Do most UVA choose UVA over privates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The yield rate at UVA is only as high as it is because of ED. Before that, its yield was even lower.

This can be said about many selective schools that offer ED. Try again.

DP, but am I missing something? UVA’s yield rate is 39%, which is not great or really good. Most private colleges who offer ED that are elite are looking anywhere from 48-86% yield

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

+100
Only on DCUM do we get this kind of idiocy.

100% agree. UVa could never be an "ivy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

What evidence do you have that any Ivy is better than UVA? Let’s see your data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

So date of founding doesn’t matter, right?

Date of founding is one way non-ivy league schools are distinguished from those in the Ivy League.

Then W&M and Hampden-Sydney could be Ivy League.

Predictably, you have misunderstood the words you have read.

Maybe we should make this easier for you to understand. W&M were founded before some Ivy League institutions.

I know that William & Mary "were" (interesting) founded before many. This is irrelevant to my point. UVa is not an Ivy League institution by any stretch of the imagination. Age is one factor that can be looked to as this reality is explained to those for whom it is not readily apparent (for whatever reason that is.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evidenced by UVA's ~30% yield rate, most do not choose it when admitted

It’s over 50% for in state students.

Hopefully, you're not surprised by this or are using this to boast.

Only half of in-state students choosing a school like UVA ( T25, right?) is very telling.

Actually according to the data on their website it is 58%, and yes I think that is pretty good knowing the choices these students are presented with.

Typical of UVA students and faculty, this is false. 55%.

Lol…either way not much difference. Same theme….i think we can all agree more than half of in state acceptances are choosing UVA and many of these students are getting multiple offers from high ranking schools so yeah I’d say it’s still pretty good.

So a majority of out of state applicants aren’t choosing UVA? Isn’t that a bad thing? Sounds like people only want to go because it’s dirt cheap, not because it is elite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

+100
Only on DCUM do we get this kind of idiocy.

100% agree. UVa could never be an "ivy".

If an “ivy” was truly superior you wouldn’t be on DCUM arguing with UVA boosters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

What evidence do you have that any Ivy is better than UVA? Let’s see your data.

This is not a road you should want to go down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

So date of founding doesn’t matter, right?

Date of founding is one way non-ivy league schools are distinguished from those in the Ivy League.

Then W&M and Hampden-Sydney could be Ivy League.

Predictably, you have misunderstood the words you have read.

Maybe we should make this easier for you to understand. W&M were founded before some Ivy League institutions.

DP. Good grief. W&M is not an Ivy League school, regardless of its founding. Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

So date of founding doesn’t matter, right?

Date of founding is one way non-ivy league schools are distinguished from those in the Ivy League.

Then W&M and Hampden-Sydney could be Ivy League.

Predictably, you have misunderstood the words you have read.

Maybe we should make this easier for you to understand. W&M were founded before some Ivy League institutions.

I know that William & Mary "were" (interesting) founded before many. This is irrelevant to my point. UVa is not an Ivy League institution by any stretch of the imagination. Age is one factor that can be looked to as this reality is explained to those for whom it is not readily apparent (for whatever reason that is.)

Either age matters or it doesn’t. Stop being obtuse, it’s not helping your case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evidenced by UVA's ~30% yield rate, most do not choose it when admitted

It’s over 50% for in state students.

Hopefully, you're not surprised by this or are using this to boast.

Only half of in-state students choosing a school like UVA ( T25, right?) is very telling.

Actually according to the data on their website it is 58%, and yes I think that is pretty good knowing the choices these students are presented with.

Typical of UVA students and faculty, this is false. 55%.

Lol…either way not much difference. Same theme….i think we can all agree more than half of in state acceptances are choosing UVA and many of these students are getting multiple offers from high ranking schools so yeah I’d say it’s still pretty good.

So a majority of out of state applicants aren’t choosing UVA? Isn’t that a bad thing? Sounds like people only want to go because it’s dirt cheap, not because it is elite

It is a bad thing and a consequence of the fact that UVa is not an "elite" institution by any definition of the word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

What evidence do you have that any Ivy is better than UVA? Let’s see your data.

