Oberlin or NYU

[Anonymous]

There's two different points people have made that the evidence doesn't support.

1. Oberlin's selectivity is declining. Evidence does not support this. 20 year history of applicant SAT/GPA statistics is very consistent, with some evidence of slight upward trends. 30 year history has a distinct upward trend. Using %ages admitted/yield is too complicated to include because Common App has changed how many students apply to liberal arts schools and their yields and these percentages

2. Oberlin's students are equivalent to top 5-10 USNews ranked schools in terms of SAT and GPA. Evidence does not support this--they are slightly below and are more typical of LACs enrolled students in the 15-35 range. The conservatory makes things a little trickier, but this is the case even when you look at the data separated out.


Upshot in my view--Oberlin continues to be the same good school in terms of academic selectivity it has always been--not top 10 LAC academically but consistently strong.
Endowment is strong compared to peer institutions so I'm not too worried about its financial stability--and that there was any flack about a financial mismanagement issue just shows there's a board who's actually watching the finances. Middlebury had the same thing, as did Earlham. Clearly it's now got some political identity to some folks (likely due to dislike of Lena Dunham as vocal alum), but they are not likely ones who would be applying there anyway and it's pretty much the same place it's always been and not that dissimilar from other strong, selective liberal arts colleges but with particular excellence in music. It's a very different place than NYU, so I think that's why this thread is so derailed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's two different points people have made that the evidence doesn't support.

1. Oberlin's selectivity is declining. Evidence does not support this. 20 year history of applicant SAT/GPA statistics is very consistent, with some evidence of slight upward trends. 30 year history has a distinct upward trend. Using %ages admitted/yield is too complicated to include because Common App has changed how many students apply to liberal arts schools and their yields and these percentages

2. Oberlin's students are equivalent to top 5-10 USNews ranked schools in terms of SAT and GPA. Evidence does not support this--they are slightly below and are more typical of LACs enrolled students in the 15-35 range. The conservatory makes things a little trickier, but this is the case even when you look at the data separated out.


Upshot in my view--Oberlin continues to be the same good school in terms of academic selectivity it has always been--not top 10 LAC academically but consistently strong.
Endowment is strong compared to peer institutions so I'm not too worried about its financial stability--and that there was any flack about a financial mismanagement issue just shows there's a board who's actually watching the finances. Middlebury had the same thing, as did Earlham. Clearly it's now got some political identity to some folks (likely due to dislike of Lena Dunham as vocal alum), but they are not likely ones who would be applying there anyway and it's pretty much the same place it's always been and not that dissimilar from other strong, selective liberal arts colleges but with particular excellence in music. It's a very different place than NYU, so I think that's why this thread is so derailed.

Do you know enough about NYC schools to know which, for liberal arts students, would be very roughly comparable to Oberlin? In other words: Places for serious students, but not as hard to get into as Columbia.

My thinking is that Fordham, Pace and Marymount Manhattan aren't selective enough to be great safeties for any kids who have a shot at getting into a place like Oberlin.

My very rough impression is that the New School might have the right vibe but isn't nearly as strong.

It looks on paper as if Queens College and Hunter College (part of the CUNY system) might be somewhere in the right neighborhood, and a lot cheaper, even out-of-state, for full-pay students.

If you were a would-be history major who got rejected by Columbia and Oberlin, but could choose between NYU, Queens College and Hunter College, with NYU costing about $20,000 more than the CUNY schools, which school would you pick?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not explaining declining selectivity and presumable the conservatory numbers have been constant over time so numbers are declining on both fronts

Because they have been shown to not be declining. But you refuse to accept.

http://www2.oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/admissions.pdf

You'll see the numbers are within a fixed range over time.

You "alternative facts" people should learn that saying a lie over and over does not make it any more true.

No alternative facts - just the CDS. From 2014 o 2018, admitted student % rose by about 4%. You can back out the conservatory if you want to, but I suspect that would make the yield look even worse, as the yield experienced about a 5% drop over the same period.

Again, it is just a data point and does not necessarily reflect on whether Oberlin is or was a good school. Just something to consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's two different points people have made that the evidence doesn't support.

1. Oberlin's selectivity is declining. Evidence does not support this. 20 year history of applicant SAT/GPA statistics is very consistent, with some evidence of slight upward trends. 30 year history has a distinct upward trend. Using %ages admitted/yield is too complicated to include because Common App has changed how many students apply to liberal arts schools and their yields and these percentages

2. Oberlin's students are equivalent to top 5-10 USNews ranked schools in terms of SAT and GPA. Evidence does not support this--they are slightly below and are more typical of LACs enrolled students in the 15-35 range. The conservatory makes things a little trickier, but this is the case even when you look at the data separated out.


