<p>I know that there is a relationship between admission rate and the quality of the students in the college, but how heavily should I consider that, when selecting matches? How significant is that rate? I’m not sure how to qualify a university a match, aside from digging on this website, looking at stats of students who get accepted, and checking its rank on US New Reports. How important is its rank? How do I check the qualitative data on the school, reliably, meaning the quality of the programs for concentrations?</p>
<p>The most selective schools (gauged by admission rates) are the absolute very best schools. The kicker is that they may be terrible for you, given you.</p>
<p>The only exception to this rule is the University of Alabama, which is peerless.</p>
<p>look at freshman retention rate!</p>
<p>To answer how important rank is, consider the things US News considers in it’s methodology. You can find it on their website. Personally, I think that US News’s ranking system is designed to maintain the status quo and sell magazines more than it is designed to actually compare schools. Furthermore, I think it’s somewhat impossible to give a hardcore quantitative ranking to all schools. I think it possible to qualitatively lump them into large groups - the “top 10,” the “top 25,” so on and so forth.</p>
<p>Is selectivity (admissions rate) important? Well, first of all, I’m not sure that there’s a relationship between admission rate and “quality of students,” since that’s a very ambiguous term. What does quality mean? Test scores? Grades? Community service? Participation in extracurriculars? Critical thinking skills? There’s likely a correlation between selectivity of a school and the SAT/ACT scores of their incoming classes. But I don’t think there’s a rough correlation of quality of students and selectivity necessarily, or if there is one, it’s very weak. It’s not that I believe that the students at a regional state public are the same quality as Harvard students, but I mean that there may not be so much of a gap between the average student at Juniata and the average student at Swarthmore. You have to remember that there are other reasons why bright students don’t attend the very best colleges, including cost.</p>
<p>The other thing is that some schools are self-selecting. Wellesley is in the top 10 liberal arts colleges, but it has an admissions rate of 30%. Comparatively, Amherst’s is 13%, Swarthmore’s is 14%, Middlebury’s is 17%, and Haverford’s is 23%. But Wellesley is a women’s college, which means its applicant poll is smaller than Amherst or Swarthmore’s. Wellesley had about half the applicants that Amherst had.</p>
<p>Hmm… Subjectively describing the “quality of students” based on what the colleges want. The lower the selectivity, the more picky the college is in maintaining their standard of quality. Quality meaning… holistically chosen students? I think that’s what I had intended.
I don’t know how to interpret the information given on say, a comparison of colleges (I personally selected) on the College Board website. The information given to compare the colleges includes the selectivity, and it’s mere presence in the comparison falsely leads me to think it really plays a part in how much I should consider the college based on that information.</p>
<p>The best college for any particular student may have nothing to do with national rankings. It depends upon your desired major (how good do employers think the school is?), cost (how much debt will you be in upon graduation - or if you don’t graduate?), and fit (happy students tend to do better and enjoy their years more).</p>
<p>Also, remember, the smaller a school is, the easier it is to be selective. Take the same 1500 - 4000 students out of a state flagship and you could find awfully similar stats, but expand that flagship to 15,000 to 25,000 (or more sometimes) and the stats get diluted.</p>
<p>Top kids spread out among many schools. The “intelligent” ones find the right school for them based upon major or desired field, cost, and fit. National ranking means nothing to the vast majority of people including most employers. There are a couple of fields where this differs, but that goes back to picking the best school based upon your desired major or field - choosing based upon what employers think. If you’re not sure what employers think, find a couple of employers in your desired field and ASK them. If they offer a variety of schools, then you can go more with cost and fit. If they all mention the same names, I’d stick with the best fit of those schools if possible. They may, or may not, be in the national Top anything. For instance, when my youngest son thought he wanted tropical ethnobotany, EVERY single person we talked with suggested the University of Hawaii at Manoa. That appears to be the best in that specific field according to those in the field - regardless of any national rankings overall.</p>
<p>The way I see it is that good universities usually, but not always, have lower acceptance rates, but having a lower acceptance rate does not make a university good. There are always exceptions to the rule of course. Smaller universities, affordable universities and universities located in populated/popular areas tend to have lower acceptance rates.</p>
