Johns Hopkins is a Leader in Undergrad Diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an alum and wouldn't send my kid there. It's a definite slog with little school spirit and historically the students are incredibly intense because so many are pre-med. There was a decent amount of cheating, hiding of source documents in the library, etc. (Back in my era when there were required textbooks or readings on-loan in the library kids would check them all out and keep them/destroy them so their classmates couldn't read them). Basically--weird, super competitive stuff was not abnormal.

Also, historically kids would enter having had years and years of advanced high school science and math. My kids are on the "calculus in 11th grade track" at a non-magnet and if you had asked me if I'd feel like they would be prepared for Hopkins my gut would say "no way! They'll be really far behind many of their peers." Interestingly, I don't know how this jives with the heavy minority enrollment because many of these kids will be becoming from under resourced high schools that may not even offer AP classes, Calc BC, etc. How does this group jive with large percentage of kid coming from STEM magnets etc. who are 2 or 3 or 4 years beyond calculus in high school?
Hopkins would seem about the last school on the planet that's a good fit for some of these kids. And lest you say I'm a racist--I work daily with these kids. We have a bunch from very poorly resourced schools in DC and Baltimore who are heading to Hopkins this fall. They're smart but most have never had math beyond pre-calc. How are they going to jive with the 30% of the class that took linear algebra in high school? I'm sure many will do great but some will not. They'll realize that a STEM heavy, slog of a university is a terrible fit. It's just all a bit odd but I'm not the one making decisions at Hopkins.

I'm not a Hopkins grad, but I live a few blocks from campus and I see students all the time. For what it's worth, all the ones who live near me seem to be standard preppy white kids. Your take is very interesting. My impression is that Hopkins is not much fun, but the description of kids hiding resources in the library takes things to another level. I wonder if perhaps a more diverse student body will alter some of the culture in a good way?

Yep, I don't know. Maybe the whole place has mellowed out. My experience was 20+ years ago. I know that it wasn't much fun and that none of my college friends have kids applying there. That's why the whole "no longer considering legacy" thing is a kind of a joke. Most legacy kids are not applying--save for a very select few who want this exact, unique product. It's not a bad place, it's just by no means a "one size fits all" kind of place.
Which is why this super heavy URM recruitment (as the institution's number one priority and now identity) is so weird. I can't stress enough that I wouldn't send my kids with their A's in two years of well taught calculus there. I'd worry they'd get their asses kicked by the TJ and Bronx Science brigade (and more than that--be miserable in the process). I can't imagine being from Ballou or Dunbar in DC (like kids are this year) and trying to make it work after having only pre-calc. I don't get it but I hope it works out for these kids.

20 years ago is an irrelevant datapoint. Before Daniels' weird very recent diversification push, the class was 15%+ legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is a reflection of Hopkins; reputation as a miserable grind for undergrads as well as a school focused on graduate students. Kids with parents who know the reputation and who attend schools with good counselors are likely avoiding it. That leaves the uninformed (who the post praises them for targeting) and kids who want that kind of a college experience.

Oh please, with a 6.5% acceptance rate JHU is swamped with applications from white and Asian kids. They just find it far more challenging to get in.

US News has them at 8% which is far higher than most of their peers

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

8% being far higher than 6 and 7%. What an idiot.

Can’t compare schools with two rounds of ED (Hopkins, Chicago) with schools that are SCEA or 1 round of ED. Or, if you do, the 8% needs to be adjusted upward by several percentage points (to be well within the double digits). 2 ED rounds artificially lowers admit rates…

If JHU wanted to game acceptance rates, it could choose to waitlist vastly more and accept more from the WL which is what Penn does. Instead, it's accepted 0 from the waitlist for about the past 3 years now.

This is not about gaming, but fact. That two rounds of ED lowers admit rates compared to one round of ED is a truism.

Not really since the aggregate amount taken when JHU had one round of ED is relatively unchanged. How about all these schools with ED go EA if they were brave?

[Anonymous]

Acceptance rate is nearly a worthless stat now anyway. Just about all rankers realize it is junk and have removed it from their formulas.
Schools wanted to seem so selective 20 years ago but went too far and now it is at the point that some no longer report on their acceptance rates so as not to deter the first gen and less confident kids they want applying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rate is nearly a worthless stat now anyway. Just about all rankers realize it is junk and have removed it from their formulas.
Schools wanted to seem so selective 20 years ago but went too far and now it is at the point that some no longer report on their acceptance rates so as not to deter the first gen and less confident kids they want applying.

