Let’s just talk VA public colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

Have you looked at the admissions stats? And being in Nova doesn't help, despite what their admissions people say about there not being any quotas.

In plain English, who is getting in, then?

TJ has a 60% admit rate to UVA, 85% or so VT (mostly engineering) and WM

So the top 50 kids at the NOVA high schools might get in to UVA or WM. Not all of our kids are in that group, even though some are still quite good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP who said consider that kids will usually change majors, but something like this in no order:

Prelaw: W&M and UVA
Art and Design: VCU
Business: UVA, W&M, JMU (remember you have to get accepted)
Pre-Med: VCU if you can get accepted to guaranteed program and are OK with VCU, W&M and UVA
Engineering: VT generally, UVA if it is one of its strong areas (e.g. biomedical engineering), GMU
Science (non-engineering): W&M, UVA, VT
Need some discipline to get you going?: VMI, VT Corps
Want an urban experience: VCU, ODU
Want a big sports experience?: VT and UVA
Want to be an academic? W&M, UVA
Best Food: VT and JMU
Big Party: VT, JMU, Radford, UVA
Need to stay close to home for one reason or another? Any obviously, but will be GMU, VCU, ODU for most.
Like somewhat smaller schools? Longwood, MWU, CNU, MWU, W&M, Radford

Funny you didn't mention various types of IT, comp sci, data science. Seems like ALOT of kids are and will be looking for those types of degrees given the future of our economy.

VT and GMU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know from experience with my own kids that W&M (and also presumably UVA) is a much, much better school than JMU. The quality of the professors, the level of academic rigor, and the institutional resources (tutoring, career counseling, available internships) at W&M are far beyond anything at JMU.

In JMU's favor, the food there is much better than W&M's. And the sports are fun. And they certainly know how to party.

Posts like this make me laugh. Insecurity just drips from your words as it’s clear you know nothing about JMU or the programs it offers - or the students who go there. I’ll just leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why some of you are surprised with UVA. Their acceptance rate is about 27%.

How about a good student getting into JMU?

Good student as in north of 4.0, 1300 SATs? JMU is a safety

JMU doesn’t consider SAT scores.

Who is this troll spreading misinformation about JMU? Of COURSE they consider SAT scores - and ACT scores. Don’t post about schools you so clearly know nothing about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love Mary Washington. I really think it is a hidden gem!

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VT, W&M and UVA in varying orders depending on the major.

This for everyone.

Good grief. Stop speaking for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

[Anonymous]

It was interesting going through the college process--Fall of senior year my kid was sure that "nearly everyone" in his classes was going to UVA or W&M (or VT if they wanted engineering) or some elite private/OOS public. Come May there were a handful who went to the "top" schools but most--even in AP classes and kids generally regarded as smart, good, engaged students--were going to GMU, JMU, VT for degrees other than engineering, CNU, VCU, NOVA etc. And it all seemed fine and good and people were happy for others no matter where they were going and it wasn't a big deal being one of the ones who was off to UVA/W&M or an elite private/OOS school--kids mainly seemed excited to be done with HS and eager for what's to come next. Same as I remember generations before. It was a relief after all the stress of junior year/fall senior year around college applications to see them all come together like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

Define "top school." I call BS on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

Define "top school." I call BS on this.

This is BS. Many schools err short on enrollment but keep a hefty waitlist so they don't have a problem like VT. That's not the same as not hitting enrollment targets. There are demographic trends coming to lessen some pressure on college admssions but we haven't seen them yet, and the growth in international student enrollment has worsened since 2013. Selectivity is still increasing at many colleges. Enrollment management is getting trickier with students interested in top schools applying to 20+ colleges--that's very different than not hitting targets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

Define "top school." I call BS on this.

This is BS. Many schools err short on enrollment but keep a hefty waitlist so they don't have a problem like VT. That's not the same as not hitting enrollment targets. There are demographic trends coming to lessen some pressure on college admssions but we haven't seen them yet, and the growth in international student enrollment has worsened since 2013. Selectivity is still increasing at many colleges. Enrollment management is getting trickier with students interested in top schools applying to 20+ colleges--that's very different than not hitting targets.

So true!! Anyone who has been through the process in the last few has seen this first hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

Define "top school." I call BS on this.

