When you can’t get into an Ivy +

[Anonymous]

What’s with the + in the title? You’re Ivy or you’re not. Everything else is an extension of everyone gets a trophy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s with the + in the title? You’re Ivy or you’re not. Everything else is an extension of everyone gets a trophy.

But it's not a trophy...so..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s with the + in the title? You’re Ivy or you’re not. Everything else is an extension of everyone gets a trophy.

Because there are non-Ivies that are better than some Ivies, especially when you get down to specific subjects. But I suspect you know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Because we are rich.

I know you’re trying to be cool, but just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you’re smart. The second tier schools, private, and not, are just not as good as the top state flagships. So you’re throwing your money away. Maybe you have the money to throw, but that doesn’t make it smart.

I also drive a Mercedes, which is not “smart”. Sometimes it’s about quality of life. My kids wanted to go to those schools so we’ll pay for it because we can more than afford it. YOLO.

Well at least you admit you’re not smart. And obviously neither are your kids judging from where they ended up at college. No doubt you threw money away on private high school as well. What a waste all of it.

I'm sorry you're poor and bitter.

I'm glad to be rich enough to pay for a high quality education regardless of how smart someone is, and pay for people to pursue the calling of teaching, and pay for a comfortable life, and I'm happy to pay for people who need public welfare education.

lol nice try. The only problem is you’re not talking to someone who is poor. Far from it. If you really think that schools like UVA and Michigan etc are full of poor kids you’re even less bright than I thought.

What’s that saying about how you can tell who the richest person is at any fancy event? It’s usually the one in the least fancy clothes.

Ha ha but I was right about the private high school obviously!

DP. You literally think everyone should go to either the Ivies or their state schools? You know there's not enough room at the colleges for this, right? People are always complaining here that their state flagship is too selective. If you're actually rich and could easily afford a private college, maybe your kid should go elsewhere to make room for some other kid who couldn't afford a private college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s with the + in the title? You’re Ivy or you’re not. Everything else is an extension of everyone gets a trophy.

Because there are non-Ivies that are better than some Ivies, especially when you get down to specific subjects. But I suspect you know this.

They know it. Why do you think so many spend a lot time on this forum trying to convince others in seemingly every thread.

[Anonymous]

Because my child wants to work in the theater biz in NYC. UVA's theatre dept is not good. We were explicitly told by alums to not go there. JMU and VCU have great theater programs, but they aren't in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s with the + in the title? You’re Ivy or you’re not. Everything else is an extension of everyone gets a trophy.

Because there are non-Ivies that are better than some Ivies, especially when you get down to specific subjects. But I suspect you know this.

The plus is for validation whore parents. It’s sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

The yield out of the top privates is typically much lower than 60%. Easy to look up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the CA supplementals vary by school.

No they don't. That is one of the challenges of UC admissions. The top schools look for different things but you cannot tailor your PIQ responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the CA supplementals vary by school.

No they don't. That is one of the challenges of UC admissions. The top schools look for different things but you cannot tailor your PIQ responses.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

.

Cal is around 45%, UCLA around 52%, and for comparison, Michigan is around 42%. UVA and UNC are low 40s as well, but UVA has had ED and UNC has EA. These are strong yield rates for such large entering classes for schools with total enrollment over 20,000, only NYU betters them in the upper 50s and it uses ED to lock in students.

And, as noted, there are also CA students who get admitted to multiple UCs and choose another one over Cal and UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in NY. There are many SUNY schools, and some are quite good. Unfortunately, they’re not a great fit for DC for various reasons. We’re looking at a few OOS flagships instead.

This is just dumb
There are no out of state flagships better fits than suny schools

You just don’t want to send your kid instate which is completely idiotic at this juncture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

.

Cal is around 45%, UCLA around 52%, and for comparison, Michigan is around 42%. UVA and UNC are low 40s as well, but UVA has had ED and UNC has EA. These are strong yield rates for such large entering classes for schools with total enrollment over 20,000, only NYU betters them in the upper 50s and it uses ED to lock in students.

And, as noted, there are also CA students who get admitted to multiple UCs and choose another one over Cal and UCLA.

Georgia Tech 46% in 2024-2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:State flagships:
* May still be fairly expensive (e.g. PA)
* May be mediocre (e.g. MA, NJ)
* May be the same or more expensive than private options if you're on FA, depending on family circumstances.
* Tend to be large.
* May not guarantee four years of housing.
* Problems registering for the classes you want.
* Draw primarily from the home state, whereas top-ish privates draw nationally.

And internationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

.

Cal is around 45%, UCLA around 52%, and for comparison, Michigan is around 42%. UVA and UNC are low 40s as well, but UVA has had ED and UNC has EA. These are strong yield rates for such large entering classes for schools with total enrollment over 20,000, only NYU betters them in the upper 50s and it uses ED to lock in students.

And, as noted, there are also CA students who get admitted to multiple UCs and choose another one over Cal and UCLA.

Georgia Tech 46% in 2024-2025

Like UVA, Tech gets the benefit of ED unlike Cal and UCLA