[Nan3cy]

Interesting about UCLA. I wonder if it's the same for state universities elsewhere. I dimly remember that when my son's friends were applying for colleges 15 or so years ago, it was exactly the opposite at the University of Virginia. At that time, it was apparently darned near impossible to get in from out of state, but a fairly manageable (don't remember the number, but thinking 30-35%) admissions rate from in state.

[Nan3cy]

Interesting about UCLA. I wonder if it's the same for state universities elsewhere. I dimly remember that when my son's friends were applying for colleges 15 or so years ago, it was exactly the opposite at the University of Virginia. At that time, it was apparently darned near impossible to get in from out of state, but a fairly manageable (don't remember the number, but thinking 30-35%) admissions rate from in state.

[Mick]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=9773.msg88629#msg88629 date=1398708688]
[quote author=anmalanman link=topic=9773.msg88628#msg88628 date=1398705175]
from Cornfed

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

MANY years ago, when I informed my Iowa high school counselor that I planned to take the SATs, he responded, "Why? The University of Iowa doesn't require them."

The idea of applying to an elite school or even going far away for college just wasn't normal.

Oh man, does that ever resonate with me!!!!!!  My high school counselor was aghast that I was not going to go to Iowa or Iowa State; after all, they are nearly as good as the Ivies and cost so much less!!!

Really shouldn't bag on her, though.  a very large segment of the population had convinced themselves of these truths, and they constantly reinforced one another.
[/quote]

My experience was similar.  Councilor refused to give me Stanford app, say our local JC was perfect for the first two years and free, then I could transfer to LA State. 
Besides, I would never get in and only wasting my parents money on the app fee.  When I did get in he never spoke to me again.  A*hole probably got rejected himself.
[/quote]

I'm not 100% certain as to why this is the case, but after having two sons negotiate the college application/admissions process in the last five years, I can offer some thoughts.  I make these statements based upon interactions with about a dozen high school counselors from four different high schools and a few independent counselors (we didn't use one):

1)  I would not be surprised if there were college counselors even at strong high schools who occupy those roles by default...meaning they may not be the most qualified to actually counsel students. 

2)  Most counselors (employed by high schools) have too many kids to effectively get to know each one.  And the average student is not heading to the Ivies or Stanford or MIT or CalTech, so the counselors try to do their best with the middle of the bell curve.

3)  Many, if not most counselors are less familiar with the admissions process at highly selective colleges than the parents of high achieving students or the students themselves.

4)  For private schools, there is a degree of pressure to steer students to mid-level private colleges.  They take a natural inclination for smaller scholastic populations in fairly regulated environments (compared with many/most public high schools) and apply it to the collegiate environment.  I know that we were forced to sit through several lengthy presentations as to the merits of small, private colleges throughout the land.  My feeling is that many/most of these schools are somewhat starving for students, particularly good students, particularly students who are prepared to pay full tuition.  Along those lines, I feel very much sorry for my father who had three kids attend state schools in Oregon, Arizona and Nevada.  Typically though, my siblings resided in those states and were able to pay in-state tuition after two years.

5)  I would not be surprised if the very best college counselors left the employ of high schools to go out on their own and make a little more scratch.  One of my cousins (Stanford grad) fits this description. He is a great guy, by the way. He lives and works locally in the San Francisco Bay area, and I would recommend him without hesitation. P.m. me if you want the details.

6)  A surprisingly high percentage of the time, the UCs or CSUs throw curveballs to the counselors.  Makes them a bit skittish about making commitments in terms of "likely to get in."

[Mick]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=9773.msg88629#msg88629 date=1398708688]
[quote author=anmalanman link=topic=9773.msg88628#msg88628 date=1398705175]
from Cornfed

I have no figures for applications from Iowa in that time frame, but I'm pretty sure it was a pretty low number.  I was frequently asked where I would be attending college, and when I replied,"Stanford", half the time the inquirer would react by saying something like,"Oh that is wonderful!  But are you sure you'll be OK being way out in Connecticut?".

