Oberlin or NYU

[Anonymous]

So the downturn is more recent. And it is now not as selective. Or even very selective as compared to top for SLACs. Got it.

[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.

What? By your logic, you should be sending your kids to Walmart, as Walmart at below 3% beats elite schools hands down:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/28/wal-mart-has-a-lower-acceptance-rate-than-harvard/?utm_term=.6685afa68f6a

[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?

A school in NY, outside NY city, that is comparable with Oberlin is Vassar. My D was accepted to both. Oberlin has its own pluses, so this turned into an agonizing decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the downturn is more recent.

No. I'm stopping now because you are either lying on purpose or too dense to understand. The facts remain here for anyone still following this bull:

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What? By your logic, you should be sending your kids to Walmart, as Walmart at below 3% beats elite schools hands down:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/28/wal-mart-has-a-lower-acceptance-rate-than-harvard/?utm_term=.6685afa68f6a

Now you’re just being stupid.....not a great representative of the critical thinking skills an oberlin education produces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What? By your logic, you should be sending your kids to Walmart, as Walmart at below 3% beats elite schools hands down:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/28/wal-mart-has-a-lower-acceptance-rate-than-harvard/?utm_term=.6685afa68f6a

Now you’re just being stupid.....not a great representative of the critical thinking skills an oberlin education produces.

Selectivity is a function of how many people a school can get to apply and its admit/rejection rate. It's an area that can be gamed easily. Simply mass mail all HS students in the USA, entice them with the possibility of free tuition, get as many to apply as possible - and reject them. Swarthmore is famous at this tactic. Stupid is you who can't read between the lines and believe US New is "news."

[Anonymous]

Vassar is much better than Oberlin. Most of hear posts do little more than confirm that Oberlin is solid second tier

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the downturn is more recent.

No. I'm stopping now because you are either lying on purpose or too dense to understand. The facts remain here for anyone still following this bull:

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

All that shows is that Oberlin does not enjoy the increased popularity or the rise in student quality that first tier SLAC’s have enjoyed over the past 5 years. It’s a LAC, not a SLAC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the downturn is more recent.

No. I'm stopping now because you are either lying on purpose or too dense to understand. The facts remain here for anyone still following this bull:

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

All that shows is that Oberlin does not enjoy the increased popularity or the rise in student quality that first tier SLAC’s have enjoyed over the past 5 years. It’s a LAC, not a SLAC

Move the target yet again. Fine you can have that claim, now that the steep decline claim has been disproved 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS accepted to both. No SAT - 30 ACT with 3.6 UW GPA.

Was this early decision admit, pp? Curious because I have a ds who wants to attend NYU with 1390 sat and 3.7 uw gpa but can’t do early decision.

Yes - ED to NYU (Tisch). Unfortunately had to decline due to finances - their package was all loans. Things worked out as he is happy where he landed. Good luck to you and your son.

Stupid. Why do ED if you can’t pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What? By your logic, you should be sending your kids to Walmart, as Walmart at below 3% beats elite schools hands down:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/28/wal-mart-has-a-lower-acceptance-rate-than-harvard/?utm_term=.6685afa68f6a

Now you’re just being stupid.....not a great representative of the critical thinking skills an oberlin education produces.

Selectivity is a function of how many people a school can get to apply and its admit/rejection rate. It's an area that can be gamed easily. Simply mass mail all HS students in the USA, entice them with the possibility of free tuition, get as many to apply as possible - and reject them. Swarthmore is famous at this tactic. Stupid is you who can't read between the lines and believe US New is "news."

Sure, there’s no correlation between selectivity and academic quality.....uh huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS accepted to both. No SAT - 30 ACT with 3.6 UW GPA.

Was this early decision admit, pp? Curious because I have a ds who wants to attend NYU with 1390 sat and 3.7 uw gpa but can’t do early decision.

Yes - ED to NYU (Tisch). Unfortunately had to decline due to finances - their package was all loans. Things worked out as he is happy where he landed. Good luck to you and your son.

Stupid. Why do ED if you can’t pay?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sure, there’s no correlation between selectivity and academic quality.....uh huh.

Some, sure, but it is not universal

Alice Lloyd College
Pippa Passes, Kentucky
7.1%

College of the Ozarks
Point Lookout, Missouri
8.3%

Liberty University
Lynchburg, Virginia
20.3%

Florida Memorial University
Miami, Florida
20.5%

Missouri Valley College
Marshall, Missouri
22.2%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the downturn is more recent.

No. I'm stopping now because you are either lying on purpose or too dense to understand. The facts remain here for anyone still following this bull:

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

All that shows is that Oberlin does not enjoy the increased popularity or the rise in student quality that first tier SLAC’s have enjoyed over the past 5 years. It’s a LAC, not a SLAC

Move the target yet again. Fine you can have that claim, now that the steep decline claim has been disproved 100%.

The original post said a decline, not a "steep decline," so nothing was disproved. Truth hurts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the downturn is more recent.

No. I'm stopping now because you are either lying on purpose or too dense to understand. The facts remain here for anyone still following this bull:

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

All that shows is that Oberlin does not enjoy the increased popularity or the rise in student quality that first tier SLAC’s have enjoyed over the past 5 years. It’s a LAC, not a SLAC

Move the target yet again. Fine you can have that claim, now that the steep decline claim has been disproved 100%.

The original post said a decline, not a "steep decline," so nothing was disproved. Truth hurts

But it is not on a decline, as the data shows. You should stop digging yourself a deeper hole, you dishonest alternative-fact reactionary liar.