Does Relative Excellence Matter for Highly Selective Colleges?

[NiceUnparticularMan]

@ucbalumnus

so they can be expected to have advantages in admission even without an explicit legacy preference.

Yep. Perhaps somewhat ironically, this is sorta confirmed by what some colleges have said when explaining why they don’t have a formal legacy policy. Those colleges typically still admit and enroll legacies at disproportionate rates, but they claim they are just well qualified for admissions, and they see no need to give them any special treatment. Which is probably true in some sense, but in the context of holistic review admissions, that doesn’t mean they did not have an underlying advantage in terms of getting higher internal ratings for things like fit.

@MirandaKnight

I think you mentioned above that these schools want an inclusive environment but putting a finger on the scale for children of the former good old boys network seems to leave many feeling excluded if they manage to get accepted because of the high number of legacies who often have quite a bit in common with one another which can leave others out of such circles.

So what I was trying to communicate above is that many of these colleges have gotten a lot more inclusive in a variety of ways, but that doesn’t mean they have entirely abandoned using admissions policies to serve their institutional goals. And that is part of the case various colleges have made in defense of legacy policies. For example, they have sometimes argued that legacy policies eventually help with fundraising. This has been questioned by some empirical research, but some colleges seem to believe it anyway, and it is possible the empirical research is not quite capturing what they are actually seeing in their own internal data.

So yes, there is a very real tension there, but again these institutions are in a very competitive situation, they think very long term about how to succeed competitively, and they are constantly balancing different possible goals when setting admissions policies.

As an aside, speaking of empirical research, there is quite a bit of support for the proposition that for most people, going to a college like Harvard is not going to materially change something like their expected career earnings over going to a flagship public college. However, for a small percentage of people, it might make a difference in that they will get a lot higher earnings. This happens too at flagships, but the rate at which it happens appears somewhat higher at colleges like Harvard (but not high enough to involve more than still a small percentage of students).

I think why that might be happening is a complicated question, but at least part of it might well be attributable to the fact Harvard also has a higher concentration of students from already highly networked families. And if Harvard was only providing this benefit to such students, then it would not show up in these studies, because they were controlled for that factor. But, if sometimes, but not often, going to Harvard allowed some kids who did not start off in those networks to join those networks, then it would explain this effect, and its limits, pretty well.

Which is not exactly a very pretty picture. Put uncharitably, if you are not already an upper class kid but want to use Harvard to get yourself into the upper class, you may need to identify the upper class kids and work your way into their social circles. And most non-upper-class kids won’t do that.

And yet–unsavory or not, it makes sense. Indeed, it is broadly how this has worked since there has been a middle class (including upper middle class salaried professionals, smaller business owners, middle management, and so on). If you have middle class parents and are content being middle class yourself, then that is usually easy enough. If you have middle class parents and want to move into the upper class, however? That is much harder, but one of the ways to pull it off is to figure out how to get into their circles, indeed maybe even marry into their circles.

Anyway, point being when you are looking at these class things, yes, these colleges are still far from being egalitarian. And yet, that is very likely a large part of why so many kids value them so highly in comparison to their public options, even if they don’t quite think of it that way.

[MirandaKnight]

@NiceUnparticularMan

I think why that might be happening is a complicated question, but at least part of it might well be attributable to the fact Harvard also has a higher concentration of students from already highly networked families. And if Harvard was only providing this benefit to such students, then it would not show up in these studies, because they were controlled for that factor. But, if sometimes, but not often, going to Harvard allowed some kids who did not start off in those networks to join those networks, then it would explain this effect, and its limits, pretty well.

Yes, I’m familiar with the Chetty study but I have a different take from this benefit to the lower income than you do. It’s possible this boost for lower income students is due to networking - though I will point out as you said that even if it is networking, it may only affect a small portion of lower income students still leaving many out in the cold - but I think a far bigger part is just gaining knowledge that some students in the upper middle class are already privy to and thus, the networking boost is probably not the biggest reason behind this difference.

If you are in the lower classes, you will know of some careers while you will be completely shielded from others. For instance, people will know about lawyers, accountants, doctors etc but they will not even know of positions such as investment bankers, consultants, financial analysts etc. Often these people just do not have parents who rub shoulders with any person in these types of professions. I think this knowledge is far more concentrated and distilled in a school like Harvard than it is in a school like Berkeley. Also some of these positions are likely more obtainable from Harvard than from top public universities but then too it might be that the students who didn’t get into Harvard might not end up at a state flagship like Berkeley but rather their local regional school due to costs which then makes the comparison between the two groups even greater as the upper middle class will likely attend the state flagship. I am not saying that networking doesn’t play any role as I expect it does but I think these other factors may be a bigger contributor.