MANY years ago, when I informed my Iowa high school counselor that I planned to take the SATs, he responded, "Why? The University of Iowa doesn't require them."

The idea of applying to an elite school or even going far away for college just wasn't normal.

Oh man, does that ever resonate with me!!!!!!  My high school counselor was aghast that I was not going to go to Iowa or Iowa State; after all, they are nearly as good as the Ivies and cost so much less!!!

Really shouldn't bag on her, though.  a very large segment of the population had convinced themselves of these truths, and they constantly reinforced one another.
[/quote]

My experience was similar.  Councilor refused to give me Stanford app, say our local JC was perfect for the first two years and free, then I could transfer to LA State. 
Besides, I would never get in and only wasting my parents money on the app fee.  When I did get in he never spoke to me again.  A*hole probably got rejected himself.
[/quote]

I'm not 100% certain as to why this is the case, but after having two sons negotiate the college application/admissions process in the last five years, I can offer some thoughts.  I make these statements based upon interactions with about a dozen high school counselors from four different high schools and a few independent counselors (we didn't use one):

1)  I would not be surprised if there were college counselors even at strong high schools who occupy those roles by default...meaning they may not be the most qualified to actually counsel students. 

2)  Most counselors (employed by high schools) have too many kids to effectively get to know each one.  And the average student is not heading to the Ivies or Stanford or MIT or CalTech, so the counselors try to do their best with the middle of the bell curve.

3)  Many, if not most counselors are less familiar with the admissions process at highly selective colleges than the parents of high achieving students or the students themselves.

4)  For private schools, there is a degree of pressure to steer students to mid-level private colleges.  They take a natural inclination for smaller scholastic populations in fairly regulated environments (compared with many/most public high schools) and apply it to the collegiate environment.  I know that we were forced to sit through several lengthy presentations as to the merits of small, private colleges throughout the land.  My feeling is that many/most of these schools are somewhat starving for students, particularly good students, particularly students who are prepared to pay full tuition.  Along those lines, I feel very much sorry for my father who had three kids attend state schools in Oregon, Arizona and Nevada.  Typically though, my siblings resided in those states and were able to pay in-state tuition after two years.

5)  I would not be surprised if the very best college counselors left the employ of high schools to go out on their own and make a little more scratch.  One of my cousins (Stanford grad) fits this description. He is a great guy, by the way. He lives and works locally in the San Francisco Bay area, and I would recommend him without hesitation. P.m. me if you want the details.

6)  A surprisingly high percentage of the time, the UCs or CSUs throw curveballs to the counselors.  Makes them a bit skittish about making commitments in terms of "likely to get in."

[CTcard]

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...Prof13.htm

In 2013, the UCLA admit rate for California students was 17.87%, the out-of-state admit rate was 33.68%.  So out of staters were nearly twice as likely to be admitted.  The international rate was 20.8%.

Thanks.
Similar pages for UCLA over the years are available here: http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...h_prof.htm
The numbers go back 15 years to 1998, but the earliest 5 years or so record some different numbers.

Some interesting bits in there.

You can see the spiralling up of the number of applicants, both in state and out of state. That's gone up far faster than the population of 18 year olds - which is actually starting a temporary down slope.

Trends are hard to find in noisy data, but it appears the out of state admission rate (versus in state) rose after the financial crisis and the brobdingnagian state cuts to UC. My memory is that UC actually said it was going to admit more out of state students to collect higher tuition, but that is a fairly fuzzy memory.

In state vs out of state is a brobdingnagian issue for public universities nationally. Out of state students pay more tuition and are typically stronger (there seems to be some self-selection among those choosing to try for another state's public university) but there is tremendous political pressure to admit in state kids, which is part of a public university's mission. The balance has been changing as states have been pulling out of the business of supporting higher education, with the biggest change in slope on that trend occurring around 2008-09.

[CTcard]

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...Prof13.htm

In 2013, the UCLA admit rate for California students was 17.87%, the out-of-state admit rate was 33.68%.  So out of staters were nearly twice as likely to be admitted.  The international rate was 20.8%.