Upshot in my view--Oberlin continues to be the same good school in terms of academic selectivity it has always been--not top 10 LAC academically but consistently strong.
Endowment is strong compared to peer institutions so I'm not too worried about its financial stability--and that there was any flack about a financial mismanagement issue just shows there's a board who's actually watching the finances. Middlebury had the same thing, as did Earlham. Clearly it's now got some political identity to some folks (likely due to dislike of Lena Dunham as vocal alum), but they are not likely ones who would be applying there anyway and it's pretty much the same place it's always been and not that dissimilar from other strong, selective liberal arts colleges but with particular excellence in music. It's a very different place than NYU, so I think that's why this thread is so derailed.

Do you know enough about NYC schools to know which, for liberal arts students, would be very roughly comparable to Oberlin? In other words: Places for serious students, but not as hard to get into as Columbia.

My thinking is that Fordham, Pace and Marymount Manhattan aren't selective enough to be great safeties for any kids who have a shot at getting into a place like Oberlin.

My very rough impression is that the New School might have the right vibe but isn't nearly as strong.

It looks on paper as if Queens College and Hunter College (part of the CUNY system) might be somewhere in the right neighborhood, and a lot cheaper, even out-of-state, for full-pay students.

If you were a would-be history major who got rejected by Columbia and Oberlin, but could choose between NYU, Queens College and Hunter College, with NYU costing about $20,000 more than the CUNY schools, which school would you pick?

As a native New Yorker I would say if your kid wants to study history and you can not do Columbia or NYU you need to pick another city. (City College used to be good but I have not heard about it in years) Those two school dominate the city (unless your kid is going to FTI, Parsons ect). PP you will be spending a lot for the location and your child will be unlikely to receive the full benefits of NYC. (Internships/hiring, cheap tickets, free art museums go first to Columbia and NYU). NY is a very hierarchical city so I would really investigate closely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's two different points people have made that the evidence doesn't support.

1. Oberlin's selectivity is declining. Evidence does not support this. 20 year history of applicant SAT/GPA statistics is very consistent, with some evidence of slight upward trends. 30 year history has a distinct upward trend. Using %ages admitted/yield is too complicated to include because Common App has changed how many students apply to liberal arts schools and their yields and these percentages

2. Oberlin's students are equivalent to top 5-10 USNews ranked schools in terms of SAT and GPA. Evidence does not support this--they are slightly below and are more typical of LACs enrolled students in the 15-35 range. The conservatory makes things a little trickier, but this is the case even when you look at the data separated out.


Upshot in my view--Oberlin continues to be the same good school in terms of academic selectivity it has always been--not top 10 LAC academically but consistently strong.
Endowment is strong compared to peer institutions so I'm not too worried about its financial stability--and that there was any flack about a financial mismanagement issue just shows there's a board who's actually watching the finances. Middlebury had the same thing, as did Earlham. Clearly it's now got some political identity to some folks (likely due to dislike of Lena Dunham as vocal alum), but they are not likely ones who would be applying there anyway and it's pretty much the same place it's always been and not that dissimilar from other strong, selective liberal arts colleges but with particular excellence in music. It's a very different place than NYU, so I think that's why this thread is so derailed.

Do you know enough about NYC schools to know which, for liberal arts students, would be very roughly comparable to Oberlin? In other words: Places for serious students, but not as hard to get into as Columbia.

My thinking is that Fordham, Pace and Marymount Manhattan aren't selective enough to be great safeties for any kids who have a shot at getting into a place like Oberlin.

My very rough impression is that the New School might have the right vibe but isn't nearly as strong.

It looks on paper as if Queens College and Hunter College (part of the CUNY system) might be somewhere in the right neighborhood, and a lot cheaper, even out-of-state, for full-pay students.

If you were a would-be history major who got rejected by Columbia and Oberlin, but could choose between NYU, Queens College and Hunter College, with NYU costing about $20,000 more than the CUNY schools, which school would you pick?

As a native New Yorker I would say if your kid wants to study history and you can not do Columbia or NYU you need to pick another city. (City College used to be good but I have not heard about it in years) Those two school dominate the city (unless your kid is going to FTI, Parsons ect). PP you will be spending a lot for the location and your child will be unlikely to receive the full benefits of NYC. (Internships/hiring, cheap tickets, free art museums go first to Columbia and NYU). NY is a very hierarchical city so I would really investigate closely.

