Pseudo prestigious privates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

[Anonymous]

I know many high stats kids at nyu....some programs at nyu aren't the best but that doesn't mean it can't have its pick given its location and certain very strong programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

NYU admits 10% to 15% of its entering class from NYC public schools. This is one likely reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

NYU admits 10% to 15% of its entering class from NYC public schools. This is one likely reason.

75% of students dont submit test score. Basically, unless you're applying to Stern, they're test blind.

[Anonymous]

Some Kids who don’t have the profile for the T-20 and don’t want to attend their state flagship or an LAC are happy to attend the so-called pseudo prestige privates. Why all this hate? An Ivy grad, SLAC grad, state flagship grad and the grads of the schools mentioned in this post can easily end up in the same place- law firm, residency program, bank, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

NYU admits 10% to 15% of its entering class from NYC public schools. This is one likely reason.

75% of students dont submit test score. Basically, unless you're applying to Stern, they're test blind.

NYU requires 3 AP test scores, one math/science, one humanities and one of choice to substitute for an SAT/ACT, supposedly similar to Yale.

NYU has its origins in educating New Yorkers and has retained the residue of that mission while becoming international. It wants a different mix of kids. It may be trying not to lose this identity because of its popularity.

NYU isn’t seeking to become a large Ivy+ or a public Cal. Students who want that should consider looking elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

NYU gets 95k application a year for an okay undergrad school with horrible financial aid.

They don’t need advice from anyone on admissions practices, they have cracked the code and are doing just fine thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BU, BC, NEU, Tulane, Miami who cares. Lots of state flagships better.

Applicants care and they think these schools are better. That's the reality.

For some strange reason 18 year old kids would rather live in Boston, Miami, or New Orleans instead of Norman, Knoxville, or Columbus.

If NYU was in Toledo and USC was in Cleveland they would not be pulling 90k applicants a year.

Berkeley is next door to SF and Boulder is next door to Denver.

If SUNY Buffalo moved to Brooklyn it would get 150k applicants a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BU, BC, NEU, Tulane, Miami who cares. Lots of state flagships better.

Applicants care and they think these schools are better. That's the reality.

For some strange reason 18 year old kids would rather live in Boston, Miami, or New Orleans instead of Norman, Knoxville, or Columbus.

If NYU was in Toledo and USC was in Cleveland they would not be pulling 90k applicants a year.

Berkeley is next door to SF and Boulder is next door to Denver.

If SUNY Buffalo moved to Brooklyn it would get 150k applicants a year.

There are close to 100 colleges in the Boston area, and most of them are not as successful, so there's much more to that while location is one of the factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BU, BC, NEU, Tulane, Miami who cares. Lots of state flagships better.

Applicants care and they think these schools are better. That's the reality.

Agree - the problem is many of the applicants and their parents try so hard to convince people they are something that they aren’t . The schools on that list are fine, but they are not prestigious. It’s like comparing a Dr. to a nurse. Nurses take a very difficult course load, they are smart and capable, but your friends are going to be way more impressed and excited for you if your kid is a Dr. Only the Ivies and a few others in the too 15 are Drs.

Nobody is trying to convince anybody.
It's all about supply and demand.
Those schools are popular and in demand for reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some Kids who don’t have the profile for the T-20 and don’t want to attend their state flagship or an LAC are happy to attend the so-called pseudo prestige privates. Why all this hate? An Ivy grad, SLAC grad, state flagship grad and the grads of the schools mentioned in this post can easily end up in the same place- law firm, residency program, bank, etc.

OP is claiming Emory and WashU as "pseudo prestigious" which very much have T20 admissions. And Washu is technically T20.

[Anonymous]

NYU has an amazing law school and med school. The undergrad seems pretty mediocre.

I don’t know a lot of high stats kids going there, but I do see a steady stream of wealthy families sending their above average kids there That’s where the annoyance comes in … your on the receiving and of this subtle assertion that their kid goes to NYU because they wanted to be in the Village and that it’s somehow preferable to the Upper West Side or Providence or the crummy part of Philly. We all know what’s really going on, so stop trying so hard. Same for USC tbh, another one time commuter school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NYU has an amazing law school and med school. The undergrad seems pretty mediocre.

I don’t know a lot of high stats kids going there, but I do see a steady stream of wealthy families sending their above average kids there That’s where the annoyance comes in … your on the receiving and of this subtle assertion that their kid goes to NYU because they wanted to be in the Village and that it’s somehow preferable to the Upper West Side or Providence or the crummy part of Philly. We all know what’s really going on, so stop trying so hard. Same for USC tbh, another one time commuter school.

Every school was one time commuter school. MIT was one time vocational school. Yawn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYU has an amazing law school and med school. The undergrad seems pretty mediocre.

I don’t know a lot of high stats kids going there, but I do see a steady stream of wealthy families sending their above average kids there That’s where the annoyance comes in … your on the receiving and of this subtle assertion that their kid goes to NYU because they wanted to be in the Village and that it’s somehow preferable to the Upper West Side or Providence or the crummy part of Philly. We all know what’s really going on, so stop trying so hard. Same for USC tbh, another one time commuter school.

Every school was one time commuter school. MIT was one time vocational school. Yawn

Oh that’s right. Thanks.

I’m trying to remember if that one also admits 75% of their kids without test scores … and wants to know whether you are full pay first.