Thanks.
Similar pages for UCLA over the years are available here: http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...h_prof.htm
The numbers go back 15 years to 1998, but the earliest 5 years or so record some different numbers.

Some interesting bits in there.

You can see the spiralling up of the number of applicants, both in state and out of state. That's gone up far faster than the population of 18 year olds - which is actually starting a temporary down slope.

Trends are hard to find in noisy data, but it appears the out of state admission rate (versus in state) rose after the financial crisis and the brobdingnagian state cuts to UC. My memory is that UC actually said it was going to admit more out of state students to collect higher tuition, but that is a fairly fuzzy memory.

In state vs out of state is a brobdingnagian issue for public universities nationally. Out of state students pay more tuition and are typically stronger (there seems to be some self-selection among those choosing to try for another state's public university) but there is tremendous political pressure to admit in state kids, which is part of a public university's mission. The balance has been changing as states have been pulling out of the business of supporting higher education, with the biggest change in slope on that trend occurring around 2008-09.

[terry]

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...Prof13.htm

In 2013, the UCLA admit rate for California students was 17.87%, the out-of-state admit rate was 33.68%.  So out of staters were nearly twice as likely to be admitted.  The international rate was 20.8%.

I suppose it's possible that the out-of-state applicant pool as a whole is stronger academically than the in-state applicant pool.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of marginally qualified in-state UC applicants figure they probably will end up at one of the less selective UC campuses, but they might as well take a chance on sending the application to UCLA as well.

[terry]

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...Prof13.htm

In 2013, the UCLA admit rate for California students was 17.87%, the out-of-state admit rate was 33.68%.  So out of staters were nearly twice as likely to be admitted.  The international rate was 20.8%.

I suppose it's possible that the out-of-state applicant pool as a whole is stronger academically than the in-state applicant pool.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of marginally qualified in-state UC applicants figure they probably will end up at one of the less selective UC campuses, but they might as well take a chance on sending the application to UCLA as well.

[Farm93]

There is a lot going on with the UC system to read a lot into different acceptance rate numbers.  My guess is the truth includes several elements.  UC's desire for full freight applicants, marginal student motivations, California HS advisers and staffers encouraging EVERY student to at least apply to a UC, etc.

FWIW - If you dig into the numbers you can also see that in-state students get accepted to more UC schools per applicant than the out of staters and the internationals.  When I looked last week I think it was something like 2+ schools per in-state applicant vs 1.6 for the out-of-staters.  My assumption was that the in-state kids that see UC Davis or UC Merced as aspirational still pay the extra few dollars to get considered by UCB and UCLA.  Then, many of them get accepted to UCM, UCD & UCR, but not UCB and UCLA.  Meanwhile, many of the out-of-state and international applicants see UCB and UCLA as safety schools and only apply to one or both.  Thanks to the formula many in this group KNOW they will be accepted by their favorite UC school.  For out-of-staters that see that UCM or UCR as semi-aspirational likely prefer their own state schools for several reasons and therefore don't apply to any of the UC schools.

[Farm93]

There is a lot going on with the UC system to read a lot into different acceptance rate numbers.  My guess is the truth includes several elements.  UC's desire for full freight applicants, marginal student motivations, California HS advisers and staffers encouraging EVERY student to at least apply to a UC, etc.

FWIW - If you dig into the numbers you can also see that in-state students get accepted to more UC schools per applicant than the out of staters and the internationals.  When I looked last week I think it was something like 2+ schools per in-state applicant vs 1.6 for the out-of-staters.  My assumption was that the in-state kids that see UC Davis or UC Merced as aspirational still pay the extra few dollars to get considered by UCB and UCLA.  Then, many of them get accepted to UCM, UCD & UCR, but not UCB and UCLA.  Meanwhile, many of the out-of-state and international applicants see UCB and UCLA as safety schools and only apply to one or both.  Thanks to the formula many in this group KNOW they will be accepted by their favorite UC school.  For out-of-staters that see that UCM or UCR as semi-aspirational likely prefer their own state schools for several reasons and therefore don't apply to any of the UC schools.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=9773.msg88633#msg88633 date=1398717385]

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...Prof13.htm

In 2013, the UCLA admit rate for California students was 17.87%, the out-of-state admit rate was 33.68%.  So out of staters were nearly twice as likely to be admitted.  The international rate was 20.8%.