If a girl, maybe Barnard? But not sure of the strengths of the humanities; the only students I know who have gone there are science majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's two different points people have made that the evidence doesn't support.

1. Oberlin's selectivity is declining. Evidence does not support this. 20 year history of applicant SAT/GPA statistics is very consistent, with some evidence of slight upward trends. 30 year history has a distinct upward trend. Using %ages admitted/yield is too complicated to include because Common App has changed how many students apply to liberal arts schools and their yields and these percentages

2. Oberlin's students are equivalent to top 5-10 USNews ranked schools in terms of SAT and GPA. Evidence does not support this--they are slightly below and are more typical of LACs enrolled students in the 15-35 range. The conservatory makes things a little trickier, but this is the case even when you look at the data separated out.


Upshot in my view--Oberlin continues to be the same good school in terms of academic selectivity it has always been--not top 10 LAC academically but consistently strong.
Endowment is strong compared to peer institutions so I'm not too worried about its financial stability--and that there was any flack about a financial mismanagement issue just shows there's a board who's actually watching the finances. Middlebury had the same thing, as did Earlham. Clearly it's now got some political identity to some folks (likely due to dislike of Lena Dunham as vocal alum), but they are not likely ones who would be applying there anyway and it's pretty much the same place it's always been and not that dissimilar from other strong, selective liberal arts colleges but with particular excellence in music. It's a very different place than NYU, so I think that's why this thread is so derailed.

Do you know enough about NYC schools to know which, for liberal arts students, would be very roughly comparable to Oberlin? In other words: Places for serious students, but not as hard to get into as Columbia.

My thinking is that Fordham, Pace and Marymount Manhattan aren't selective enough to be great safeties for any kids who have a shot at getting into a place like Oberlin.

My very rough impression is that the New School might have the right vibe but isn't nearly as strong.

It looks on paper as if Queens College and Hunter College (part of the CUNY system) might be somewhere in the right neighborhood, and a lot cheaper, even out-of-state, for full-pay students.

If you were a would-be history major who got rejected by Columbia and Oberlin, but could choose between NYU, Queens College and Hunter College, with NYU costing about $20,000 more than the CUNY schools, which school would you pick?

As a native New Yorker I would say if your kid wants to study history and you can not do Columbia or NYU you need to pick another city. (City College used to be good but I have not heard about it in years) Those two school dominate the city (unless your kid is going to FTI, Parsons ect). PP you will be spending a lot for the location and your child will be unlikely to receive the full benefits of NYC. (Internships/hiring, cheap tickets, free art museums go first to Columbia and NYU). NY is a very hierarchical city so I would really investigate closely.

If a girl, maybe Barnard? But not sure of the strengths of the humanities; the only students I know who have gone there are science majors.

Barnard is part of Columbia. Barnard has its own professor but students can also take class at Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not explaining declining selectivity and presumable the conservatory numbers have been constant over time so numbers are declining on both fronts

Because they have been shown to not be declining. But you refuse to accept.

http://www2.oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/admissions.pdf

You'll see the numbers are within a fixed range over time.

You "alternative facts" people should learn that saying a lie over and over does not make it any more true.

No alternative facts - just the CDS. From 2014 o 2018, admitted student % rose by about 4%. You can back out the conservatory if you want to, but I suspect that would make the yield look even worse, as the yield experienced about a 5% drop over the same period.

Again, it is just a data point and does not necessarily reflect on whether Oberlin is or was a good school. Just something to consider.

Yes, alternative facts. You neglect to look at all the data, and you omit the years during that stretch where both those numbers improved.

2015 admit rate DOWN 5% from 2014
2017 yield UP 5% from 2016

Alternative facts. And dishonest and not representative of the actual data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's two different points people have made that the evidence doesn't support.

1. Oberlin's selectivity is declining. Evidence does not support this. 20 year history of applicant SAT/GPA statistics is very consistent, with some evidence of slight upward trends. 30 year history has a distinct upward trend. Using %ages admitted/yield is too complicated to include because Common App has changed how many students apply to liberal arts schools and their yields and these percentages

2. Oberlin's students are equivalent to top 5-10 USNews ranked schools in terms of SAT and GPA. Evidence does not support this--they are slightly below and are more typical of LACs enrolled students in the 15-35 range. The conservatory makes things a little trickier, but this is the case even when you look at the data separated out.