@NiceUnparticularMan

For example, they have sometimes argued that legacy policies eventually help with fundraising.

I do believe this is true but I’m surprised that they will openly admit that the reason for having legacy is money. I am sure they phrase is less crassly than that but that’s the bottom line. As for why they are so favored, I think it’s marketing more than anything else which is where all the money they raise comes in handy.

[MirandaKnight]

@HNH

This is exactly the kind of remote mind reading that is the road, especially for academic pursuits, to the judgment zone.

It’s not a judgment. It’s a fact. For probably 19 out of 20 students, pursuing activities just to get into some brand name college will end up being a waste of time. You mentioned stress before. The stress for these students comes from a focus of getting into these and only these colleges. If instead the student did pursue a project of interest - not to say passion but just one of interest - for the sole purpose of that goal, I think the student would find their time far more rewarding, especially because at the end of it all, they won’t feel demoralized if they are the 19 out of 20 that fail to secure a spot in the brand name they are chasing. Note that the worst mental health issues with regard to college admissions actually happens in coastal areas like the Bay Area where students seem to obsess over brand name schools rather than much of the rest of the country where they don’t even care to apply to a brand name. I don’t see how this information can empower them at all. What would empower them is to stop obsessing over a brand name, live their lives in the best way possible which does not mean living some carefree life but rather striving to better themselves by pursuing the interests they care about but balancing that with care toward their mental health and well being. If they really want to learn organic chemistry, that would be a fine thing to do but if they are choosing to use their time on this pursuit with the sole goal being to increase their chance for a brand name university, then they are very likely to be disappointed in the end and will feel as if they worked so hard for nothing which then leads to the demoralization you mention.

@HNH

You should read the ISEF finalist papers and work. No AP bio class gets anyone to the point of even remotely conceiving of many of these projects. That’s what the PhD is for. Assuming authenticity (which people with much better visibility than we online commentators like judges of the competition do assume) to understand mitochondrial DNA epigenetics even at a very basic level takes an enormous amount of self study of background molecular biology. But everyone here seems ok with ISEF assumedly because it’s a “brand name”

It’s not because ISEF is a brand name but rather because getting to compete in the ISEF is a very selective process. Here’s the difference. Lots of kids take organic chemistry DE or over the summer at a university or even some in their high schools now. In other words, there are too many students pursuing these activities with not enough seats at the top schools. What is a filter? Those kids who may or may not have pursued organic chemistry but who actually placed into the ISEF, especially the winners. since it’s far harder to be that kid who has to spend time designing an original project and defend that project to a bunch of judges than it is to just be one of the many kids who take organic chemistry in a classroom. Basically any kid can do the latter. It really doesn’t take anywhere near the initiative and drive that participating in the ISEF shows.

[HNH]

Just a lot more generalizations and preconceived notions. Participation in the ISEF has the most to do in our County with school support not divine inspiration. There are broad variations among schools - some have a paid ISEF coach, give academic credit for ISEF participation and perennially do well. Others have a dedicated research track that starts freshman year complete with lab placement and guidancel. Other schools with similar demographics and college placements (30% or more of the class go to T20 schools) have not had an ISEF entrant for a decade with no school support. So is it really all about amazing initiative and insight? In a lot of schools, ISEF functions more like a class in the curriculum.

These are details that we as internet commentators do not have and therefore should not be so quick to generalize about when assessing students or comparing accomplishments we know are recognized in the application process. Would it surprise anyone that a student who reached a later round in the ISEF from a school that historically had no winners or entrants stood out especially to the AO reader from that region? It is exactly that kind of granularity and perspective that defines the job of regional admissions officer. No award, course or project is evaluated for any candidate outside of their context which we do not have and shouldn’t presume to know. Because anyone who likes to study a lot can’t be worried about their mental health or live a balanced life!