I suppose it's possible that the out-of-state applicant pool as a whole is stronger academically than the in-state applicant pool.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of marginally qualified in-state UC applicants figure they probably will end up at one of the less selective UC campuses, but they might as well take a chance on sending the application to UCLA as well.
[/quote]

First, I doubt that the out-of-state applicant pool is stronger than in-state, from two perspectives.  First, the California pool is exceedingly strong.  If you just look at the National Merit Semifinalist program, every state has a qualifying minimum individual PSAT score for a student to be considered for the NMS.  The District of Columbia and New Jersey have the highest minimum PSAT scores at 224 (out of 240).  California and Massachusetts are next at 223.  Virginia is 221, Washington state is 220.  No other state is over 219 (Texas, Maryland and New York).  West Virginia and Wyoming are lowest at 203.

Here's the full state table:
http://www.studypoint.com/ed/national-merit-scores/

224,000 California students took the SAT in 2013. 35,152 sent their scores to UCLA (the highest number), 16,826 sent them to Stanford, 26,847 sent them to Berk, 24,701 to USpoilChil,

Some interesting data on California students/national students scoring over 700 on the three core tests.  Nationwide, there were 1,660,047 SAT tests taken, and Californians took 14.1% of them, or 234,767.  They took a higher percentage of each of the three tests at 700 or higher, as follows (California/nation):

Critical Reading:    11,712 /  79,049    14..8%
Math:                    17,158 / 120,501    14.2%
Writing:                12,397 /  70,675    17.5%

California has a very high percentage of its students take the standardized tests, and a high number (in overall terms) score very, very well on them (defined as 700 or higher).  Therefore, it is obvious that there are a higher number of Californians at UCB or UCLA, and at Stanford.  But there are more Californians at Princeton than any other state, as well.  And 7,364 Californians sent their scores to NYU...

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=9773.msg88633#msg88633 date=1398717385]

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/...Prof13.htm

In 2013, the UCLA admit rate for California students was 17.87%, the out-of-state admit rate was 33.68%.  So out of staters were nearly twice as likely to be admitted.  The international rate was 20.8%.

I suppose it's possible that the out-of-state applicant pool as a whole is stronger academically than the in-state applicant pool.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of marginally qualified in-state UC applicants figure they probably will end up at one of the less selective UC campuses, but they might as well take a chance on sending the application to UCLA as well.
[/quote]

First, I doubt that the out-of-state applicant pool is stronger than in-state, from two perspectives.  First, the California pool is exceedingly strong.  If you just look at the National Merit Semifinalist program, every state has a qualifying minimum individual PSAT score for a student to be considered for the NMS.  The District of Columbia and New Jersey have the highest minimum PSAT scores at 224 (out of 240).  California and Massachusetts are next at 223.  Virginia is 221, Washington state is 220.  No other state is over 219 (Texas, Maryland and New York).  West Virginia and Wyoming are lowest at 203.

Here's the full state table:
http://www.studypoint.com/ed/national-merit-scores/

224,000 California students took the SAT in 2013. 35,152 sent their scores to UCLA (the highest number), 16,826 sent them to Stanford, 26,847 sent them to Berk, 24,701 to USpoilChil,

Some interesting data on California students/national students scoring over 700 on the three core tests.  Nationwide, there were 1,660,047 SAT tests taken, and Californians took 14.1% of them, or 234,767.  They took a higher percentage of each of the three tests at 700 or higher, as follows (California/nation):

Critical Reading:    11,712 /  79,049    14..8%
Math:                    17,158 / 120,501    14.2%
Writing:                12,397 /  70,675    17.5%

California has a very high percentage of its students take the standardized tests, and a high number (in overall terms) score very, very well on them (defined as 700 or higher).  Therefore, it is obvious that there are a higher number of Californians at UCB or UCLA, and at Stanford.  But there are more Californians at Princeton than any other state, as well.  And 7,364 Californians sent their scores to NYU...