Upshot in my view--Oberlin continues to be the same good school in terms of academic selectivity it has always been--not top 10 LAC academically but consistently strong.
Endowment is strong compared to peer institutions so I'm not too worried about its financial stability--and that there was any flack about a financial mismanagement issue just shows there's a board who's actually watching the finances. Middlebury had the same thing, as did Earlham. Clearly it's now got some political identity to some folks (likely due to dislike of Lena Dunham as vocal alum), but they are not likely ones who would be applying there anyway and it's pretty much the same place it's always been and not that dissimilar from other strong, selective liberal arts colleges but with particular excellence in music. It's a very different place than NYU, so I think that's why this thread is so derailed.

Do you know enough about NYC schools to know which, for liberal arts students, would be very roughly comparable to Oberlin? In other words: Places for serious students, but not as hard to get into as Columbia.

My thinking is that Fordham, Pace and Marymount Manhattan aren't selective enough to be great safeties for any kids who have a shot at getting into a place like Oberlin.

My very rough impression is that the New School might have the right vibe but isn't nearly as strong.

It looks on paper as if Queens College and Hunter College (part of the CUNY system) might be somewhere in the right neighborhood, and a lot cheaper, even out-of-state, for full-pay students.

If you were a would-be history major who got rejected by Columbia and Oberlin, but could choose between NYU, Queens College and Hunter College, with NYU costing about $20,000 more than the CUNY schools, which school would you pick?

For a history major in NYC that didn't get into Columbia, NYU would probably be worth it in this case IF it didn't create too much financial hardship. None of the other schools stand out really for history to me--that's a major where you really need close faculty attention and critical writing support. I'm a fan of the CUNY system for its accessibility and quality, but maybe not a good fit kid who really likes a school like Oberlin and who wants to do history. But maybe there's a hidden departmental gem? Worth checking out. New School is an idiosyncratic institution so that's a very individual decision--but someone with decent stats and a good fit would likely get merit aid. But what about elsewhere in NY? Skidmore (in Saratoga Springs, NY) would be lot like Oberlin but a touch easier to get in (though also expensive and not known for giving merit aid). Colgate/Hamilton would be a touch more selective, but with small LACs it's hard to predict admission. If looking for a city environment not just NYC, University of Pittsburgh might be a good safety for this student and it's reasonably priced out of state, with lower CoL. Overall, it just seems like an odd choice--Oberlin (great school but in the middle of nowhere) vs. NYC schools other than Columbia. Hard to know how to advise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not explaining declining selectivity and presumable the conservatory numbers have been constant over time so numbers are declining on both fronts

Because they have been shown to not be declining. But you refuse to accept.

http://www2.oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/admissions.pdf

You'll see the numbers are within a fixed range over time.

You "alternative facts" people should learn that saying a lie over and over does not make it any more true.

No alternative facts - just the CDS. From 2014 o 2018, admitted student % rose by about 4%. You can back out the conservatory if you want to, but I suspect that would make the yield look even worse, as the yield experienced about a 5% drop over the same period.

Again, it is just a data point and does not necessarily reflect on whether Oberlin is or was a good school. Just something to consider.

Yes, alternative facts. You neglect to look at all the data, and you omit the years during that stretch where both those numbers improved.

2015 admit rate DOWN 5% from 2014
2017 yield UP 5% from 2016

Alternative facts. And dishonest and not representative of the actual data.

2014 Admit rate 32%, 2018 36%. 2014 yield 32%, 2018 28%. These are Oberlin's numbers. 2018 was the most recent on there and I went 5 years back. 36% admit rate is about double/near triple the quality SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's two different points people have made that the evidence doesn't support.

1. Oberlin's selectivity is declining. Evidence does not support this. 20 year history of applicant SAT/GPA statistics is very consistent, with some evidence of slight upward trends. 30 year history has a distinct upward trend. Using %ages admitted/yield is too complicated to include because Common App has changed how many students apply to liberal arts schools and their yields and these percentages

2. Oberlin's students are equivalent to top 5-10 USNews ranked schools in terms of SAT and GPA. Evidence does not support this--they are slightly below and are more typical of LACs enrolled students in the 15-35 range. The conservatory makes things a little trickier, but this is the case even when you look at the data separated out.


Upshot in my view--Oberlin continues to be the same good school in terms of academic selectivity it has always been--not top 10 LAC academically but consistently strong.
Endowment is strong compared to peer institutions so I'm not too worried about its financial stability--and that there was any flack about a financial mismanagement issue just shows there's a board who's actually watching the finances. Middlebury had the same thing, as did Earlham. Clearly it's now got some political identity to some folks (likely due to dislike of Lena Dunham as vocal alum), but they are not likely ones who would be applying there anyway and it's pretty much the same place it's always been and not that dissimilar from other strong, selective liberal arts colleges but with particular excellence in music. It's a very different place than NYU, so I think that's why this thread is so derailed.

