Top 52 Colleges & Universities Ranked By Selectivity (Wallethub.com)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, someone mentioned Northeastern. It is a “good” school. There is no such thing as a bad school with such a low admissions rate. Should it be adjusted to reflect transfers/mid-year starts/non-Boston starts, percent of class ED etc. Of course. Is it now (ironically, I know) very underrated by US News? Yes. As is Tufts, as is…

This is not hard. You can almost eyeball a properly adjusted “selectivity” ranking: Georgetown and Notre Dame get adjusted up, Chicago and Colby get adjusted down, Amherst and Williams (no ED2) get adjusted up, Johns Hopkins gets adjusted down. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is admission rate any indication of anything. It's so easy to make that look low by admitting most of class on ED then just have no essays, lots of marketing and application fee waivers.

If it iis “so easy,” everyone would do it. It ain’t easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

I'm not in the habit of calling schools bad. But there are also lots of excellent schools with admissions rates over 10% and general excellence in this range is not really correlated with exact admission rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Don't be silly.

No one is putting Northeastern in the same category as a MIT or Harvard.

However, if a college rejects 90% of its applicants, it is selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Don't be silly.

No one is putting Northeastern in the same category as a MIT or Harvard.

However, if a college rejects 90% of its applicants, it is selective.

It was an example to show the folly of admissions rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate as the heaviest weighted factor is not useful because colleges game this by offering no "supplemental essay" requirements, test optional, freebies, to boost the number of applications.

People keep saying this, but any school would love to have a sub-15% admit rate. But they can’t. Admission rate needs to be adjusted for % of class ED, for having multiple ED rounds (and EA to boot, like Chicago does), for yield, and for percentage of transfer students (looking at you, Columbia GS, Oxford Emory, and UVA Wise). But if that’s done properly, it would be the only ranking we need — and far superior to US News’ ranking. And far more helpful, too, because the point of an application is getting in…

Columbia and Emory don't have sub 15% acceptance rates. Also the data in OP is very old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate as the heaviest weighted factor is not useful because colleges game this by offering no "supplemental essay" requirements, test optional, freebies, to boost the number of applications.

People keep saying this, but any school would love to have a sub-15% admit rate. But they can’t. Admission rate needs to be adjusted for % of class ED, for having multiple ED rounds (and EA to boot, like Chicago does), for yield, and for percentage of transfer students (looking at you, Columbia GS, Oxford Emory, and UVA Wise). But if that’s done properly, it would be the only ranking we need — and far superior to US News’ ranking. And far more helpful, too, because the point of an application is getting in…

Totally disagree. Why would rejecting lots of students make it a good school?

Name one school with a single-digit admissions rate that is not a good school. You can’t. And now you have answered your question.

Northeastern. It's not a bad school, but it's not nearly as "selective" as it appears. If you ED full pay, with good GPA, even TO, odds are about 40% you'll get in under their "alternative" programs like N.U.in which starts in Europe first semester and doesn't count toward acceptance. It's not cheating, it's strategic. The head of enrollment came from Tulane, where the selectivity also skyrocketed, to help accelerate the model of rapid grad school campus expansion and low-barrier to entry with highly sophisticated enrollment management algorithms. Again, it's not bad, it's just not as academically well-regarded as it's peers on this list. For undergrads it's a sink-or-swim attitude. Not because it's harder, it's just that undergrads are really the strategic focus.

Our student turned them down after spending time on campus with actual students, not admissions.

Bottom line, it's all apples and oranges. Until there are consistent ways that schools conduct admissions, there's really no point in harping on selectivity. AI yield management is indeed selective, but not in the way you might think.

Same could be said of UVA Wise, or many schools. DCUM likes to pretend that so many great colleges don't do the exact same thing. Yet, that is not mentioned on DCUM nearly as much, because certain parents get really, really miffed when their kid is rejected from Northeastern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Don't be silly.

No one is putting Northeastern in the same category as a MIT or Harvard.

However, if a college rejects 90% of its applicants, it is selective.

+1 Like ot or not. There are many programs from many schools, yet one school is mentioned the most, which is straight out peculiar, and diminishes the argument - again, like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

[Anonymous]

This is actually quite a helpful list. Thank you for sharing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

What they mean is, Northeastern's need-minimizing yield management AI algorithm and application management system designed for triple digit Common Apps is as selective as MIT (my dad is an alum and cousin is on faculty, but what do I know )

It's safe to say Northeastern is hghly POPULAR - and for valid reasons. But that's not the same as a rigorous selective PROCESS of evaluating applicants.

There's really no need for Northeastern boosters to spend the energy defending selectivity. If the child is thriving, awesome! Share their ubique experience. It's more useful than ranking wrangling.

Signed,
Someone who's child got in TO without AP, but just declined.

[Anonymous]

PP here, dad is MIT alum, not Northeastern

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

What they mean is, Northeastern's need-minimizing yield management AI algorithm and application management system designed for triple digit Common Apps is as selective as MIT (my dad is an alum and cousin is on faculty, but what do I know )

It's safe to say Northeastern is hghly POPULAR - and for valid reasons. But that's not the same as a rigorous selective PROCESS of evaluating applicants.

There's really no need for Northeastern boosters to spend the energy defending selectivity. If the child is thriving, awesome! Share their ubique experience. It's more useful than ranking wrangling.

Signed,
Someone who's child got in TO without AP, but just declined.

There aren't many Northeastern "boosters."
The results speak for themselves.

For some reason, there are quite a few Northeastern detractors and bashers for no other reason that it receives 100k applications (popular) and has the latitude to be selective as a result.