[Mick]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9773.msg88669#msg88669 date=1398788421]
There is a lot going on with the UC system to read a lot into different acceptance rate numbers.  My guess is the truth includes several elements.  UC's desire for full freight applicants, marginal student motivations, California HS advisers and staffers encouraging EVERY student to at least apply to a UC, etc.

FWIW - If you dig into the numbers you can also see that in-state students get accepted to more UC schools per applicant than the out of staters and the internationals.  When I looked last week I think it was something like 2+ schools per in-state applicant vs 1.6 for the out-of-staters.  My assumption was that the in-state kids that see The school that shall not be mentioned or UC Merced as aspirational still pay the extra few dollars to get considered by UCB and UCLA.  Then, many of them get accepted to UCM, UCD & UCR, but not UCB and UCLA.  Meanwhile, many of the out-of-state and international applicants see UCB and UCLA as safety schools and only apply to one or both.  Thanks to the formula many in this group KNOW they will be accepted by their favorite UC school.  For out-of-staters that see that UCM or UCR as semi-aspirational likely prefer their own state schools for several reasons and therefore don't apply to any of the UC schools.
[/quote



Given that you are only required to check a box on the UC application in order to apply to additional UC campuses, do you still feel that is the case for students out of state?

[Mick]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9773.msg88669#msg88669 date=1398788421]
There is a lot going on with the UC system to read a lot into different acceptance rate numbers.  My guess is the truth includes several elements.  UC's desire for full freight applicants, marginal student motivations, California HS advisers and staffers encouraging EVERY student to at least apply to a UC, etc.

FWIW - If you dig into the numbers you can also see that in-state students get accepted to more UC schools per applicant than the out of staters and the internationals.  When I looked last week I think it was something like 2+ schools per in-state applicant vs 1.6 for the out-of-staters.  My assumption was that the in-state kids that see The school that shall not be mentioned or UC Merced as aspirational still pay the extra few dollars to get considered by UCB and UCLA.  Then, many of them get accepted to UCM, UCD & UCR, but not UCB and UCLA.  Meanwhile, many of the out-of-state and international applicants see UCB and UCLA as safety schools and only apply to one or both.  Thanks to the formula many in this group KNOW they will be accepted by their favorite UC school.  For out-of-staters that see that UCM or UCR as semi-aspirational likely prefer their own state schools for several reasons and therefore don't apply to any of the UC schools.
[/quote



Given that you are only required to check a box on the UC application in order to apply to additional UC campuses, do you still feel that is the case for students out of state?

[Farm93]

Yep!

I didn't apply to UCLA because I knew I had the numbers to get to UCB.  At the time the marginal fee had nothing to do with it.

As a practical matter a lot of HS students want to visit a campus before they apply.  An HS student could conceivably fly to SFO and visit Stanford and UCB, and then not apply to the other UC schools because they never visited those campuses.  For an in-state applicant visiting all 9 campuses is just a matter of a few road trips, for the out of state applicant that might require multiple flights.  Not really a hypothetical in my world, since that essentially is what happened.

FWIW - I would bet good money that most public schools have stronger average out of state applicants than in-state applicants.  This would have nothing to do with the quality of HS education in each state, rather it would be a function of how the best students in each state apply to schools vs how the average students in each state go through the application process.  Essentially there is a significant selection bias, if you will.

The best students from around the country might apply to UCLA and UCB as they learn through the process that the very best schools in the USA are not going to be less than an hour from their parents house.  The average students from other states likely don't apply to the UCs, for several reasons, including the idea that there are several decent schools with a few hours of home that are the equal of UCR or UCM.