Do you know enough about NYC schools to know which, for liberal arts students, would be very roughly comparable to Oberlin? In other words: Places for serious students, but not as hard to get into as Columbia.

My thinking is that Fordham, Pace and Marymount Manhattan aren't selective enough to be great safeties for any kids who have a shot at getting into a place like Oberlin.

My very rough impression is that the New School might have the right vibe but isn't nearly as strong.

It looks on paper as if Queens College and Hunter College (part of the CUNY system) might be somewhere in the right neighborhood, and a lot cheaper, even out-of-state, for full-pay students.

If you were a would-be history major who got rejected by Columbia and Oberlin, but could choose between NYU, Queens College and Hunter College, with NYU costing about $20,000 more than the CUNY schools, which school would you pick?

As a native New Yorker I would say if your kid wants to study history and you can not do Columbia or NYU you need to pick another city. (City College used to be good but I have not heard about it in years) Those two school dominate the city (unless your kid is going to FTI, Parsons ect). PP you will be spending a lot for the location and your child will be unlikely to receive the full benefits of NYC. (Internships/hiring, cheap tickets, free art museums go first to Columbia and NYU). NY is a very hierarchical city so I would really investigate closely.

If a girl, maybe Barnard? But not sure of the strengths of the humanities; the only students I know who have gone there are science majors.

Barnard is part of Columbia. Barnard has its own professor but students can also take class at Columbia.

US News History Rankings for NY Schools discussed above

Columbia #6
NYU #23
Queens Not ranked
Fordham #79

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not explaining declining selectivity and presumable the conservatory numbers have been constant over time so numbers are declining on both fronts

Because they have been shown to not be declining. But you refuse to accept.

http://www2.oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/admissions.pdf

You'll see the numbers are within a fixed range over time.

You "alternative facts" people should learn that saying a lie over and over does not make it any more true.

No alternative facts - just the CDS. From 2014 o 2018, admitted student % rose by about 4%. You can back out the conservatory if you want to, but I suspect that would make the yield look even worse, as the yield experienced about a 5% drop over the same period.

Again, it is just a data point and does not necessarily reflect on whether Oberlin is or was a good school. Just something to consider.

Yes, alternative facts. You neglect to look at all the data, and you omit the years during that stretch where both those numbers improved.

2015 admit rate DOWN 5% from 2014
2017 yield UP 5% from 2016

Alternative facts. And dishonest and not representative of the actual data.

2014 Admit rate 32%, 2018 36%. 2014 yield 32%, 2018 28%. These are Oberlin's numbers. 2018 was the most recent on there and I went 5 years back. 36% admit rate is about double/near triple the quality SLACs.

No, you didn't "go" five years back, you cherry picked two numbers which go up and down every year, as the pdf linked shows.

If you had gone back to 2000 you would have a 10% reduction!

You imply it declined over that period 2014-2018. IT DID NOT. It went up and down within a range which is probably within the standard deviation for a longer time period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not explaining declining selectivity and presumable the conservatory numbers have been constant over time so numbers are declining on both fronts

Because they have been shown to not be declining. But you refuse to accept.

http://www2.oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/admissions.pdf

You'll see the numbers are within a fixed range over time.

You "alternative facts" people should learn that saying a lie over and over does not make it any more true.

No alternative facts - just the CDS. From 2014 o 2018, admitted student % rose by about 4%. You can back out the conservatory if you want to, but I suspect that would make the yield look even worse, as the yield experienced about a 5% drop over the same period.

Again, it is just a data point and does not necessarily reflect on whether Oberlin is or was a good school. Just something to consider.

Yes, alternative facts. You neglect to look at all the data, and you omit the years during that stretch where both those numbers improved.

2015 admit rate DOWN 5% from 2014
2017 yield UP 5% from 2016

Alternative facts. And dishonest and not representative of the actual data.

2014 Admit rate 32%, 2018 36%. 2014 yield 32%, 2018 28%. These are Oberlin's numbers. 2018 was the most recent on there and I went 5 years back. 36% admit rate is about double/near triple the quality SLACs.

No, you didn't "go" five years back, you cherry picked two numbers which go up and down every year, as the pdf linked shows.