<p>Admissions rates are affected by the number of applicants. That number can certainly be manipulated, just look at any school switching to the Common Application. It’s not unusual to see application numbers jump 25% after the switch just because it’s suddenly more convenient to apply to a school. Is a college suddenly 25% ‘better’ because the admit rate dropped by 25%? Next year if Stanford saw a drop from 34,000 applications to 17,000 would it be 50% ‘worse’?</p>
<p>Admit rates speak to desirability to attend, for whatever reason, not to the actual quality of the education or intelligence of the student body.</p>
<p>The above poster is right: It’s all about the number who apply.</p>
<p>Many people apply just for the heck of it. Usually with an expectation to get rejected. Other schools have fewer applicants because they aren’t part of the common application process or they have some quirky essays or they introduce new things to their process.</p>
<p>A recent example of this is Boston College. This year, Boston College introduced extra supplemental essays for the first time. These aren’t hard to do–really just 200 worded essays. Yet the number of applications dropped massively:</p>
<p>[Boston-area</a> colleges see an overall increase in applications, except at Boston College - BC - Your Campus - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/yourcampus/news/bc/2013/01/boston-area_colleges_see_an_overall_increase_in_applications_except_at_boston_college.html]Boston-area”>http://www.boston.com/yourcampus/news/bc/2013/01/boston-area_colleges_see_an_overall_increase_in_applications_except_at_boston_college.html)</p>
<p>26% drop in applications! That’s insane. Do you think BC has changed that much in a year? The answer is likely no. Many people don’t realize this, but 3 or 5 years ago, U of Chicago had acceptance rates at about 27%. </p>
<p>But this is what happens. Think of this from a mathematical perspective:</p>
<p>Acceptance Rate = # that get in / # that apply</p>
<p>The numerator (# that get in) usually stays fairly constant overtime. In the very long-term that might change due to differences in yield, or whatever, but in general, it stays constant. Indeed, the number of available seats at an institution doesn’t change! But the denominator (# that apply) does change depending on crazy factors such as introducing essays or going to the common app.</p>
<p>Now, even if an institution has a drop in applicants, it can still limit the number that get in. That’s because they might expect their yield to be higher or even that they had more people than they expected enroll so they are balancing it all out. But again, in general, this will balance out over several years and this usually is minimal.</p>
<p>FYI, when I say this would change in the long-term, I meant SUPER long term–new departments are built, new dorms, whatever.I mean, the number of people at almost every institution is different from 40+ years ago.</p>
<p>So I think it’s misleading to go purely based off that because it’s very easy to influence.</p>
<p>buzzers, Chicago’s acceptance rate 7 years ago was 40%. This year, it will drop below 15%. Same with Michigan. Three years ago, Michigan’s acceptance rate was 50%. This year, it should drop to 30%. In both cases, joining the common application acted as catalyst.</p>
<p>Those two universities have not improved suddenly as a result of the drop in their admit rates. Both have been academic powerhouses and among the most respected universities in the country since the 19th century. In fact, they were both among the 12 original founders of the AAU.</p>
<p>Enough has been said about the nature of the admission rate. Carnegie Mellon and Case Western Reserve have higher admission rates but offer high quality education. So do some LACs in the Midwest.</p>
<p>I always look for what I call “admissions bargains”–schools that offer high quality academics but have higher acceptance rates than their peer institutions. A prime example is the former Seven Sisters women’s colleges. Someone already mentioned Wellesley which is perennially ranked among the top 5 or 6 LACs in the country, but has an acceptance rate (31% in 2011) roughly double that of other top LACs. But you also have Smith (45.5%), Bryn Mawr (46.3%), and Mount Holyoke (51.5%), all top 25 or top 30 LACs but with the highest admit rates in that category. Why? Well, roughly half of all HS seniors are male and are automatically excluded from the applicant pool, and probably half or more of the women exclude themselves by deciding they won’t apply to any women’s colleges. It has nothing to do with academic quality. (The exception here is Barnard, with a 25% admit rate, but Barnard’s a special case because so many students want to be in New York City, and because Barnard is institutionally affiliated with Columbia and Barnard students can take unlimited Columbia classes, which for many takes the edge off the women’s college thing while also allowing Barnard to bask in Columbia’s Ivy glow).</p>