A quick example.  In my PA HS, back in the day, two people applied to UCB.  Just two.  Not coincidentally, we also both applied to Stanford and both were accepted to Stanford.  The average students at my school would never have thought to apply to UCB, but in a class of ~250 easily 200 of that class applied to Penn State.

So the UCB average applicant from my school was likely far, far, about the average in-state UCB applicant even if the average in-state applicant was better than the average student from my HS.  Conversely, I would suspect that the CA students with the courage to apply to Michigan or Virginia, were likely far above the "hey just fill out the application in state crowd." from those states.

There is a selection issue here that essentially overwhelms the quality or depth of the overall state HS education system.

[Farm93]

Yep!

I didn't apply to UCLA because I knew I had the numbers to get to UCB.  At the time the marginal fee had nothing to do with it.

As a practical matter a lot of HS students want to visit a campus before they apply.  An HS student could conceivably fly to SFO and visit Stanford and UCB, and then not apply to the other UC schools because they never visited those campuses.  For an in-state applicant visiting all 9 campuses is just a matter of a few road trips, for the out of state applicant that might require multiple flights.  Not really a hypothetical in my world, since that essentially is what happened.

FWIW - I would bet good money that most public schools have stronger average out of state applicants than in-state applicants.  This would have nothing to do with the quality of HS education in each state, rather it would be a function of how the best students in each state apply to schools vs how the average students in each state go through the application process.  Essentially there is a significant selection bias, if you will.

The best students from around the country might apply to UCLA and UCB as they learn through the process that the very best schools in the USA are not going to be less than an hour from their parents house.  The average students from other states likely don't apply to the UCs, for several reasons, including the idea that there are several decent schools with a few hours of home that are the equal of UCR or UCM.

A quick example.  In my PA HS, back in the day, two people applied to UCB.  Just two.  Not coincidentally, we also both applied to Stanford and both were accepted to Stanford.  The average students at my school would never have thought to apply to UCB, but in a class of ~250 easily 200 of that class applied to Penn State.

So the UCB average applicant from my school was likely far, far, about the average in-state UCB applicant even if the average in-state applicant was better than the average student from my HS.  Conversely, I would suspect that the CA students with the courage to apply to Michigan or Virginia, were likely far above the "hey just fill out the application in state crowd." from those states.

There is a selection issue here that essentially overwhelms the quality or depth of the overall state HS education system.

[CTcard]

[quote author=terry link=topic=9773.msg88665#msg88665 date=1398784503]

I suppose it's possible that the out-of-state applicant pool as a whole is stronger academically than the in-state applicant pool.

First, I doubt that the out-of-state applicant pool is stronger than in-state, from two perspectives. 
[/quote]

I am an academic.

I have been told by an admissions dean at a state flagship school that "[On average] Out-of-state applicants are always stronger than in-state".

Now that statement was not specifically about UC. I didn't see any numbers backing that up. And, one rule of academia is 'never trust the admissions people' [well on broad statements anyway]. Still, the circumstances of that conversation would tend to make me believe it was true locally.

[CTcard]

[quote author=terry link=topic=9773.msg88665#msg88665 date=1398784503]

I suppose it's possible that the out-of-state applicant pool as a whole is stronger academically than the in-state applicant pool.

First, I doubt that the out-of-state applicant pool is stronger than in-state, from two perspectives. 
[/quote]

I am an academic.

I have been told by an admissions dean at a state flagship school that "[On average] Out-of-state applicants are always stronger than in-state".

Now that statement was not specifically about UC. I didn't see any numbers backing that up. And, one rule of academia is 'never trust the admissions people' [well on broad statements anyway]. Still, the circumstances of that conversation would tend to make me believe it was true locally.

[Bruce Wang]

Now that statement was not specifically about UC. I didn't see any numbers backing that up. And, one rule of academia is 'never trust the admissions people' [well on broad statements anyway]. Still, the circumstances of that conversation would tend to make me believe it was true locally.