Ever wonder why only in academics is the aperture for virtue and recognition so passionately contested and restrictive? Never heard anyone here debate whether the Tuba should be given even shrift with the Piano even though these are vastly different pursuits with vastly different general levels of excellence. How about jazz saxaphone vs. pottery? If you want to plow some extra hours in there, all good! But actually want to learn something? Let us check our list of acceptable pursuits and narrow aperture before we tell you that it’s a waste of time. No wait, actually a negative.

[HNH]

@Data10

Among the full unhooked applicant pool, 19.5% of applicants received a 2 or better. Among the lowest scoring ethnicity, 18% of applicants received a 2 or better. That’s a significant difference, but a smaller difference than many might assume from news articles about lawsuit. Following the lawsuit the reader guidleines were modified to state:

This overlooks the issue of mismatch and expected correlation. One would expect a strong correlation among students receiving the highest grade and EC evaluations and the personal score, at least given the verbiage to be drawn from the letters of recommendation “best this year”, “best of my career”, “among the best”. Unless teachers were giving the top grades to certain students but at the same time believing they were not the “best” students. And the discrepancy was not apparently with the alumni interviewers who actually met the students and whose evaluations in fact did strongly correlate with what would be expected despite the fact they were not provided the application, a list of EC’s nor grades.

[BKSquared]

Aside from the truly remarkable academic students (winners/finalists of national/internationally recognized awards), once a student passes certain hurdles: UW GPA>3.9 with rigor in math, science, English, social studies and foreign language; test scores >= 1500/34; demonstrable and consistent contributions in a few EC’s (including work/home care), IMO there is very little, if any, incremental value as far as admissions probability is concerned for gains in metrics in any of these areas. These “average excellent” candidates that gain admissions to the highly selective colleges have something else going for them that is not visible to any of us on CC. Beyond just the essays/short answers and LoR’s, we do not have an idea of the candidate packaged as a whole. What Yale AO’s tell me consistently is that between the essays, LoR’s, activities and academics, the successful candidates present a coherent and consistent picture of who they are, and who they are is someone they want to have on campus. Further, the AO’s are looking for diversity in interest, background and personalities. How they see you fitting is an important part of the equation and the comparative competition is not the 40,000 other applicants, or even the 10-15,000 other average excellents, but the smaller subset of the type of candidate you are being placed in.

[MirandaKnight]

@HNH

Participation in the ISEF has the most to do in our County with school support not divine inspiration. There are broad variations among schools - some have a paid ISEF coach, give academic credit for ISEF participation and perennially do well.

@HNH

In a lot of schools, ISEF functions more like a class in the curriculum.

Well then those students in your county are rather privileged and I am sure that this is taken into context at the university level. In other words, it’s probably far less impressive to enter into the ISEF from your county than the vast majority of counties in the country. Note though that even with all this help, only usually a couple of students in any given county are chosen to participate in the ISEF. It doesn’t matter if at some schools ISEF functions more like a class since very few participants in that class will actually be ISEF participants in any given year. Those will be much more likely to be picked to enter a T20 than the rest of the class who just participated. Consider it like any competition. Lots of people are runners but only some manage to make it into their state level competitions and even fewer place nationally and even fewer place internationally. Every level of competition one places into is likely a boost to these schools. The top level winners are likely the only ones getting the Academic 1 rating much like recruited athletes would be those getting 1 in Athletics.

@HNH

. Would it surprise anyone that a student who reached a later round in the ISEF from a school that historically had no winners or entrants stood out especially to the AO reader from that region?

Yes which is part of the context. A person who just places into the ISEF from a region where historically there are no winners is probably looked upon more favorably than a student from that school in your county given all the help the latter receives. By the way, this would be the same with taking DE courses. If a student is the only one in a county who is taking organic chemistry, that might very well help the student stand out in a positive way. The issue is that the numbers taking organic chem is much higher than the numbers participating in the actual ISEF (not just taking some high school ISEF class) since, by definition, for the ISEF, we are talking about only a couple from any county. Also class work - even garnering an A - is really not comparable to being a student picked by judges based on their work to represent their county in the largest international science competition in the country. Coaches can help, of course, but it’s a bit like running. Many students may have the same coach but only a couple ended up placing well in the county and even fewer will win the next level. By the way, this is the same with music competitions or any other competition.

@HNH

Ever wonder why only in academics is the aperture for virtue and recognition so passionately contested and restrictive?

