UVA Jan 31

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any UVA admissions statistic older than two years is no longer valid. Competition has ramped up dramatically, especially in-state...

This is true. I've been watching the SCHEV stats. creep up for the last five years. My DD, who is now a fourth year there, would never be accepted today.

If she came along later, she'd probably have a higher GPA due to high school grade inflation. She may have higher standardized test scores due to better test prep.

Nope. And she did have private test prep for three rounds. She wouldn't have the stats to get in today.

[Anonymous]

More women than men applied yet they admitted more women than men. I am aware that this follows national trends but it's starting to look a little lopsided with 1500 more women undergrads total.
I know they don't get much $ at all from the GA but do they have room to expand both facilities and enrollment or are they constrained by UNESCO status or simply lack of space?

[Anonymous]

it’s the national trend across almost all universities and especially SlACS. Women have higher scores. UVA at 55 percent female is well within the range of what is taking place nationally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More women than men applied yet they admitted more women than men. I am aware that this follows national trends but it's starting to look a little lopsided with 1500 more women undergrads total.
I know they don't get much $ at all from the GA but do they have room to expand both facilities and enrollment or are they constrained by UNESCO status or simply lack of space?

They could take over hotels and stuff more kids into classes. There won’t be any negative effects on the students, faculty, or community it’s, right? Just talk to someone who lives in Blacksburg about how great that’s working out for them this year.

[Anonymous]

That was due to VT’s (or whatever company they farm it out to) poor enrollment projections. If a UVA expansion could happen, it would be thoughtful and deliberate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More women than men applied yet they admitted more women than men. I am aware that this follows national trends but it's starting to look a little lopsided with 1500 more women undergrads total.
I know they don't get much $ at all from the GA but do they have room to expand both facilities and enrollment or are they constrained by UNESCO status or simply lack of space?

There are simply more women than men with good stats these days. Last year's class was 57% female. That is about the national average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More women than men applied yet they admitted more women than men. I am aware that this follows national trends but it's starting to look a little lopsided with 1500 more women undergrads total.
I know they don't get much $ at all from the GA but do they have room to expand both facilities and enrollment or are they constrained by UNESCO status or simply lack of space?

There are simply more women than men with good stats these days. Last year's class was 57% female. That is about the national average.

So the war on boys is starting to bear fruit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More women than men applied yet they admitted more women than men. I am aware that this follows national trends but it's starting to look a little lopsided with 1500 more women undergrads total.
I know they don't get much $ at all from the GA but do they have room to expand both facilities and enrollment or are they constrained by UNESCO status or simply lack of space?

There are simply more women than men with good stats these days. Last year's class was 57% female. That is about the national average.

So the war on boys is starting to bear fruit.

I don't think there's a "war on boys." When I was growing up, I think boys were taught they were smarter than girls and being smart was encouraged. Now, I don't see boys being taught they are smarter than girls, and there is a bigger emphasis on sports, even for kids who wouldn't have necessarily been into sports when I was growing up. I think it's what parents themselves are prioritizing that's resulting in this change. Boys actually have an advantage in college admissions.

[Anonymous]

There is no “war on boys” just as there is no war on white people. It’s disturbing how quickly this victim story has spread in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More women than men applied yet they admitted more women than men. I am aware that this follows national trends but it's starting to look a little lopsided with 1500 more women undergrads total.
I know they don't get much $ at all from the GA but do they have room to expand both facilities and enrollment or are they constrained by UNESCO status or simply lack of space?

There are simply more women than men with good stats these days. Last year's class was 57% female. That is about the national average.

So the war on boys is starting to bear fruit.

I guess when you no longer get a 25 m start in a 100 m race, and have to compete fairly, it may seem like things are now "unfair." But, really, you're just now on more equal footing. That's not a war, sweetie. It's step to being more fair for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no “war on boys” just as there is no war on white people. It’s disturbing how quickly this victim story has spread in America.

+1 More girls go to college these days than boys. It’s simple.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/the-degrees-of-separation-between-the-genders-in-college-keeps-growing/2019/10/25/8b2e5094-f2ab-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

Fifty years ago, 58 percent of U.S. college students were men. Today, 56 percent are women, Education Department estimates show. This year, for the first time, the share of college-educated women in the U.S. workforce passed the share of college-educated men, according to the Pew Research Center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can also share that our total application number is at 40,971 right now. Remember, we use completed applications in our stats, so the total may go down by the end of the Regular Decision process.

Let's not loose our minds people. Applications are flat from last year. 40,815 for the class of 2023. Overall stats should not change much. Your kid's got the same shot. Nothing's changed.

Not really. With ED, they now have 750 admitted students with a 100% yield. So the acceptance rate for RD will be lower than previous year. Just like EA rate was lower than last year. Basic math.

Yes, but they then have to adjust the expected yield rate for RD to make up for the fact that the students who are UVA or bust are out of the RD pool so they have to accept more students per anticipated open seat to ensure enough enroll. There's no basic math when it comes to enrollment projections since it's all probability based.

[Anonymous]

I guess when you no longer get a 25 m start in a 100 m race, and have to compete fairly, it may seem like things are now "unfair." But, really, you're just now on more equal footing. That's not a war, sweetie. It's step to being more fair for everyone.

Ooooh, you called me "sweetie", I'm so offended. I'm sure you love it when people do the same to you.

And I suppose "fair" to you means being lopsided in favor of your preferred group instead of 50-50.

Have a nice day, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I guess when you no longer get a 25 m start in a 100 m race, and have to compete fairly, it may seem like things are now "unfair." But, really, you're just now on more equal footing. That's not a war, sweetie. It's step to being more fair for everyone.

Ooooh, you called me "sweetie", I'm so offended. I'm sure you love it when people do the same to you.

And I suppose "fair" to you means being lopsided in favor of your preferred group instead of 50-50.

Have a nice day, sweetie.

So, you're in favor of affirmative action? Because that's what you're asking for. If boys have lower stats, why should there be equal numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess when you no longer get a 25 m start in a 100 m race, and have to compete fairly, it may seem like things are now "unfair." But, really, you're just now on more equal footing. That's not a war, sweetie. It's step to being more fair for everyone.

Ooooh, you called me "sweetie", I'm so offended. I'm sure you love it when people do the same to you.

And I suppose "fair" to you means being lopsided in favor of your preferred group instead of 50-50.

Have a nice day, sweetie.

So, you're in favor of affirmative action? Because that's what you're asking for. If boys have lower stats, why should there be equal numbers?

Wait! Isn't Harvard going to come up with a "gender conscious" admissions policy to fix this?