Some former Stanford coaches also had that rule.

[Bruce Wang]

Now that statement was not specifically about UC. I didn't see any numbers backing that up. And, one rule of academia is 'never trust the admissions people' [well on broad statements anyway]. Still, the circumstances of that conversation would tend to make me believe it was true locally.

Some former Stanford coaches also had that rule.

[Farm93]

BTW, in a quest to bring this back to the initial topic, the all Ivy kid selected Yale as his choice.  He had a big press conference and everything.

I suspect many on our boards could have applied to all 8, and obtained acceptance letters from the eight if that was in some way a worthy goal.  I still come back to the idea that the 8 are not very similar at all, and a few seem like odd choices given his stated educational objectives during the silly conference. 

My guess is that the other 7 are not disappointed about the idea that this HS student has dinged their yield numbers.

[Farm93]

BTW, in a quest to bring this back to the initial topic, the all Ivy kid selected Yale as his choice.  He had a big press conference and everything.

I suspect many on our boards could have applied to all 8, and obtained acceptance letters from the eight if that was in some way a worthy goal.  I still come back to the idea that the 8 are not very similar at all, and a few seem like odd choices given his stated educational objectives during the silly conference. 

My guess is that the other 7 are not disappointed about the idea that this HS student has dinged their yield numbers.

[GoodGrief]

BTW, in a quest to bring this back to the initial topic, the all Ivy kid selected Yale as his choice.  He had a big press conference and everything.

I suspect many on our boards could have applied to all 8, and obtained acceptance letters from the eight if that was in some way a worthy goal.  I still come back to the idea that the 8 are not very similar at all, and a few seem like odd choices given his stated educational objectives during the silly conference. 

My guess is that the other 7 are not disappointed about the idea that this HS student has dinged their yield numbers.

Exactly. To me, it reflects a lack of critical thinking and a desire for grandstanding.

[GoodGrief]

BTW, in a quest to bring this back to the initial topic, the all Ivy kid selected Yale as his choice.  He had a big press conference and everything.

I suspect many on our boards could have applied to all 8, and obtained acceptance letters from the eight if that was in some way a worthy goal.  I still come back to the idea that the 8 are not very similar at all, and a few seem like odd choices given his stated educational objectives during the silly conference. 

My guess is that the other 7 are not disappointed about the idea that this HS student has dinged their yield numbers.

Exactly. To me, it reflects a lack of critical thinking and a desire for grandstanding.

[dabigv13]

Yup, kid sounds like a douche.

[dabigv13]

Yup, kid sounds like a douche.

[CornFed]

dabigv -

Succinct and to the point.  I like it!

[CornFed]

dabigv -

Succinct and to the point.  I like it!

[Bruce Wang]

BTW, in a quest to bring this back to the initial topic, the all Ivy kid selected Yale as his choice.  He had a big press conference and everything.

Did he put 8 visors on the table and picked the Yale one and put it on sideways upside down?

[Bruce Wang]

BTW, in a quest to bring this back to the initial topic, the all Ivy kid selected Yale as his choice.  He had a big press conference and everything.

Did he put 8 visors on the table and picked the Yale one and put it on sideways upside down?

[Mick]

My sister got into Harvard early.  She had started the application for two of the other Ivys.  The only application she completed in the regular round was Stanford.  She even got a letter from Princeton requesting that she finish her application even though the deadline had passed.  I begged her to do it to see if she could get in, because I was convinced that Princeton didn't like Asians.  At that point, I hadn't known any and still know only a few.  She very maturely told me: "There's a chance I get in.  Why take an opportunity from somebody when I know I'm not going?"  This kid must have gotten into one of the eight early, which he surely preferred over at least one other.  So this is  a major douche move applied to all of them just to see if he could get in.  I'm glad he didn't apply to Stanford. He might have gotten in.

brobdingnagian douche move on that kid's part.  Your sister is right.  As soon as my son was accepted early, he told all the others that he had made his selection, and he didn't complete applications to his other choices (including Stanford).