Honestly, I don’t know what you are talking about here or for the rest of the paragraph. I would tell the tuba player, the student trying to participate in the ISEF, the runner and the piano player the exact same thing. Pursue these goals if they interest you as all of these activities will enrich you but if your goal for pursuing it is to get into a top 20, then you are better off doing something you’re interested in because none of these things will guarantee entry into a top 20. Even the athletic boost which is the strongest is no guarantee as the student has to be at the recruitment level for the boost. If the goal is to get into a brand name and the student doesn’t, then it could lead to the demoralization you mention. However, if they are interested and really enjoy what they are doing then whether they end up in a bran name school or not doesn’t matter. They will not feel demoralized but rather very happy that they spent their time doing what they enjoy and learning along the way.

[Data10]

@HNH

This overlooks the issue of mismatch and expected correlation. One would expect a strong correlation among students receiving the highest grade and EC evaluations and the personal score, at least given the verbiage to be drawn from the letters of recommendation “best this year”, “best of my career”, “among the best”. Unless teachers were giving the top grades to certain students but at the same time believing they were not the “best” students.

That wasn’t analyzed… or at least wasn’t emphasized. They didn’t lists stats for a student by student analysis on which students had high LORs, grades, and ECs vs personal ratings. What was instead emphasized was a correlation between personal rating and academic index decile. 2/3 of academic index decile is composed of scores. Personal qualities ratings didn’t follow AI, with much consistency. And when controlling for AI (mostly test scores), some groups had substantially higher/lower average personal quality ratings than other groups with similarly high AI / test scores . Many kids with near perfect SAT scores didn’t get top personal qualities rating.

The regression analysis for personal quality ratings didn’t list stats for other admission reader ratings, such as ECs or LORs . It did include various other factors. Some non-demographic factors that were especially correlated with personal qualities rating after full controls include SES disadvantaged, and NOT being a male who is majoring in CS (much lesser CS effect for females). Both were more notable than legacy. The regression analysis found little connection between AI and personal qualities rating, with full controls. There was a correlation in isolation, but that correlation largely disappeared after adding more controls, suggesting that AI or test scores wasn’t the driving force behind personal qualities rating.

.

[MirandaKnight]

@HNH

This overlooks the issue of mismatch and expected correlation. One would expect a strong correlation among students receiving the highest grade and EC evaluations and the personal score, at least given the verbiage to be drawn from the letters of recommendation “best this year”, “best of my career”, “among the best”. Unless teachers were giving the top grades to certain students but at the same time believing they were not the “best” students. And the discrepancy was not apparently with the alumni interviewers who actually met the students and whose evaluations in fact did strongly correlate with what would be expected despite the fact they were not provided the application, a list of EC’s nor grades.

Sorry but you’re making some big assumptions here with regard to what you see as a mismatch.

For instance, there are some schools in the Bay Area that have lots of students with extremely high grades and extremely good ECs (some might be ISEF winners some are winning CS competitions, some are winning piano competitions etc) so how is a teacher to say that this is the best student this year or the best of my career when there may be quite a few students in a given class that are very impressive. Again it’s all about context.

The discrepancy may not be with the alumni but it would be interesting to see how big of a discrepancy there is between the school and the alumni. Note though that some of the press is likely reporting on the average personal rating which includes legacy which does in fact have a way higher boost in this category than non-legacies, seemingly regardless of race.

[momofboiler1]

Repeating the mod note from this morning that CC is not a debate society. Take it to PM if you find yourself responding repeatedly to the same poster.

[tsbna44]

What’s the topic again ?

[fiftyfifty1]

@HNH

How about jazz saxaphone vs. pottery? If you want to plow some extra hours in there, all good! But actually want to learn something? Let us check our list of acceptable pursuits and narrow aperture before we tell you that it’s a waste of time. No wait, actually a negative.

I am having more and more trouble following you as this thread goes on. Jazz saxophone vs. pottery? I did not know they were in competition.

I am sitting here drinking coffee from a Warren Mckenzie tea bowl. Sublime. To make the experience complete, perhaps I’ll play the CD of the jazz saxophonist I know.

I would be thrilled if either of my kids became a potter or a jazz musician. I don’t support the concept of the “passion project.” But I do encourage my kids to explore things that pique their interest.

