Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

So why do YOU think Penn apps went down?


Replies to: So why do YOU think Penn apps went down?

  • 45 Percenter45 Percenter Registered User Posts: 4,275 Senior Member
    It should be pointed out that the RD increase last year was because Penn opened it up to the Common App
    Well, it was partially attributable to that. But Penn still accepted the same number of RD applicants as it had the year before, and its yield on those RD admits actually went up a bit. So the overall increase wasn't just "casual" common app applicants who had no real interest in attending Penn.
    ohyeah wrote:
    the problem is not going down for few percentage, instead , is " it doesn't go up!"

    Again, lets see how the overall application numbers pan out this year, and then see how they hold up over the next couple of years, before we determine that there's a "problem". Small variations from year to year really don't tell us much.
  • theSATmastertheSATmaster Registered User Posts: 154 Junior Member
    It might just merely be slightly worse recruiting on Penn's part. One of the jobs of the office of admissions is to recruit as many students to apply as possible so that the school can drive down their acceptance rate. It might just be that rather than focusing on unimportant statistics, Penn's admissions officers allocated their time more efficiently...

    just a thought...
  • truazn8948532truazn8948532 Registered User Posts: 1,512 Senior Member
    I think it's the crime. It's been very well publicized recently. But then again, all the hate crimes at Columbia didn't cause a drop in ED applicants (4% increase).
  • ilovebagelsilovebagels Registered User Posts: 3,499 Senior Member
    That's because "hate crimes" are a sad farce, injuring nobody but the members of the victimization-industrial complex (and of course any 'injury' simply serves to get yet MORE funding and institutional support for 'diversity' 'sensitivity' 'ethic studies' and other hogwash that ultimately makes the professional victim class even more powerful and more oversensitive, all at the expense of the Core that makes Columbia so great and me so envious of it from time to time)

    To call that "crime" compared to the real, serious crime that Penn must deal with is laughable.
  • red&bluered&blue Registered User Posts: 170 Junior Member
    Bages, you've just made one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard on this site (and that's saying a lot). You ignore about 400 years of unfortunate American history - racist and xenophobic attacks against blacks, Irish, Italians, hispanics, Asians, Muslims and Jews. None of it is ever justified.

    Overcoming these hatreds are a reason that American society is still (despite our best efforts sometimes) a beacon for people all over the world. They either want to come here or model parts of their culture after us.

    So, be a dear and keep your racist rantings [disguised as concern for Penn's admissions office] to yourself.
  • pretfunpretfun Registered User Posts: 81 Junior Member
    ^I didnt quite understand the sentence..'overcoming...efforts'
    Are you like really adverse towards internationals??
  • red&bluered&blue Registered User Posts: 170 Junior Member
    Not at all. American society has - through long and painful decades become more and more true to its ideals - equal treatment under the law, opportunity for people to advance, true and open possibilities for all. People forget but only one or two generations ago, women, Hispanics, blacks, and Jews were overtly and completely forbidden from large sectors of society (higher ed, business world, finance, certain beaches, neighborhoods, voting booths, etc.). At the beginning of the 20th century, southern Europeans and Irishmen were described as the scum of humanity and many politicos/businessmen/academics tried their very very best to keep them out of the country.

    Fortunately, the conservative bias towards the status quo which historically favored one religion/ethnicity is fading (but not gone - hence the OP and its biased creator). It won't be gone soon enough.

    All people, including internationals as you call them are welcome; they make America stronger.
  • 6y6y66y6y6 Registered User Posts: 227 Junior Member
    It's getting cosy in here since we've started to get some serious analyses tracing back the whole history of the United States of America.

    We shall see...

    Btw, the new Dean of Admission is Kaplan. It implies that they're gonna pay more attention to your SAT scores this year. jk :D
  • ilovebagelsilovebagels Registered User Posts: 3,499 Senior Member
    Oh please. To call someone "racist" because they disagree with institutionalized "diversity" and "sensitivity" programs and a dilution of the Western canon is poor rhetorical form at best and intellectually disingenuous at worst.
  • LucaskhanLucaskhan Registered User Posts: 630 Member
    lol @ 6y6y6y6y6y6y6y6
  • red&bluered&blue Registered User Posts: 170 Junior Member
    Intellectually disingenuous.......come on now. If you're man enough to put the words online, be man enough to defend them.

