Reputation and prestige with public vs. private universities

[Anonymous]

Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Money always wins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.

[Anonymous]

I actually think the privates in the 40-60 range might be at risk of falling further behind. Especially those with small endowments and those who provide no merit to offset their rising tuition costs. These schools are precariously positioned bc tuitions are unsustainable and they don’t have the prestige brand name to carry the price tag. As an example, UFlorida and UGA are really compelling colleges OOS today, and they are in conversations that weren’t being had even 5-6 years ago. They are large, have a broad range of programs and majors, and will probably get stronger in the future.

[Anonymous]

The situation at UNC has been like this for decades and the school has by no means dropped in quality. It is hard to get into OOS precisely because so many OOS kids apply even though they know admission is a long shot. Why to they apply? For the most part they know it’s a great school. Same for UVA. Rankings are not that important and private schools have dominated them since the beginning. UVA and UNC will be just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.

It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?

[Anonymous]

Too many words, OP.

[Anonymous]

Be sure to let us know when your book comes out.

[Anonymous]

I went to Michigan. Back in the '90s, people would typically say, "Oh, that's a really good school." The tone was somewhat patronizing as if they were scrambling to say something good and not make me feel bad that it wasn't an ivy. Now, they say it with an air of being impressed because it's so hard to get into for out-of-state students. This is all to say that the landscape is so competitive right now and it's almost a crapshoot. If your kid gets into any top 20 or 30, it's a big deal and "prestigous."

[Anonymous]

Name and prestige should play no role in school choices.

There are HUGE differences between say Brown and Columbia in terms of curriculum and Penn and Dartmouth in terms of setting for example.

[Anonymous]

That's where the selective privates like WaStl, Emory, Tufts, BC, NEU, Wake, UChicago have the advantage. There isn't this mandate to open up the school for equity reasons to whatever flavor of the day politicians are in favor of. Just like we have seen all this research showing the value of SAT's, selective privates can use that to their advanatage. Let's face it. Students are snobby. Smart kids want to be around other smart kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's where the selective privates like WaStl, Emory, Tufts, BC, NEU, Wake, UChicago have the advantage. There isn't this mandate to open up the school for equity reasons to whatever flavor of the day politicians are in favor of. Just like we have seen all this research showing the value of SAT's, selective privates can use that to their advanatage. Let's face it. Students are snobby. Smart kids want to be around other smart kids.

Meh, zero value or merit to the published score ranges today until we / if we ever get back to full testing.

[Anonymous]

Did you take your pills today, OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.

It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's where the selective privates like WaStl, Emory, Tufts, BC, NEU, Wake, UChicago have the advantage. There isn't this mandate to open up the school for equity reasons to whatever flavor of the day politicians are in favor of. Just like we have seen all this research showing the value of SAT's, selective privates can use that to their advanatage. Let's face it. Students are snobby. Smart kids want to be around other smart kids.

Schools that are dropping in the rankings. Momentum is hard to reverse.