[Mick]

My sister got into Harvard early.  She had started the application for two of the other Ivys.  The only application she completed in the regular round was Stanford.  She even got a letter from Princeton requesting that she finish her application even though the deadline had passed.  I begged her to do it to see if she could get in, because I was convinced that Princeton didn't like Asians.  At that point, I hadn't known any and still know only a few.  She very maturely told me: "There's a chance I get in.  Why take an opportunity from somebody when I know I'm not going?"  This kid must have gotten into one of the eight early, which he surely preferred over at least one other.  So this is  a major douche move applied to all of them just to see if he could get in.  I'm glad he didn't apply to Stanford. He might have gotten in.

brobdingnagian douche move on that kid's part.  Your sister is right.  As soon as my son was accepted early, he told all the others that he had made his selection, and he didn't complete applications to his other choices (including Stanford).

[FarmBoy]

Not arguing the kids not a douche, but I don't see how Publius' sister continuing her app would take a spot. On the margin, it would mean that a kid on the wait list would have been admitted once P's sister informed Princeton she wasn't going.

I will be curious to find if this kid is mercilessly mocked by fellow Yale classmates. Or maybe they'll life him on their shoulders because he publicly rejected Harvard.

[FarmBoy]

Not arguing the kids not a douche, but I don't see how Publius' sister continuing her app would take a spot. On the margin, it would mean that a kid on the wait list would have been admitted once P's sister informed Princeton she wasn't going.

I will be curious to find if this kid is mercilessly mocked by fellow Yale classmates. Or maybe they'll life him on their shoulders because he publicly rejected Harvard.

[kuz]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=9773.msg88797#msg88797 date=1398975213]
Not arguing the kids not a douche, but I don't see how Publius' sister continuing her app would take a spot. On the margin, it would mean that a kid on the wait list would have been admitted once P's sister informed Princeton she wasn't going.

I don't think that's how it works.  That there is an exact number for a class and they fill exactly the number that fell short.  For example, the yield could have been higher than expected.  In that case, my sister might have taken a spot from somebody.  At the least she spared somebody the agony of waiting and not being able to enjoy senioritis.  I know this first hand.

And as to all the reputed Asians on the CARDboard, at the Rose Bowl meetup it was just me and fullmetal, though there were a few honorary ones in attendance.  In all seriousness, I know first hand a grand total of two Asian-Americans that went to Princeton, and another by reputation: the Infamous Chung is King.
[/quote]
As a current Princeton (graduate) student, I can tell you that there are a whole lot of Asian-Americans at Princeton (at least, judging by the classes that I TA).

[kuz]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=9773.msg88797#msg88797 date=1398975213]
Not arguing the kids not a douche, but I don't see how Publius' sister continuing her app would take a spot. On the margin, it would mean that a kid on the wait list would have been admitted once P's sister informed Princeton she wasn't going.

I don't think that's how it works.  That there is an exact number for a class and they fill exactly the number that fell short.  For example, the yield could have been higher than expected.  In that case, my sister might have taken a spot from somebody.  At the least she spared somebody the agony of waiting and not being able to enjoy senioritis.  I know this first hand.

And as to all the reputed Asians on the CARDboard, at the Rose Bowl meetup it was just me and fullmetal, though there were a few honorary ones in attendance.  In all seriousness, I know first hand a grand total of two Asian-Americans that went to Princeton, and another by reputation: the Infamous Chung is King.
[/quote]
As a current Princeton (graduate) student, I can tell you that there are a whole lot of Asian-Americans at Princeton (at least, judging by the classes that I TA).

[TreeWeird]

Speaking as an extremely white midwesterner, everything I know about Asians at Princeton is from Harold and Kumar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbwYbtJVQbU

[TreeWeird]

Speaking as an extremely white midwesterner, everything I know about Asians at Princeton is from Harold and Kumar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbwYbtJVQbU

[yvonne]

http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/48...-stanford-

[yvonne]

http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/48...-stanford-