If you had gone back to 2000 you would have a 10% reduction!

You imply it declined over that period 2014-2018. IT DID NOT. It went up and down within a range which is probably within the standard deviation for a longer time period.

+1

The PP's logic is like that joke about the guy who goes into a casino with $100, runs it up to $2 million, then loses it all back, and tells his buddy "I only lost a hundred bucks".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not explaining declining selectivity and presumable the conservatory numbers have been constant over time so numbers are declining on both fronts

Because they have been shown to not be declining. But you refuse to accept.

http://www2.oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/admissions.pdf

You'll see the numbers are within a fixed range over time.

You "alternative facts" people should learn that saying a lie over and over does not make it any more true.

No alternative facts - just the CDS. From 2014 o 2018, admitted student % rose by about 4%. You can back out the conservatory if you want to, but I suspect that would make the yield look even worse, as the yield experienced about a 5% drop over the same period.

Again, it is just a data point and does not necessarily reflect on whether Oberlin is or was a good school. Just something to consider.

Yes, alternative facts. You neglect to look at all the data, and you omit the years during that stretch where both those numbers improved.

2015 admit rate DOWN 5% from 2014
2017 yield UP 5% from 2016

Alternative facts. And dishonest and not representative of the actual data.

2014 Admit rate 32%, 2018 36%. 2014 yield 32%, 2018 28%. These are Oberlin's numbers. 2018 was the most recent on there and I went 5 years back. 36% admit rate is about double/near triple the quality SLACs.

No, you didn't "go" five years back, you cherry picked two numbers which go up and down every year, as the pdf linked shows.

If you had gone back to 2000 you would have a 10% reduction!

You imply it declined over that period 2014-2018. IT DID NOT. It went up and down within a range which is probably within the standard deviation for a longer time period.

DP . You can quibble back and forth about the numbers and the years but the takeaway is that with a roughly 30% admit rate, Oberlin isn't nearly as selective as top ranked LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not explaining declining selectivity and presumable the conservatory numbers have been constant over time so numbers are declining on both fronts

Because they have been shown to not be declining. But you refuse to accept.

http://www2.oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/admissions.pdf

You'll see the numbers are within a fixed range over time.

You "alternative facts" people should learn that saying a lie over and over does not make it any more true.

No alternative facts - just the CDS. From 2014 o 2018, admitted student % rose by about 4%. You can back out the conservatory if you want to, but I suspect that would make the yield look even worse, as the yield experienced about a 5% drop over the same period.

Again, it is just a data point and does not necessarily reflect on whether Oberlin is or was a good school. Just something to consider.

Yes, alternative facts. You neglect to look at all the data, and you omit the years during that stretch where both those numbers improved.

2015 admit rate DOWN 5% from 2014
2017 yield UP 5% from 2016

Alternative facts. And dishonest and not representative of the actual data.

2014 Admit rate 32%, 2018 36%. 2014 yield 32%, 2018 28%. These are Oberlin's numbers. 2018 was the most recent on there and I went 5 years back. 36% admit rate is about double/near triple the quality SLACs.

No, you didn't "go" five years back, you cherry picked two numbers which go up and down every year, as the pdf linked shows.

If you had gone back to 2000 you would have a 10% reduction!

You imply it declined over that period 2014-2018. IT DID NOT. It went up and down within a range which is probably within the standard deviation for a longer time period.

DP . You can quibble back and forth about the numbers and the years but the takeaway is that with a roughly 30% admit rate, Oberlin isn't nearly as selective as top ranked LACs.

Yes and that would be very valuable if that was the point being discussed.

The point being discussed was "Oberlin average test scores for admitted freshmen appear to be in decline, at least per the CDS they report. Admit rates also going up. Make of that what you will."

So, move the target as it pleases you, but the point above has been disproved.

[Anonymous]

What’s the point of you two arguing ? And does it really matter where they are ranked ? Find a school that your kid likes, that you can afford, and where they will hopefully blossom.

Oberlin is a good school and if it’s the right fit then your child is lucky to attend - whether it’s currently ranked 5 or 30.

Frankly DS was accepted. I was a proponent as I think it’s an intellectually curious environment. He didn’t like the campus not the facilities for his intended major. Goes to a lower ranked school and is quite happy.

DD was accepted to a Top 10 SLAC - visited - didn’t like the campus and that was it. I didn’t agree with her but she didn’t want to be there.

Me - I went to a no name school and have had Princeton and Yale law school grads report to me. I still in your kids a love of learning and some good old fashioned grit and they’ll be fine.