No one applying cares anymore now that the acceptance rates at the top privates are all sub 10%. Being 9% vs 4% is immaterially different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is a reflection of Hopkins; reputation as a miserable grind for undergrads as well as a school focused on graduate students. Kids with parents who know the reputation and who attend schools with good counselors are likely avoiding it. That leaves the uninformed (who the post praises them for targeting) and kids who want that kind of a college experience.

Oh please, with a 6.5% acceptance rate JHU is swamped with applications from white and Asian kids. They just find it far more challenging to get in.

US News has them at 8% which is far higher than most of their peers

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

8% being far higher than 6 and 7%. What an idiot.

Can’t compare schools with two rounds of ED (Hopkins, Chicago) with schools that are SCEA or 1 round of ED. Or, if you do, the 8% needs to be adjusted upward by several percentage points (to be well within the double digits). 2 ED rounds artificially lowers admit rates…

If JHU wanted to game acceptance rates, it could choose to waitlist vastly more and accept more from the WL which is what Penn does. Instead, it's accepted 0 from the waitlist for about the past 3 years now.

This is not about gaming, but fact. That two rounds of ED lowers admit rates compared to one round of ED is a truism.

How about you compare marketing fliers? Some schools are infamous for giving away free applications and flooding mailboxes. Hopkins isn't one of them yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is a reflection of Hopkins; reputation as a miserable grind for undergrads as well as a school focused on graduate students. Kids with parents who know the reputation and who attend schools with good counselors are likely avoiding it. That leaves the uninformed (who the post praises them for targeting) and kids who want that kind of a college experience.

Oh please, with a 6.5% acceptance rate JHU is swamped with applications from white and Asian kids. They just find it far more challenging to get in.

US News has them at 8% which is far higher than most of their peers

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

8% being far higher than 6 and 7%. What an idiot.

Can’t compare schools with two rounds of ED (Hopkins, Chicago) with schools that are SCEA or 1 round of ED. Or, if you do, the 8% needs to be adjusted upward by several percentage points (to be well within the double digits). 2 ED rounds artificially lowers admit rates…

If JHU wanted to game acceptance rates, it could choose to waitlist vastly more and accept more from the WL which is what Penn does. Instead, it's accepted 0 from the waitlist for about the past 3 years now.

This is not about gaming, but fact. That two rounds of ED lowers admit rates compared to one round of ED is a truism.

Not really since the aggregate amount taken when JHU had one round of ED is relatively unchanged. How about all these schools with ED go EA if they were brave?

Sigh. Think of this as a simulation. Who do you think is applying to Hopkins ED2 as opposed to ED1? Now, draw out the implications of that. Your stance posits that there are no such implications. Think harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rate is nearly a worthless stat now anyway. Just about all rankers realize it is junk and have removed it from their formulas.
Schools wanted to seem so selective 20 years ago but went too far and now it is at the point that some no longer report on their acceptance rates so as not to deter the first gen and less confident kids they want applying.

No one applying cares anymore now that the acceptance rates at the top privates are all sub 10%. Being 9% vs 4% is immaterially different.

I would say it is “material” to the 5% extra who have been admitted. Perhaps you meant something else, but I ain’t your language tutor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is a reflection of Hopkins; reputation as a miserable grind for undergrads as well as a school focused on graduate students. Kids with parents who know the reputation and who attend schools with good counselors are likely avoiding it. That leaves the uninformed (who the post praises them for targeting) and kids who want that kind of a college experience.

Oh please, with a 6.5% acceptance rate JHU is swamped with applications from white and Asian kids. They just find it far more challenging to get in.

US News has them at 8% which is far higher than most of their peers

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

8% being far higher than 6 and 7%. What an idiot.

Gotta love the condescension when I have a Ph.D. from MIT. No, you fail to consider the myriad of other factors at play including WL
Can’t compare schools with two rounds of ED (Hopkins, Chicago) with schools that are SCEA or 1 round of ED. Or, if you do, the 8% needs to be adjusted upward by several percentage points (to be well within the double digits). 2 ED rounds artificially lowers admit rates…

If JHU wanted to game acceptance rates, it could choose to waitlist vastly more and accept more from the WL which is what Penn does. Instead, it's accepted 0 from the waitlist for about the past 3 years now.

This is not about gaming, but fact. That two rounds of ED lowers admit rates compared to one round of ED is a truism.

Not really since the aggregate amount taken when JHU had one round of ED is relatively unchanged. How about all these schools with ED go EA if they were brave?

