi is at the top, followed by Tisch and Stern followed by CAS and Gallatin. How do we know this? Because we’re given information in speeches and emails giving us SAT scores and acceptance rates, etc. So if you can prove that I’m wrong, go ahead. But you’ll have to prove that most NYU students are wrong in their rankings of their own school.</p>
<p>Also to claim NYU isn’t transfer friendly? Highly inaccurate. Look at NYU’s retention rate compared to other top schools. It’s low. Students are allowed to transfer into NYU based on the freshmen yield rate and retention rate. NYU has a relatively high yield but low retention. The low retention leaves room for plenty of transfers as a 92% ret. rate at NYU provides roughly 1,200 open spots not figuring in yield. Compare that to, for example, most of the other top schools who have a typically higher retention rate meaning less open slots for transfer students.</p>
<p>Apparently you haven’t learned how to read critically. Notice that the application count and SAT scores were NOT for Spring - unless you think NYU got 23,000 apps in the Spring. It merely says that during his tenure, average scores and apps went up to X and Y. And frankly, they could be cherry picked from ANY semester as there is no date attached to them. The acceptance rate is a separate sentence, and very likely includes transfers. Add that to the fact that NYU has a track record of choosing the lower number to report (such as declining to include LSP) to suit its own whims.</p>
<p>I’m a Stern alum, maybe we didn’t get the e-mails and speeches ranking the schools by SAT scores and selectivity. Or, maybe you’re pulling them out of thin air. I don’t really care - the fact of the matter is with the exceptions of Steinhardt and LSP, I’ve never seen any evidence to indicate other schools are less selective than CAS other than your ego-fueled assertions.</p>
<p>Edit: Also, it’s funny that you think “transfer-friendly” is only related to retention.</p>
<p>No, I’m stating that the SAT score, applications and acceptance rate are all statements pertaining to the same time period. E.g. SAT scores and # of applications rose X and Y amounts from T1 to T2. It would therefore be inferred using logic that the acceptance rate is also referring to an overall incoming freshmen student body, as it is not indicated otherwise. Unless otherwise indicated, as pertains to the rules of english, it has to be referring to the same time period. Since, the rules of english state that if you’re going to change any facts, names, references, etc. </p>
<p>Tisch is widely considered the #1 or #2 art school in the country. Thus, it has a low acceptance rate. Stern is considered to be in the top 10 or so B schools in the country, thus a low acceptance rate. CAS has some very excellent programs usually regarded in the 20’s to the #1 for in the country, it can then be concluded then that… it is also has a low acceptance rate. Also, let’s do some math. If CAS, Stern, Tisch and Abu Dhabi all have lower acceptance rates than the NYU overall acceptance rate of 26%, then that means that the other schools, Steinhardt, Gallatin, SCPS, Silver and College of Nursing would inherently HAVE to be higher since CAS makes up 1/3 of the entire undergraduate college. Meaning CAS + Tisch + Stern makes up a little under 1/2 of the undergraduate college body. The other half of the college body is contained within Steinhardt, Gallatin, SCPS, Silver and C of N. Which means to correctly weight the acceptance rate to come out to an acceptance rate that is greater than the CAS acceptance, which is greater than the A.D., Stern and Tisch acceptance rates, the other schools would have to have greater acceptance rates. Since you can’t say CAS + Stern + Tisch + A.D. can equal a 26% average. </p>
<p>So since your continued posting fails to provide any reasoning as to how other colleges have lower acceptance rates than CAS, since to say contrary is to say that the averages won’t add up and nor does your posting contribute to the OP’s original question, please stop arguing. You’ll see in many places on the NYU CC forms that individual CAS acceptance rates have been discussed and that CAS typically comes in 4th for selectivity as thought by most students and parents of students as far as SAT scores, GPA and acceptance rates are concerned.</p>
<p>I really don’t know what they’re teaching you in MAP English courses anymore, but it obviously isn’t critical reading. It’s actually very tricky in English syntactically to determine exactly what context the writer means. For example: “During his tenure as RA, Mike was very diligent and held constant gatherings in his room. From 2002-2004, Third Ave reported fewer stolen items.” You can assume that Mike was the RA from 2002 to 2004 and the drop in crime was a result of his efforts, but actually the statement directly states nothing of the sort. You don’t even know if he was RA during that time period, but oftentimes sentence structuring like such is designed to make you infer the details. It’s how politicians and lawyers get around answering direct questions all the time.</p>