[MirandaKnight]

@Data10

It did include various other factors. Some non-demographic factors that were especially correlated with personal qualities rating after full controls include SES disadvantaged, and NOT being a male who is majoring in CS (much lesser CS effect for females). Both were more notable than legacy. The regression analysis found little connection between AI and personal qualities rating, with full controls. There was a correlation in isolation, but that correlation largely disappeared after adding more controls, suggesting that AI or test scores wasn’t the driving force behind personal qualities rating.

Not sure what AI refers to? Is this Academic Index?

This bit about males wanting to major in CS is very interesting. I expect many of these applicants would appear somewhat similar so reading through many of these apps is likely to instill a “seen this before” kind of response, impacting the personal rating.

However, I also wonder if the personal rating can be used - not even intentionally but due to the above effect - as a way to keep a cap on students who all declare the same major. I know these schools don’t admit by major but how do they ensure they don’t fill the class up with tons of students who just want CS? How can they ensure that they have enough students who are majoring in Russian lit or Classics? Places like Oxford admit by major and have very few spots for CS so it’s one of the toughest admits and I think has one of the highest rates of state school cohorts while a major such as Classics which has one of the highest private school cohorts is relatively easy in comparison. I would expect this is also true in America in that many people entering the Classics are likely to hail from private schools while more CS majors by percent would be from some of the highly competitive state schools. Note that many of the Classics majors also skew White and would likely in this country probably draw heavily from the legacy/affluent pool while their CS cohort was more diverse both with regard to race but also socioeconomically which seems to be the case here as well. There was even mention (I think in an Oxford report but could be incorrect on that) that people from upper classes are less concerned about major while in the lower classes, they seem far more interested in certain majors such as CS, medicine (it’s an undergrad program in the UK), economics etc some of which are those that are highly impacted at many public flagships here.

What would be interesting would be a breakdown of personal ratings by intended major. Also intended major by demographics. What if part of the perceived discrimination is really due to too many students all competing for too few spaces in their intended major?

[Data10]

@MirandaKnight

Not sure what AI refers to? Is this Academic Index?

Yes, academic index. At the time of the lawsuit academic index was calculated as 1/3 grades and 2/3 test scores.

@MirandaKnight

What would be interesting would be a breakdown of personal ratings by intended major. Also intended major by demographics. What if part of the perceived discrimination is really due to too many students all competing for too few spaces in their intended major?

For overall chance of admission, the regression analysis found that prospective CS majors majors may have had a slight advantage. This was back before CS was an especially popular major, so sample size of prospective CS majors was too low to say with certainty. Specific regression coefficients by intended major are below for unhooked males. The regression analysis considers gender/race, hook status, academic index, and many other factors. The numbers below can be thought of the degree of influence from chance of major among students who rank similar in all of the above factors and more. I am using the regression model that does not consider personal rating, in case this rating is suspect. It certainly doesn’t look like Harvard had anything negative towards admission of CS majors at the time of this analysis. All of these numbers except for undecided major are quite small, with a relatively large standard error… perhaps too small to be statistically significant. If there is an admission advantage/disadvantage for different majors, the effect at Harvard was much smaller than a traditional hook. This of course can differ at other colleges, particularly ones that do not have open major enrollment with no max major enrollment limit, such as many publics.

Regression Coefficients for Chance of Admission (56% of variance explained)
Humanities: +0.21
Computer Science: +0.19
Physical Sciences: +0.03
Social Sciences: +0.00 (Reference)
Biology: -0.03
Engineering: -0.08
Mathematics: -0.28
Undecided: -1.30 (statistically significant)

The regression coefficients for personal rating in the same model are below. Note that the variance explained drops substantially, with the bulk of the personal rating not being explained by the model. As such, take results with a grain of salt. The majors with higher and lower ratings change substantially from the analysis on overall chance of admission. If Harvard wanted to reduce chance of admission for CS majors there are far more effective ways to do so than messing with personal rating. It also doesn’t fit with there appearing to be slight increased chance of admission overall for CS majors that overrides this lower average personal rating. Why penalize on personal, if you are going to give a stronger boost later on in the process?

Instead I expect that admit readers really believed that male CS majors on average scored lower in the metrics that Harvard considers as part of their personal rating. The description of a score 2 (increased chance of admission) is quoted below. I would not be at all surprised if students who meet this description do not show the same major distribution as the overall applicant pool, leading to some majors averaging higher personal ratings than others. This also fits with alumni interviews showing the same pattern, with male CS majors having a lower average personal rating than other majors… almost to exactly the same degree as admin readers. The general pattern of STEM heavy majors ranking lower in college admission average personal qualities measures has been observed at other colleges as well.