You don't need to define "top school."

In 2011, there were 20.4 million students enrolled. In 2017, it was 18 million students, mostly due to declining birthrates. Source. Read this 2018 report about how colleges can't fill their slots, and international enrollment didn't help.

Now let's assume that there a X slot at top schools. Let's assume (pessimistically) that X didn't change between 2011 and 2017 (whatever the top schools are, they didn't decrease capacity). Let's assume, completely naively, that the top schools admit the best applicants (ok, this is getting a bit too theoretical, but stick with me.)

So in 2011, you needed to be in the top (1 - X/20.4M) * 100 percentile to get one of these slots. In 2017, it sufficed to be in the (1 - X/18M) * 100 percentile. In other words, the number of students with whom you compete for slots at "top schools" - however you define them - decreased by 11%. This means that a fair number of students who based on their relative standing to their peers weren't admitted to top schools in 2011 were admitted in 2017. In reality, X has increased since "top schools" - by whatever definition have seen positive capacity growth, exacerbating this effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

Define "top school." I call BS on this.

You don't need to define "top school."

In 2011, there were 20.4 million students enrolled. In 2017, it was 18 million students, mostly due to declining birthrates. Source. Read this 2018 report about how colleges can't fill their slots, and international enrollment didn't help.

Now let's assume that there a X slot at top schools. Let's assume (pessimistically) that X didn't change between 2011 and 2017 (whatever the top schools are, they didn't decrease capacity). Let's assume, completely naively, that the top schools admit the best applicants (ok, this is getting a bit too theoretical, but stick with me.)

So in 2011, you needed to be in the top (1 - X/20.4M) * 100 percentile to get one of these slots. In 2017, it sufficed to be in the (1 - X/18M) * 100 percentile. In other words, the number of students with whom you compete for slots at "top schools" - however you define them - decreased by 11%. This means that a fair number of students who based on their relative standing to their peers weren't admitted to top schools in 2011 were admitted in 2017. In reality, X has increased since "top schools" - by whatever definition have seen positive capacity growth, exacerbating this effect.

What are the "top schools"? Your post is meaningless unless you answer this question, which you completely ducked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Try getting in to one of these places these days.

Why wouldn’t a very good student get in?

I find it interesting that this year only UVA and VT managed to meet their enrollment targets (VT in catastrophic fashion, of course). Nationwide, the number of students has been dropping significantly over the last decade, so contrary to what you may have heard, a student of the class of 2023 probably has a better chance of getting into a top school (at any level, public or not) than a student of the class of 2013.

Define "top school." I call BS on this.

You don't need to define "top school."

In 2011, there were 20.4 million students enrolled. In 2017, it was 18 million students, mostly due to declining birthrates. Source. Read this 2018 report about how colleges can't fill their slots, and international enrollment didn't help.

Now let's assume that there a X slot at top schools. Let's assume (pessimistically) that X didn't change between 2011 and 2017 (whatever the top schools are, they didn't decrease capacity). Let's assume, completely naively, that the top schools admit the best applicants (ok, this is getting a bit too theoretical, but stick with me.)

So in 2011, you needed to be in the top (1 - X/20.4M) * 100 percentile to get one of these slots. In 2017, it sufficed to be in the (1 - X/18M) * 100 percentile. In other words, the number of students with whom you compete for slots at "top schools" - however you define them - decreased by 11%. This means that a fair number of students who based on their relative standing to their peers weren't admitted to top schools in 2011 were admitted in 2017. In reality, X has increased since "top schools" - by whatever definition have seen positive capacity growth, exacerbating this effect.

Sorry, but that's just gibberish to me. The top schools are getting more selective, the admitted stats are getting higher and higher. Anyone who has been through the process in the last few years can see this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the "top schools"? Your post is meaningless unless you answer this question, which you completely ducked.

You choose what top schools are, it's irrelevant to my argument. Here's another attempt, hopefully simplified.

In 2011, the top schools (you pick what those are), had 10 slots for every 100 college students. In 2017, the same top schools (again, you pick them), had 11 slots for every 100 college students.
In 2011, you needed to be in the top 90% of your class to attend them. In 2017, 89% was enough.

Declining birthrates mean less competition for the same (or possibly slightly increasing) number of slots at top schools.