<p>As for your analysis, you’re still offering no proof. A single copy/pasted e-mail you claim to have would suffice. It’s widely acknowledged Tisch, Stern, and Abu Dhabi have lower acceptance rates because the class sizes are very small vs their applicant pools (And Abu Dhabi’s was published). Simply saying “CAS has some very excellent programs usually regarded in the 20’s to the #1 for in the country, it can then be concluded then that… it is also has a low acceptance rate” is not evidence of anything except you needing another English course. Not to mention the programs that CAS is ranked extremely high on make up a very small percentage of the actual student body.</p>
<p>The more likely scenario, which you’re amusingly oblivious to, is that CAS is actually at the average with the remainder clustered around it. Of the schools, I would think only Tisch and Abu Dhabi are outliers with much lower acceptance rates.</p>
<p>PS - Stern apparently has a 23% acceptance rate according to Businessweek, so according to you CAS is nearly as selective as Stern. May be true, but doubtful.</p>
<p>guys, this isn’t the place for debate. either answer the OP’s question or don’t post.</p>
<p>to the OP, you can look at the NYU decision threads if you want to get an idea on what “caliber” gets accepted. I can’t say whether they’re all accurate, but you could get a gist of it.</p>
<p>The debate is a function of answering the question. There’s a big difference between 1 in 5 and 1 in 4 (20 vs 24-25%).</p>
<p>I’m actually a phil major, so I know perfectly well how english works. Your example is actually wrong, at least as an except, because an inclusion of a sentence that has no direct relation to the previous sentence has violated a rule of english. If the except were drawn from a paragraph stating XYZ pertaining to Mike and stolen items together, then the except would be fine. However, as you’ve stated it you cannot infer that the cause of the fewer stolen efforts were because of him. Why? You’ve only stated that Mike was the RA and he held meetings in his room. Then you make a jump to stolen items and state that fewer items were stolen. Since you’ve provided no contextual evidence as to how Mike and the stolen items are related, no conclusions can be drawn. It would be okay to assume Mike was RA during those years because some relationship can be seen between Mike and the years, as the years are a supporting evidence. But, you would need more contextual evidence to support that the drop in crime rates were his cause. </p>
<p>(P1) Mike was RA
(P2) He held meetings in his room often
(P3) In 2003 to 2004 there were fewer stolen items
(C1) Mike is the cause of said drop in crime rate</p>
<p>Um… No. This argument is very clearly not valid. C1 does not follow from [P1, P2, P3]</p>
<p>However,</p>
<p>(P1) X was a dean
(P2) Applications to CAS tripled from 8,000 to 23,000
(P3) SAT scores rose from below 1200 to 1424
(P4) The acceptance rate dropped from 70% in 1991 to 24% this spring
(C1) The dean was the cause of said happenings namely, P1, P2 and P3</p>
<p>Argument is valid. C1 does follow from P1, P2, and P3. Sound though? Eh. Correlational evidence doesn’t provide causation. Point being that this except made sense, whereas yours did not and the inference you tried to make on your own excerpt isn’t valid.</p>
<p>Also… Examine the statement “the acceptance rate dropped from 70% in 1991 to 24% this spring” the first part of the statement says 70% in X year. Meaning that the acceptance rate being discussed is yearly acceptance rate. Why? Because 1991 is a year and without further supporting contrary evidence is has to be assumed that the acceptance rate in question was for the year. Since, it is required that you assume the conclusion with the evidence provided. “This spring” simply refers to this current year, 2011; as referring to yearly acceptance rate, as was done in the first part of sentence, is the only grammatically and syntactically correct deduction to make. Let me state it again, that the rules of english require that if a new reference is being made (time period, name, state of affairs, etc.) that has not been made previously, it must be introduced. E.g. I cannot say “Josh went to the store with Mike and she went with them.” I cannot use the pronoun “she” without first having introduced the person that “she” is referring to.</p>
<p>Also… Let’s do some math. You haven’t argued the # of applications. 23,000 applicants to CAS. Assume 24% acceptance rate. That’s what? 5,520. Yield at NYU is roughly? Common data set for NYU for 2008-2009 is 37%. I believe last I saw it was closer to 39% for this past year. Average 38% yield means… 2,097 students. Which is exactly 1/4 of the CAS student population. So yes, the acceptance rate would in fact have to be 24% for the incoming freshmen class. Unless you want argue that the number of applications and yield rate are wrong too?</p>