Personal Rating = 2:
Very strong qualities of character; student may demonstrate strong leadership. Student may exhibit a level of maturity beyond their years. Student may exhibit uncommon genuineness, selflessness or humility in their dealings with others. Students may possess strong resiliency. Student receives very strong support from their recommenders.

Regression Coefficients for Personal Rating (29% of variance explained)
Social Sciences: +0.00 (Reference)
Undecided: -0.03
Humanities: -0.07
Biology: -0.14
Engineering: -0.24
Physical Sciences: -0.30
Mathematics: -0.37
Computer Science: -.0.52

[hebegebe]

@SJ2727

Or it may stress them out even as more as they feel their 1580 and captain of only 2 varsity teams isn’t enough to get them all the 1s they need…

The mistake is thinking that is worthy of any “1” ratings. Students may have an idea of what excellent performance means in their school, but the vast majority of applicants have no idea what it means to excel nationally. It’s certainly not a 1580 SAT or being captain of two varsity teams.

[hebegebe]

@NiceUnparticularMan

But they are NOT looking for those kids to ruin their childhoods, and mental and physical health, trying to eke out the last 1% of achievement success just so they can get into Harvard.

Instead, they want those kids to actually have the sort of childhood that will lead to them being happy, well-adjusted, successful people in college, and then in life after that as well.

I think this is exactly right.

Stated another way, elite schools don’t want students that were pushed into excelling at the cost of everything else. They want those where the talent and drive to excel was natural, and was achieved without the student giving up sleep, and other activities including a good social life.

[NiceUnparticularMan]

I’ve sometimes seen those subset types referred to as “buckets”. Basically, institutional priorities lead to buckets, buckets need to be filled. And in fact, one year you might make it into a bucket, a different year not, because they are small enough sometimes to have significant variation in the competitive pool year to year. Right down to being waitlisted and not knowing if enough kids in your bucket will enroll before they get to you . . . .

This is not quite random, or not what I think a lot of people mean by that term. But it is a large source of unpredictability. What buckets does this college have? What does the competitive pool look like this year for any bucket I might fit into?

And I guess some kids find that stressful, but I really feel like it shouldn’t be.

You don’t get admitted somewhere you were competitive. Well, maybe it was just a tough year for your bucket at that college. Not your fault, but if you had a good list, some other college you are excited about had a bucket that it was equally excited to fill with you.

And that is a fine outcome.

[ucbalumnus]

@NiceUnparticularMan

What buckets does this college have?

Some colleges makes some of the buckets explicit by admitting by major or division (i.e. arts and sciences, engineering, business). But there may be other dimensions of buckets that are not mutually exclusive to those (e.g. a small college with a full set of sports teams may give a significant boost to non-recruited athletes to provide a pool of potential walk-ons).

[MirandaKnight]

@Data10

If Harvard wanted to reduce chance of admission for CS majors there are far more effective ways to do so than messing with personal rating. It also doesn’t fit with there appearing to be slight increased chance of admission overall for CS majors that overrides this lower average personal rating. Why penalize on personal, if you are going to give a stronger boost later on in the process?

As I said, it may not be intentional but rather a side effect of too many applicants who want to major in one specific field sounding too similar that the personal rating ends up being penalized. A student who is studying the Classics and shows a high level of interest in this area is going to stand out far more from the applicant pool vs another student interested in medicine, for instance.

The CS boost in admissions is odd and seems like a real outlier, especially as you would think the Personal Score which was the lowest would have had more of a negative effect in the admissions process but it is possible that the school suddenly expanded the CS program due to increased interest in CS thus boosting admissions with increased number of seats. I wonder if these values change over the 10 year period.

By the way, the list for Personal Rating may actually follow this trend. There are quite a few students who wish to major in biology (often pre-med) and engineering, for instance. It would be interesting to know how many applicants with a given intended major there are compared to how many students graduate from that major. While CS would be nowhere near as common back then, it is very likely even then there were far more CS applicants than students declaring an interest in Russian literature, for instance. There are also far more spaces for CS so the question is what is that ratio of applicant to slots for the intended majors? I know technically at these schools there are no “slots” but there are only so many faculty and only so many students they can allow into a class. Plus, they need some students to enroll in those Classics classes etc.