This is not a road you should want to go down.

Prove it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

So date of founding doesn’t matter, right?

Date of founding is one way non-ivy league schools are distinguished from those in the Ivy League.

Then W&M and Hampden-Sydney could be Ivy League.

Predictably, you have misunderstood the words you have read.

Maybe we should make this easier for you to understand. W&M were founded before some Ivy League institutions.

DP. Good grief. W&M is not an Ivy League school, regardless of its founding. Just stop.

The PP was suggesting (erroneously) that this invalidated my argument. It does not and the PP has revealed themselves to be a bumbling fool. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

So date of founding doesn’t matter, right?

Date of founding is one way non-ivy league schools are distinguished from those in the Ivy League.

Then W&M and Hampden-Sydney could be Ivy League.

Predictably, you have misunderstood the words you have read.

Maybe we should make this easier for you to understand. W&M were founded before some Ivy League institutions.

I know that William & Mary "were" (interesting) founded before many. This is irrelevant to my point. UVa is not an Ivy League institution by any stretch of the imagination. Age is one factor that can be looked to as this reality is explained to those for whom it is not readily apparent (for whatever reason that is.)

Either age matters or it doesn’t. Stop being obtuse, it’s not helping your case.

Not an accurate usage of the word obtuse. Tsk tsk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

So date of founding doesn’t matter, right?

Date of founding is one way non-ivy league schools are distinguished from those in the Ivy League.

Then W&M and Hampden-Sydney could be Ivy League.

Predictably, you have misunderstood the words you have read.

Maybe we should make this easier for you to understand. W&M were founded before some Ivy League institutions.

I know that William & Mary "were" (interesting) founded before many. This is irrelevant to my point. UVa is not an Ivy League institution by any stretch of the imagination. Age is one factor that can be looked to as this reality is explained to those for whom it is not readily apparent (for whatever reason that is.)

Either age matters or it doesn’t. Stop being obtuse, it’s not helping your case.

Not an accurate usage of the word obtuse. Tsk tsk.

So age doesn’t matter? It’s not helping your argument. Keep trying if you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy with Grounds being recognized as a World Heritage site. The University’s only flaw is a mediocre football team.

UVa is basically a brand new school. Harvard, Yale, Princeton were founded before the US was a country. Far less prestigious historically and does not compare to actual ivies. Your new kid on the block public is random and weird. Publics are not ivies.

Why is the age of UVA vs Ivies so important? Stanford was founded in the late 1800s. I would assume we all here consider it a prestigious university.

It's being mentioned because UVa does not and can not be compared to those universities which are members of the Ivy League. No one tries to call Stanford an Ivy because its reputation alone is sufficient for recognition and acclaim. UVa is not an Ivy in any regard.

What a laughable argument. UVA has passed W&M even though they were founded first. Is Hampden Sydney an Ivy since it was founded in 1775, about the same time Dartmouth was founded?

Absolutely not. UVa, William & Mary, Hampden Sydney are all non-ivy league schools. To suggest any of them is in any capacity is ludicrous.

So date of founding doesn’t matter, right?

Date of founding is one way non-ivy league schools are distinguished from those in the Ivy League.

Then W&M and Hampden-Sydney could be Ivy League.

Predictably, you have misunderstood the words you have read.

Maybe we should make this easier for you to understand. W&M were founded before some Ivy League institutions.

I know that William & Mary "were" (interesting) founded before many. This is irrelevant to my point. UVa is not an Ivy League institution by any stretch of the imagination. Age is one factor that can be looked to as this reality is explained to those for whom it is not readily apparent (for whatever reason that is.)

Either age matters or it doesn’t. Stop being obtuse, it’s not helping your case.

Not an accurate usage of the word obtuse. Tsk tsk.

So age doesn’t matter? It’s not helping your argument. Keep trying if you want.

Communicating with you is what I imagine communicating with a baboon might be like. Your fundamental deficiencies obfuscate truth and reason. This is not something I can surmount.