What's up with Santa Clara University?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any experience with U San Diego?

DC wants to head off to California (STEM, CS Engineering), but realistically getting into UC's is not looking very feasible, so searching for alternate options

Santa Clara U is on our list for sure.

USD is absolutely beautiful, has a good campus culture, in a wonderful location, and has great faculty. However it is not as known for CS/Engineering, although it does have those programs, and doesn’t have the jobs pipeline that Santa Clara does. That does not mean that it has no jobs pipeline, just that as far as job placement it is hard to compete with Santa Clara.

For your DC, in addition to the UCs, I would look at Santa Clara, USF, USD, maybe Occidental and Pitzer depending on grades.

Also, look at the CSUs. They also have good hiring outcomes in California. If GPA is a concern I would look at Cal Poly Humboldt and Pomona for CS, or San Jose State. Cal Poly Humboldt is very isolated but is investing a lot in their STEM offerings and is getting noticed. San Jose State has a lot of job connections.

Feel free to ask more!

Thanks. Was wondering about Cal State's - which are the top one's? Are they seen as something equivalent to a GMU/VCU or more like a community college? The tution is really cheap.. so thats what made me wonder if its basically a community college?

The Cal States are definitely not community colleges--California has tons of those too. Lots of solid Cal State school. Cal Poly SLO (San Luis Obispo) is probably the number one--good academics, great location, good reputation within CA. Definitely would outrank several UC's IMHO.

It outranks Merced and Riverside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of it like as Silicon Valley Villanova. Solid, but not elite. Favorable location. Upper middle class kids who may be in a "bubble" but fully expect to have jobs on graduation. Less likely to write a screenplay, have a substack, or get a PhD in philosophy. Very likely to be making 200k by the time they're 30.

Like all things college, any information from the 20th century is not relevant.

Not sure about the $200k by 30, but otherwise...this is spot on. It has a specific vibe...Boston College would also be a good comparison, or think college version of Georgetown Prep or Gonzaga (with a west coast flair). Conventional and sporty kids, smart but not necessarily "life of the mind" types, very pre-professional focused, suburban, UMC. Not for my kids, but for some it would be a great fit.

BC is not a good comparison for Santa Clara. Those stating Villanova are more on the mark. BC is far more selective, is considered with higher regard within academia for the professors who work there, and is more well known nationwide than SCU. That said, if you are looking for engineering exclusively, BC's program is just starting out...so SCU might have the edge there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-semitic as all get out, like the rest of the CA schools, just fyi.

I find this very hard to believe of a Jesuit school.

Have you heard of Georgetown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s easy to get into if you are not applying in STEM subjects. The admission percentage is much lower for STEM majors which are what the vocationally-oriented DCUM parents all want for their kids. So maybe cool it with the snobbery about SCU. Your child probably won’t be accepted.

I'm happy that my kid will get a great paying job with their " vocationally-oriented" degree vs a useless degree which will probably mean student loans for a grad degree, or coming back to live with their parents and working at Starbucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easy to get into if you are not applying in STEM subjects. The admission percentage is much lower for STEM majors which are what the vocationally-oriented DCUM parents all want for their kids. So maybe cool it with the snobbery about SCU. Your child probably won’t be accepted.

I'm happy that my kid will get a great paying job with their " vocationally-oriented" degree vs a useless degree which will probably mean student loans for a grad degree, or coming back to live with their parents and working at Starbucks.

You misunderstood my post. I’m as vocationally-oriented as you, but I’m not slagging off SCU as an inferior college. My DC are going to out-earn me for sure. There’s not a single future barista among them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm amazed by the anti-vax stuff here.

Yea me too. Somebody needs psychiatric help.

Yes you, anxiety much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Son is a straight-A STEM kid, loves sports and California. Otherwise pretty ordinary, doesn't have great extra-curriculars aside from team sports. He's planning to study engineering or physics and is applying to UMD, Michigan, Purdue, and the UC system. He's also interested in Santa Clara because it's in CA and easy to get into. I don't know anything about it, and it's one of the priciest schools he's applying to. We're trying to discourage privates as we can't afford most of them. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the cost? Do they give merit aid? What kind of vibe?