<p>Above instances of “except” should say “excerpt”; don’t know why it was apparently auto corrected to “except”.</p>
<p>umm guys…thanks for a lot of informations…
im not being sarcastic,
but yeah i learned that it’s pretty competitive to get into CAS
thank you NYU alumni!</p>
<p>No problem.</p>
<p>@NYU2013 I find it funny you tried to write a fully fledged premise->conclusion paper about it. My minor was in philosophy, so while I understand your attempt at pomp and circumstance, the emperor still has no clothes. Trust me, I decipher language for a living, spoken by people who are actively trying to deceive, have you infer things (which they can then deny ever saying), or simply attacking a loophole. That is classic misdirection.</p>
<p>The second sentence of “The acceptance rate dropped from 70% in 1991 to 24% this Spring” allows you to assume Spring = 2011. But in fact, it never says anything at all. “Our margins increased from 40% in 1991 to 50% this quarter” - Would you also assume this CFO meant the entire year by “this quarter”?</p>
<p>I like how you magically came up with a yield of 39% and decided to average it out. Do you have any citation at all for that figure?</p>
<p>You can’t infer “year” from “quarter”. If you do, you know nothing about business. So no, your example on inference is still wrong. As I keep stating, rule of english is that unless it states otherwise, the 2011 year inference is correct. Your job may very well be to decipher language. That has nothing to do with what the rules of english actually are. People speak and write poorly, it’s a plain fact of life; they may even not follow the rules properly. However, as that sentence is written, the rules of english would say that it is a present tense “this spring” and that it refers to the yearly acceptance rate, as the previous part of the statement did; since, if it wanted to refer to a different acceptance rate, it would have to state that acceptance rate. If it doesn’t state a different acceptance rate then, as far as the english language is concerned, it is referring to the already stated acceptance rate. I’ve worked for many lawyers, held many legal jobs, dealt with many legal write ups and documents, observed many cases and provided plenty of essential documentation for courts. I know perfectly well how attempts to deceive are supposed to work. However, you try to claim, essentially, that ‘vagueness’ (making inferences, leaving information out, etc.) is an acceptable form of attempted deception. It’s not. Being vague is the worst way to try and make a deceptive statement because then it leaves plenty of room for inferences and argumentation. The only way a vague statement would ever work is if the person you’re dealing with does not have the mental capacity or mental desire to cipher through the statement and parse the vagueness out. Otherwise, you’ve left too much room open for debate. </p>
<p>In all of your examples of how language can be “misunderstood” you have only made yourself look as though you don’t understand formal language or its’ use at all. “Have you infer things (then deny ever having said them)” Well clearly they can deny they ever said them because they actually never did. When you’re making an inference on something that was said, the speaker never actually said what you were supposed to or at least did infer, so the speaker has every right and grounds to deny ever having said what you inferred; because, in fact, they never did say it. Your other inferences from Mike being RA to Mike being the cause of the drop in crime rate was also an invalid example, as it was both vague and improper to assert that Mike was the cause the said drop in crime rate, as there are no grounds to claim such. It’s a conclusory statement lacking evidentiary properties.</p>
<p>USNWR reported a 39% yield. However, as USNWR changed their available free information, I no longer have access to that. But, that figure doesn’t make a difference. 37% yield, as reported by NYU, still equates to approximately 1/4 the size of the CAS undergraduate body.</p>
<p>That’s my point - you can’t infer “year” from “quarter.” Just as you can’t infer two semesters from “Spring.” You keep citing these rules of english which don’t actually exist - except in your mind. If you’ve done legal work, you’d know the whole reason for vague deception IS the fact that it leaves room for inferences and argumentation. People who do it WANT it to be legally debatable, because it’s infinitely better than being legally ironclad. If you don’t understand that, you didn’t learn very much at your job.</p>
<p>Your second paragraph was an interesting work at being clever “Well clearly they can deny they ever said them because they actually never did.” You say you dealt with legal briefs. Then you also (should) know the proportion of civil cases that surround exactly this issue. </p>
<p>Convenient on the lack of information. You can actually swing the yield quite a bit and still be “approximately 1/4” the size of the undergrad body. Just like (wait for it, wait for it), the acceptance rate!</p>