Felicity's kid is going to Vassar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rates mean nothing. A full pay Californian rich kid with half-decent grades isn’t getting rejected from freakin’ Vassar. All these small LACs are struggling with headcount and budgets.

Vassar is a need-blind, meaning admission decisions are made without regard to the student's financial situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rates mean nothing. A full pay Californian rich kid with half-decent grades isn’t getting rejected from freakin’ Vassar. All these small LACs are struggling with headcount and budgets.

Vassar is a need-blind, meaning admission decisions are made without regard to the student's financial situation.

lol so naive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rates mean nothing. A full pay Californian rich kid with half-decent grades isn’t getting rejected from freakin’ Vassar. All these small LACs are struggling with headcount and budgets.

Vassar is a need-blind, meaning admission decisions are made without regard to the student's financial situation.

lol so naive

The moved from need sensitive to need blind in 2007.

Of course, they can see a kid like Felicity's went to an elite private high school so the bias still exists -- but they don't look at financial documents when making the admission decisions.

[Anonymous]

Yeah GW was totally need blind too......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah GW was totally need blind too......

GW is need aware

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rates mean nothing. A full pay Californian rich kid with half-decent grades isn’t getting rejected from freakin’ Vassar. All these small LACs are struggling with headcount and budgets.

Yep, acceptance rates mean nothing. Good lord you’re a moron.

Pray tell the acceptance rate of rich Californians with decent stats and a competent essay. I’d guess: 100%

Since you asked - at Harvard-Westlake, probably the best private in SoCal, only 11 out of 24 kids got into Vassar the last 3 years.
https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/Handbook2019.pdf

The Harvard-Westlake data is interesting. Kudos to them for being so transparent in breaking down how legacy/recruited athlete makes a difference. The data also confirms how U of Michigan and UVA are in a league of their own outside of the UC schools when it comes to selectivity and prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah GW was totally need blind too......

GW is need aware

After they were caught lying about being blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rates mean nothing. A full pay Californian rich kid with half-decent grades isn’t getting rejected from freakin’ Vassar. All these small LACs are struggling with headcount and budgets.

Yep, acceptance rates mean nothing. Good lord you’re a moron.

Pray tell the acceptance rate of rich Californians with decent stats and a competent essay. I’d guess: 100%

Since you asked - at Harvard-Westlake, probably the best private in SoCal, only 11 out of 24 kids got into Vassar the last 3 years.
https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/Handbook2019.pdf

Colossal burn. Sent dummy packing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rates mean nothing. A full pay Californian rich kid with half-decent grades isn’t getting rejected from freakin’ Vassar. All these small LACs are struggling with headcount and budgets.

Yep, acceptance rates mean nothing. Good lord you’re a moron.

Pray tell the acceptance rate of rich Californians with decent stats and a competent essay. I’d guess: 100%

Since you asked - at Harvard-Westlake, probably the best private in SoCal, only 11 out of 24 kids got into Vassar the last 3 years.
https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/Handbook2019.pdf

Colossal burn. Sent dummy packing.

Totally agree.

[Anonymous]

That is really an outstanding handbook. The school did a great job with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It used to be a hard school to get into but not anymore.

It is for women.

What makes you say that? What’s your evidence?

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Finstitutionalresearch.vassar.edu%2Fdocs%2FVassarCollegeCDS-1819.pdf

If you're too lazy to click on the link, Here's the BLUF:

Acceptance rate for men: 33%
Acceptance rate for women: 21%

Yup. You can make statistics say whatever you want them to, depending on how you frame it.

About 7700 applications are received annually. About 28% are male (around 2150) and around 71% are female (around 5450).

Using your numbers for the acceptance rate, that means they accept about 710 males and about 1145 women. So about 38% male and 62% female accepted.

If they didn't have higher acceptance rates for men, then the student body would be skewed even further. They are a traditionally female college that is trying to become more balanced and coed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rates mean nothing. A full pay Californian rich kid with half-decent grades isn’t getting rejected from freakin’ Vassar. All these small LACs are struggling with headcount and budgets.

Vassar is a need-blind, meaning admission decisions are made without regard to the student's financial situation.

lol so naive

lol yeah you know the TRUTH, Lee Harvey Flat-Earther. You know the conspiracy. Foil hats set to ON.