I wouldn’t be so sure about the easy to get into part. I know a straight-A STEM kid who was rejected last year.

Your son should apply to Wisconsin too. The kid I referred to above eventually ended up at Wisconsin after getting in off the waitlist in late spring.

It accepts half of its applicants at 48.8%. Not selective at all

That number entirely depends on who applies, though. People are not doing the lottery-type admissions for schools like Santa Clara, so a larger percentage of the pool that does apply is competitive for the school. It’s a common pattern for a lot of the schools in the 35-65% admissions rate. What that means is that they will accept 48% or so but the half that doesn’t get in are also generally competitive for the class. Essentially admissions pool patterns change for schools below T30 and selectivity becomes a much less useful metric.

Op here. PP I don't understand what you wrote there, can you please clarify?

What this means is that schools in the T30-T100 range are much less likely to get a shotgun blast of applications from competitive kids who are shooting their shot. There are many schools in the T30 range where kids know they probably won’t get in but kids also know there is a lottery aspect to admissions, and so are willing to buy a lottery ticket by submitting an application. And this can work, especially in a test optional world, so the problem feeds on itself: kids all know a kid who got lucky the year before, who maybe was competitive but not any more so than any other competitive kid, so then they decide to buy their own lottery ticket, thus driving more applications to the school. There are a lot of schools in the T30 where kids would just go based on rank alone, even if they have no particular interest in the school. That leads to enormous application pools and very low selectivity metrics for the T30s.

But as you move out of the T30s, applicant behavior changes. There are going to be fewer kids who attend a T30-100 based on rank alone. That means the applicant pool for the T30-100 schools tend to have kids who have some realistic chance of getting in and also have a more personalized interest in the school. So, a school like Santa Clara and others in that range are going to be more likely to admit the students who apply because of who makes it into their applicant pool. That means their admissions rate will go up.

You can see this pattern throughout the T30-100 range. Look at University of Oregon. It is the flagship in Oregon and really the only place that outstanding students in Oregon who want instate schools apply. It also draws a strong student population from other West Coast states. University of Oregon on any resume is going to be respected, and its graduates are well-regarded. In fact, if you are a competitive student looking for a job in the northwest, you are probably much better off with a degree from Oregon than much higher-ranked schools on the east coast. But it had an admissions rate of 86-93% in recent years. Why? Because it is a huge school, and really one of the only good destinations on the West Coast for kids who want a big football flagship school. That means that it attracts a group of highly qualified applicants. But at the same time, it’s not going to get a lot of kids looking for a lottery ticket. That combination of factors leads to a very high admissions rate.

I don’t really understand why anybody looks at admissions rates as a serious metric of academic quality, to be honest. It seems like a low-quality signal.

Interesting, thanks. But to argue the other side, for a place like SCU, if it has a reputation as being easy to get into, wouldn't it attract lower quality candidates, ie people who wouldn't even bother to apply to T30 schools? If SCU is automatically attracting from a lesser pool as a result of this dynamic, then the 80% acceptance rate is even more problematic, because their pool is not great to begin with, no?

I think you have to be careful about "Lower quality" idea -- 50% line for SAT is 710 overall. top 25% is 760. It's pretty high quality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Son is a straight-A STEM kid, loves sports and California. Otherwise pretty ordinary, doesn't have great extra-curriculars aside from team sports. He's planning to study engineering or physics and is applying to UMD, Michigan, Purdue, and the UC system. He's also interested in Santa Clara because it's in CA and easy to get into. I don't know anything about it, and it's one of the priciest schools he's applying to. We're trying to discourage privates as we can't afford most of them. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the cost? Do they give merit aid? What kind of vibe?

I wouldn’t be so sure about the easy to get into part. I know a straight-A STEM kid who was rejected last year.

Your son should apply to Wisconsin too. The kid I referred to above eventually ended up at Wisconsin after getting in off the waitlist in late spring.

It accepts half of its applicants at 48.8%. Not selective at all

That number entirely depends on who applies, though. People are not doing the lottery-type admissions for schools like Santa Clara, so a larger percentage of the pool that does apply is competitive for the school. It’s a common pattern for a lot of the schools in the 35-65% admissions rate. What that means is that they will accept 48% or so but the half that doesn’t get in are also generally competitive for the class. Essentially admissions pool patterns change for schools below T30 and selectivity becomes a much less useful metric.