<p>Then there are the Midwestern LACs. US News currently ranks Carleton the #8 LAC and it’s perennially in the top 10, often in the top 5 or so; it’s got really outstanding academics. But it’s located in Northfield, Minnesota. Some people on the East Coast consider the entire Midwest “flyover land,” and many people in other parts of the country think Minnesota’s too cold, so Carleton’s admit rate is 31%, same as Wellesley’s. Again, it has nothing to do with academic quality. Grinnell, another outstanding Midwestern LAC, had an admit rate of 50.9% in 2011; it’s located in a small town in the middle of the Iowa cornfields, and a lot of people see that as an even less desirable destination than Northfield, MN. Everyone I know who ever attended Grinnell just raves about the quality of the school and the quality of their college experience, but a school like Grinnell is hungry for highly qualified applicants to fill up its class, and unfortunately probably has to reach a little lower than it would like into the applicant pool. If you’re a highly qualified applicant, Grinnell is an “admissions bargain.” It’s the kind of school that, were it located in New England, would probably have an admit rate under 20%.</p>
<p>
These schools have improved their undergraduate student bodies in terms of academic aptitude in the past 5 years or so when the admissions dive occurred. SAT/ACT ranges and HS GPAs of enrolled students are way up for the U of Chicago and the U of Michigan.</p>
<p>How is that not an improvement? The strength of the student body is perhaps the greatest contributor to a university’s ability to deliver a “quality undergraduate education”. Michigan and Chicago students have stronger peers to study with now than they ever did in the early 1990s for example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Alexandre means they haven’t improved suddenly in quality and become more desirable due to that.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t subscribe to the whole “low acceptance rates means a better school” thing. A school can have a 60-75% acceptance rate and still be really good.</p>
<p>vinceh alluded to this, but should also recognize that schools actively game the system by encouraging applications from students who aren’t even a fit. My S has gotten numerous “apply for free” solicitations from schools that would neither fit nor interest him. The colleges are well aware of the U.S. News & World Report ranking mechanisms and actively try to manipulate them…</p>
<p>It should be noted that acceptance rates can be very skewed… If a lot of people apply to a certain school, naturally the acceptance rate will be lower.</p>
<p>A good example is Baruch College, which has an acceptance rate of 23%, whereas CMU has an acceptance rate of 30%. As far as I’m concerned, Baruch College is nowhere near the prestige of Carnegie Mellon.</p>
<p>You also have to consider the size of the school. A lot of large but good state schools have relatively high acceptance rates, such as U of Michigan (40) and UCLA (22), but these schools are so big that while the level of academics is still very high, many more people are admitted making the school appear less selective and academically strong.</p>
<p>Surprised no one has mentioned the influence of marketing and promotions. Some colleges bombard high school students with glossy catalogs and flattering letters that give the m the idea that they have a chance when they don’t. Some waive admissions fees for “selected” students or those who apply online. Both of these things can cause a significant bump in applications and have nothing to do with the quality of the applicants or the college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, UCLA admitted 21% for fall 2012 (18% for in state residents.) </p>
<p>21% is on the low end of acceptance rates. Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Cornell, and Rice, and Georgetown have around 18% acceptance rates; Notre Dame has a 24% acceptance rate, and Emory has a 26%. Comparing universities which differ in 2-3 percentage points is much more fair than comparing two that have an 18% difference in acceptance rates. (i.e. UCLA and Michigan.)</p>
<p>If you notice, after the top 25 in US NEWS, most universities are in the 30%-50% acceptance rates ranges.</p>
<p>[National</a> University | Rankings | Data | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/data/page+2]National”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/data/page+2)</p>
<p>I’m not sure what preconceived notions you had about ‘high acceptance rates’ but I can assure you that only a handful, or perhaps two, universities in the US have a <15% acceptance rate.</p>
<p>“I can assure you that only a handful, or perhaps two, universities in the US have a <15% acceptance rate.”</p>
<p>I am not sure you mean what your sentence mean, but I can see 11 universities with a <15% acceptance rate with the link you provided for Fall 2011 admission rates. (Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, UPenn, Stanford, Duke and Columbia. Highest acceptance rate from this list was Duke at 14%)</p>