    You wrote "That's because "hate crimes" are a sad farce, injuring nobody but the members of the victimization-industrial complex .........MORE funding and institutional support for 'diversity' 'sensitivity' 'ethic studies' and other hogwash ........... all at the expense of the Core that makes Columbia so great and me so envious of it ....."

    You've made your point clear, as did I. You call "hate crimes" farces....hmm, perhaps these Columbia incidents are blown out of proportion but that's more because of where they happened than anything else. There are plenty of victims of hate crimes who have been deeply harmed, mentally abused or killed as part of your "farces". The real shame is that the dollars thrown at diversity (which aren't that large I can assure you) isn't producing change fast enough.

    Victim-industrialization complex...did you learn that term at a summer course at Bob Jones Univ? Ah, no because conservative Christians view themselves as victims too... so that can't be it.

    If you want to revel in the glories of the Western canon and not have to ensure the inconvenient sufferings of non-white people, you should really go to school in North Dakota, Scotland or Scandinavia. Or Dartmouth - they'll give you the "purity" you seek.
  • ilovebagelsilovebagels Registered User Posts: 3,499 Senior Member
    If you actually look into these incidents, you'll find that the best way to deal with such pity nonsense would be to ignore them.

    Instead of ignoring them we got a full-blown sensitivity crisis and loads of publicity which has resulted in--surprise surprise, more copycat nooses showing up around the country.

    Once again I don't appreciate being branded a racist because of my deep philosophical disagreements with any corporatist solution to racism
  • pretfunpretfun Registered User Posts: 81 Junior Member
    @red&;blue:wow! highly intellectual reply!
    And yeah I got your point-you are not in an way adverse towards internationals.
    Thanks and (sorry!).
  • red&bluered&blue Registered User Posts: 170 Junior Member
    Bagels, the way to deal with hate crimes should be proportionate to the crime itself (so physical attacks, murders, intense psychological assaults merit strong responses; racist graffiti and such should be catalogued and announced but doesn't require a "show of force"), but in NO case should hate crimes be ignored. That is my perspective; blacks I think tolerate too many hate crimes silently; Muslims are starting to find a voice of outrage for hate crimes; Jews have zero tolerance.

    But few groups ignore hate crimes which is what you advocate. That approach simply lets this social cancer fester and deepen. It's an implicit approval of hateful activities, which are against what American means to so many.

    I didn't attack you as racist; I think your statements and perspective are biased and extremely uninformed. I can only hope this exchange has made you consider another view on hate crimes.

    A balanced approach to these issues is what's needed, but it has to be an approach (not silent complicity). God Bless the American Ideal, my friend.
  • Percy SkivinsPercy Skivins Registered User Posts: 566 Member
    I'm with Bagels on this - the whole idea of "hate crime" is hokey and exists because there are a group of people who make a living from being "victims" - Jackson, Sharpton, etc.

    The Upper West Side is not some hotbed of racism - if someone hung a noose on a TC professors door it was either the professor herself (this has been known to happen) or had nothing to do with "racism" in the classic Mississippi Burning sense. The last real lynching by hanging in the US took place perhaps in the 1930s - there is hardly anyone alive who remembers a "real" lynching (thank goodness). We are long past that, but some people have an interest in making us believe that we aren't - that Upper West Side 2007 is the same as Alabama 1927. The publicity generated by these "hate crimes" does not contribute to social peace - it just stirs up more ill feeling.

    It's easy to be over-inclusive and label as "hate" thing that aren't - this Halloween there were all sorts of cases of people being accused because they hung up some dummy with a noose - the same dummy with a noose that they have been hanging for the last 20 years but now suddenly they are "racists" without even knowing it.

    If there is a physical attack or a murder, we already have plenty of laws against that and the jury/sentencing judge can take racist or other bad motives into account on sentencing. "Psychological assault", graffiti, etc. fall into a gray area - remember that the First Amendment is there expressly to protect unpopular speech - we don't need a Constitution to protect our right to say things that everyone agrees with anyway. So what good are these laws other than for ensnaring the unwary so they can have a show trial for the public, a modern PC version of McCarthyism? Are you now or have you ever been a racist? Remember the famous "Water Buffalo" case at Penn? (Google it if you don't). I think the case of Imus is illustrative - in retrospect, was it worth ruining this man's career because of one careless remark?
This discussion has been closed.