Op here. PP I don't understand what you wrote there, can you please clarify?

What this means is that schools in the T30-T100 range are much less likely to get a shotgun blast of applications from competitive kids who are shooting their shot. There are many schools in the T30 range where kids know they probably won’t get in but kids also know there is a lottery aspect to admissions, and so are willing to buy a lottery ticket by submitting an application. And this can work, especially in a test optional world, so the problem feeds on itself: kids all know a kid who got lucky the year before, who maybe was competitive but not any more so than any other competitive kid, so then they decide to buy their own lottery ticket, thus driving more applications to the school. There are a lot of schools in the T30 where kids would just go based on rank alone, even if they have no particular interest in the school. That leads to enormous application pools and very low selectivity metrics for the T30s.

But as you move out of the T30s, applicant behavior changes. There are going to be fewer kids who attend a T30-100 based on rank alone. That means the applicant pool for the T30-100 schools tend to have kids who have some realistic chance of getting in and also have a more personalized interest in the school. So, a school like Santa Clara and others in that range are going to be more likely to admit the students who apply because of who makes it into their applicant pool. That means their admissions rate will go up.

You can see this pattern throughout the T30-100 range. Look at University of Oregon. It is the flagship in Oregon and really the only place that outstanding students in Oregon who want instate schools apply. It also draws a strong student population from other West Coast states. University of Oregon on any resume is going to be respected, and its graduates are well-regarded. In fact, if you are a competitive student looking for a job in the northwest, you are probably much better off with a degree from Oregon than much higher-ranked schools on the east coast. But it had an admissions rate of 86-93% in recent years. Why? Because it is a huge school, and really one of the only good destinations on the West Coast for kids who want a big football flagship school. That means that it attracts a group of highly qualified applicants. But at the same time, it’s not going to get a lot of kids looking for a lottery ticket. That combination of factors leads to a very high admissions rate.

I don’t really understand why anybody looks at admissions rates as a serious metric of academic quality, to be honest. It seems like a low-quality signal.

Interesting, thanks. But to argue the other side, for a place like SCU, if it has a reputation as being easy to get into, wouldn't it attract lower quality candidates, ie people who wouldn't even bother to apply to T30 schools? If SCU is automatically attracting from a lesser pool as a result of this dynamic, then the 80% acceptance rate is even more problematic, because their pool is not great to begin with, no?

Look, OP, you are exhausting at this point. Apply or don’t apply, I don’t care. Your point above is silly, but I don’t have the energy to engage further. If you want to use straight-up admissions rates (around 48% for SCU) as your proxy for education quality and life outcomes, be my guest. It’s a poor metric for a variety of reasons, but if you can’t think more deeply than the number, it’s probably best you use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easy to get into if you are not applying in STEM subjects. The admission percentage is much lower for STEM majors which are what the vocationally-oriented DCUM parents all want for their kids. So maybe cool it with the snobbery about SCU. Your child probably won’t be accepted.

I'm happy that my kid will get a great paying job with their " vocationally-oriented" degree vs a useless degree which will probably mean student loans for a grad degree, or coming back to live with their parents and working at Starbucks.

the business school is really good. and their CS program is part of the college of liberal arts. they have a CSE program in engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of it like as Silicon Valley Villanova. Solid, but not elite. Favorable location. Upper middle class kids who may be in a "bubble" but fully expect to have jobs on graduation. Less likely to write a screenplay, have a substack, or get a PhD in philosophy. Very likely to be making 200k by the time they're 30.

Like all things college, any information from the 20th century is not relevant.

Not sure about the $200k by 30, but otherwise...this is spot on. It has a specific vibe...Boston College would also be a good comparison, or think college version of Georgetown Prep or Gonzaga (with a west coast flair). Conventional and sporty kids, smart but not necessarily "life of the mind" types, very pre-professional focused, suburban, UMC. Not for my kids, but for some it would be a great fit.

