Tell me about the Maine private schools

[Anonymous]

I am not so sure about that suspicion at all. For example, look at the newest CDS for Carleton and Haverford, both of which include the numbers for foreign applicants and neither of which are need blind for internationals. These schools have an even higher proportion (>40%!) of low-probability-of-success foreign applications than do Amherst and Bowdoin. My suspicion is that this is endemic among the elite SLACs, need blind or not, and that if only Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, etc. would publish their numbers we would see exactly the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Hopeless foreign apps from China and India are the dirty secret of college admissions. They make the denominator enormous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not so sure about that suspicion at all. For example, look at the newest CDS for Carleton and Haverford, both of which include the numbers for foreign applicants and neither of which are need blind for internationals. These schools have an even higher proportion (>40%!) of low-probability-of-success foreign applications than do Amherst and Bowdoin. My suspicion is that this is endemic among the elite SLACs, need blind or not, and that if only Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, etc. would publish their numbers we would see exactly the same thing.

So you think need-blind admissions make no difference for international applications? To be fair, I can't account for Haverford or Carleton. But I also know CMC, Mudd, Scripps, Pitzer, Smith, Wellesley, and Wesleyan have international applicant pools under 33%.

Another thing to consider is the actual percentage of internationals in the student body. Swat and Pomona are around 14-15%. Whereas Bowdoin is around 7%. Williams is about 9% and Amherst is 11%. So even assuming they were all receiving 35-40% international applications, Bowdoin is likely rejecting its international applicants at a higher rate (thus reducing its overall admission rate at a slightly greater rate than is peers).

[Anonymous]

The reason that Bowdoin in particular has a smaller contingent of international students than its peers is that the school has long made an informal commitment to take 10% of its student body from Maine. None of the other selective LACs do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless foreign apps from China and India are the dirty secret of college admissions. They make the denominator enormous.

Hopeless? More likes wealthy. A ton of students from Shanghai escaping the Gaokao rat race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless foreign apps from China and India are the dirty secret of college admissions. They make the denominator enormous.

Hopeless? More likes wealthy. A ton of students from Shanghai escaping the Gaokao rat race.

The ones they take are wealthy. The ones they reject need full rides, hence hopeless. With very few exceptions, international is a need aware process. But if a school does take you, they will typically cover all your needs. So maybe they take some poor African students…. I think what happens is all these foreign kids blanket schools with applications hoping to win the lottery somewhere, anywhere. Different story if your father is a Shanghai billionaire. Then you can go anywhere…. In any event, these foreign apps make all schools seem much more selective than they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless foreign apps from China and India are the dirty secret of college admissions. They make the denominator enormous.

Hopeless? More likes wealthy. A ton of students from Shanghai escaping the Gaokao rat race.

The ones they take are wealthy. The ones they reject need full rides, hence hopeless. With very few exceptions, international is a need aware process. But if a school does take you, they will typically cover all your needs. So maybe they take some poor African students…. I think what happens is all these foreign kids blanket schools with applications hoping to win the lottery somewhere, anywhere. Different story if your father is a Shanghai billionaire. Then you can go anywhere…. In any event, these foreign apps make all schools seem much more selective than they are.

There’s a lot more wealthy international students than spots. I think you’re severely over inflating the amount of poor people even considering American universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopeless foreign apps from China and India are the dirty secret of college admissions. They make the denominator enormous.

Hopeless? More likes wealthy. A ton of students from Shanghai escaping the Gaokao rat race.

The ones they take are wealthy. The ones they reject need full rides, hence hopeless. With very few exceptions, international is a need aware process. But if a school does take you, they will typically cover all your needs. So maybe they take some poor African students…. I think what happens is all these foreign kids blanket schools with applications hoping to win the lottery somewhere, anywhere. Different story if your father is a Shanghai billionaire. Then you can go anywhere…. In any event, these foreign apps make all schools seem much more selective than they are.

There’s a lot more wealthy international students than spots. I think you’re severely over inflating the amount of poor people even considering American universities.

Either way, international is sometimes half of all applications and the acceptance rate is tiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not so sure about that suspicion at all. For example, look at the newest CDS for Carleton and Haverford, both of which include the numbers for foreign applicants and neither of which are need blind for internationals. These schools have an even higher proportion (>40%!) of low-probability-of-success foreign applications than do Amherst and Bowdoin. My suspicion is that this is endemic among the elite SLACs, need blind or not, and that if only Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, etc. would publish their numbers we would see exactly the same thing.

So you think need-blind admissions make no difference for international applications? To be fair, I can't account for Haverford or Carleton. But I also know CMC, Mudd, Scripps, Pitzer, Smith, Wellesley, and Wesleyan have international applicant pools under 33%.

Another thing to consider is the actual percentage of internationals in the student body. Swat and Pomona are around 14-15%. Whereas Bowdoin is around 7%. Williams is about 9% and Amherst is 11%. So even assuming they were all receiving 35-40% international applications, Bowdoin is likely rejecting its international applicants at a higher rate (thus reducing its overall admission rate at a slightly greater rate than is peers).

Middlebury is also at 14% international students.