Sigh. Think of this as a simulation. Who do you think is applying to Hopkins ED2 as opposed to ED1? Now, draw out the implications of that. Your stance posits that there are no such implications. Think harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is a reflection of Hopkins; reputation as a miserable grind for undergrads as well as a school focused on graduate students. Kids with parents who know the reputation and who attend schools with good counselors are likely avoiding it. That leaves the uninformed (who the post praises them for targeting) and kids who want that kind of a college experience.

Oh please, with a 6.5% acceptance rate JHU is swamped with applications from white and Asian kids. They just find it far more challenging to get in.

US News has them at 8% which is far higher than most of their peers

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

8% being far higher than 6 and 7%. What an idiot.

Can’t compare schools with two rounds of ED (Hopkins, Chicago) with schools that are SCEA or 1 round of ED. Or, if you do, the 8% needs to be adjusted upward by several percentage points (to be well within the double digits). 2 ED rounds artificially lowers admit rates…

If JHU wanted to game acceptance rates, it could choose to waitlist vastly more and accept more from the WL which is what Penn does. Instead, it's accepted 0 from the waitlist for about the past 3 years now.

This is not about gaming, but fact. That two rounds of ED lowers admit rates compared to one round of ED is a truism.

Not really since the aggregate amount taken when JHU had one round of ED is relatively unchanged. How about all these schools with ED go EA if they were brave?

With the yield rates, most REA schools might as well be ED. All the anti-ED talk about leverage and comparing aid isn't happening at scale in practice.
Just getting rid of all restrictive early admission period might be a good idea though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rate is nearly a worthless stat now anyway. Just about all rankers realize it is junk and have removed it from their formulas.
Schools wanted to seem so selective 20 years ago but went too far and now it is at the point that some no longer report on their acceptance rates so as not to deter the first gen and less confident kids they want applying.

No one applying cares anymore now that the acceptance rates at the top privates are all sub 10%. Being 9% vs 4% is immaterially different.

I would say it is “material” to the 5% extra who have been admitted. Perhaps you meant something else, but I ain’t your language tutor.

The level of condescension on here is funny. You have a Ph.D. from MIT and work for Google in DC as well? No, I didn't think so.

Anything sub 10% is a lottery. Thinking your changes are significantly higher in a vast pool of applicants is foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is a reflection of Hopkins; reputation as a miserable grind for undergrads as well as a school focused on graduate students. Kids with parents who know the reputation and who attend schools with good counselors are likely avoiding it. That leaves the uninformed (who the post praises them for targeting) and kids who want that kind of a college experience.

Oh please, with a 6.5% acceptance rate JHU is swamped with applications from white and Asian kids. They just find it far more challenging to get in.

US News has them at 8% which is far higher than most of their peers

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

8% being far higher than 6 and 7%. What an idiot.

Can’t compare schools with two rounds of ED (Hopkins, Chicago) with schools that are SCEA or 1 round of ED. Or, if you do, the 8% needs to be adjusted upward by several percentage points (to be well within the double digits). 2 ED rounds artificially lowers admit rates…

If JHU wanted to game acceptance rates, it could choose to waitlist vastly more and accept more from the WL which is what Penn does. Instead, it's accepted 0 from the waitlist for about the past 3 years now.

This is not about gaming, but fact. That two rounds of ED lowers admit rates compared to one round of ED is a truism.

Not really since the aggregate amount taken when JHU had one round of ED is relatively unchanged. How about all these schools with ED go EA if they were brave?

Sigh. Think of this as a simulation. Who do you think is applying to Hopkins ED2 as opposed to ED1? Now, draw out the implications of that. Your stance posits that there are no such implications. Think harder.

yes, why don't you spell out the applicants applying to JHU ED 2. Are they not people that would have gone to a peer RD instead? How is this different from Waitlists where schools have nearly 100% yield? Guess what, ED isn't 100% yield either.

[Anonymous]

It makes no sense for a school that offers ED1 to not offer ED2. Those other Ivies could also get some great applicants ED2.

[Anonymous]

Thought UTexas Austin needed a shoutout here, since it has more diversity than Hopkins — and I believe more than any other selective school in the country. The Post article on Hopkins does not say the proportion of URMs who are actually low-income, but rest assured that the proportion at UT is much, much greater.

[Anonymous]

It is crazy how people start acting when they think it can never get back to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thought UTexas Austin needed a shoutout here, since it has more diversity than Hopkins — and I believe more than any other selective school in the country. The Post article on Hopkins does not say the proportion of URMs who are actually low-income, but rest assured that the proportion at UT is much, much greater.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools

Wrong again.