BC is not a good comparison for Santa Clara. Those stating Villanova are more on the mark. BC is far more selective, is considered with higher regard within academia for the professors who work there, and is more well known nationwide than SCU. That said, if you are looking for engineering exclusively, BC's program is just starting out...so SCU might have the edge there.

I meant in terms of social/cultural vibe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easy to get into if you are not applying in STEM subjects. The admission percentage is much lower for STEM majors which are what the vocationally-oriented DCUM parents all want for their kids. So maybe cool it with the snobbery about SCU. Your child probably won’t be accepted.

I'm happy that my kid will get a great paying job with their " vocationally-oriented" degree vs a useless degree which will probably mean student loans for a grad degree, or coming back to live with their parents and working at Starbucks.

the business school is really good. and their CS program is part of the college of liberal arts. they have a CSE program in engineering.

SCU was never known for its eng program.

-long time CA resident, including in the Bay Area working in SV

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easy to get into if you are not applying in STEM subjects. The admission percentage is much lower for STEM majors which are what the vocationally-oriented DCUM parents all want for their kids. So maybe cool it with the snobbery about SCU. Your child probably won’t be accepted.

I'm happy that my kid will get a great paying job with their " vocationally-oriented" degree vs a useless degree which will probably mean student loans for a grad degree, or coming back to live with their parents and working at Starbucks.

the business school is really good. and their CS program is part of the college of liberal arts. they have a CSE program in engineering.

SCU was never known for its eng program.

-long time CA resident, including in the Bay Area working in SV

They have a brand-new $100 million engineering building. Even if they weren’t known for their engineering program, which is untrue, they’d get known pretty quickly. SV hires SCU engineering grads all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Son is a straight-A STEM kid, loves sports and California. Otherwise pretty ordinary, doesn't have great extra-curriculars aside from team sports. He's planning to study engineering or physics and is applying to UMD, Michigan, Purdue, and the UC system. He's also interested in Santa Clara because it's in CA and easy to get into. I don't know anything about it, and it's one of the priciest schools he's applying to. We're trying to discourage privates as we can't afford most of them. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the cost? Do they give merit aid? What kind of vibe?

I wouldn’t be so sure about the easy to get into part. I know a straight-A STEM kid who was rejected last year.

Your son should apply to Wisconsin too. The kid I referred to above eventually ended up at Wisconsin after getting in off the waitlist in late spring.

It accepts half of its applicants at 48.8%. Not selective at all

That number entirely depends on who applies, though. People are not doing the lottery-type admissions for schools like Santa Clara, so a larger percentage of the pool that does apply is competitive for the school. It’s a common pattern for a lot of the schools in the 35-65% admissions rate. What that means is that they will accept 48% or so but the half that doesn’t get in are also generally competitive for the class. Essentially admissions pool patterns change for schools below T30 and selectivity becomes a much less useful metric.

Op here. PP I don't understand what you wrote there, can you please clarify?

What this means is that schools in the T30-T100 range are much less likely to get a shotgun blast of applications from competitive kids who are shooting their shot. There are many schools in the T30 range where kids know they probably won’t get in but kids also know there is a lottery aspect to admissions, and so are willing to buy a lottery ticket by submitting an application. And this can work, especially in a test optional world, so the problem feeds on itself: kids all know a kid who got lucky the year before, who maybe was competitive but not any more so than any other competitive kid, so then they decide to buy their own lottery ticket, thus driving more applications to the school. There are a lot of schools in the T30 where kids would just go based on rank alone, even if they have no particular interest in the school. That leads to enormous application pools and very low selectivity metrics for the T30s.

But as you move out of the T30s, applicant behavior changes. There are going to be fewer kids who attend a T30-100 based on rank alone. That means the applicant pool for the T30-100 schools tend to have kids who have some realistic chance of getting in and also have a more personalized interest in the school. So, a school like Santa Clara and others in that range are going to be more likely to admit the students who apply because of who makes it into their applicant pool. That means their admissions rate will go up.

You can see this pattern throughout the T30-100 range. Look at University of Oregon. It is the flagship in Oregon and really the only place that outstanding students in Oregon who want instate schools apply. It also draws a strong student population from other West Coast states. University of Oregon on any resume is going to be respected, and its graduates are well-regarded. In fact, if you are a competitive student looking for a job in the northwest, you are probably much better off with a degree from Oregon than much higher-ranked schools on the east coast. But it had an admissions rate of 86-93% in recent years. Why? Because it is a huge school, and really one of the only good destinations on the West Coast for kids who want a big football flagship school. That means that it attracts a group of highly qualified applicants. But at the same time, it’s not going to get a lot of kids looking for a lottery ticket. That combination of factors leads to a very high admissions rate.

I don’t really understand why anybody looks at admissions rates as a serious metric of academic quality, to be honest. It seems like a low-quality signal.

Interesting, thanks. But to argue the other side, for a place like SCU, if it has a reputation as being easy to get into, wouldn't it attract lower quality candidates, ie people who wouldn't even bother to apply to T30 schools? If SCU is automatically attracting from a lesser pool as a result of this dynamic, then the 80% acceptance rate is even more problematic, because their pool is not great to begin with, no?

With your caliber-of-student argument, you are leaving out the high-scoring children of donut-hole families who must chase merit aid at places like Santa Clara.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easy to get into if you are not applying in STEM subjects. The admission percentage is much lower for STEM majors which are what the vocationally-oriented DCUM parents all want for their kids. So maybe cool it with the snobbery about SCU. Your child probably won’t be accepted.

I'm happy that my kid will get a great paying job with their " vocationally-oriented" degree vs a useless degree which will probably mean student loans for a grad degree, or coming back to live with their parents and working at Starbucks.

the business school is really good. and their CS program is part of the college of liberal arts. they have a CSE program in engineering.

SCU was never known for its eng program.

-long time CA resident, including in the Bay Area working in SV

SCU beats out Penn and Harvard for pay after undergrad. big part is their CS and their computer engineering. Again, the "longtime" people may be stuck in thinking from 20 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Son is a straight-A STEM kid, loves sports and California. Otherwise pretty ordinary, doesn't have great extra-curriculars aside from team sports. He's planning to study engineering or physics and is applying to UMD, Michigan, Purdue, and the UC system. He's also interested in Santa Clara because it's in CA and easy to get into. I don't know anything about it, and it's one of the priciest schools he's applying to. We're trying to discourage privates as we can't afford most of them. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the cost? Do they give merit aid? What kind of vibe?

I wouldn’t be so sure about the easy to get into part. I know a straight-A STEM kid who was rejected last year.

Your son should apply to Wisconsin too. The kid I referred to above eventually ended up at Wisconsin after getting in off the waitlist in late spring.

It accepts half of its applicants at 48.8%. Not selective at all

That number entirely depends on who applies, though. People are not doing the lottery-type admissions for schools like Santa Clara, so a larger percentage of the pool that does apply is competitive for the school. It’s a common pattern for a lot of the schools in the 35-65% admissions rate. What that means is that they will accept 48% or so but the half that doesn’t get in are also generally competitive for the class. Essentially admissions pool patterns change for schools below T30 and selectivity becomes a much less useful metric.

Op here. PP I don't understand what you wrote there, can you please clarify?

What this means is that schools in the T30-T100 range are much less likely to get a shotgun blast of applications from competitive kids who are shooting their shot. There are many schools in the T30 range where kids know they probably won’t get in but kids also know there is a lottery aspect to admissions, and so are willing to buy a lottery ticket by submitting an application. And this can work, especially in a test optional world, so the problem feeds on itself: kids all know a kid who got lucky the year before, who maybe was competitive but not any more so than any other competitive kid, so then they decide to buy their own lottery ticket, thus driving more applications to the school. There are a lot of schools in the T30 where kids would just go based on rank alone, even if they have no particular interest in the school. That leads to enormous application pools and very low selectivity metrics for the T30s.

But as you move out of the T30s, applicant behavior changes. There are going to be fewer kids who attend a T30-100 based on rank alone. That means the applicant pool for the T30-100 schools tend to have kids who have some realistic chance of getting in and also have a more personalized interest in the school. So, a school like Santa Clara and others in that range are going to be more likely to admit the students who apply because of who makes it into their applicant pool. That means their admissions rate will go up.

You can see this pattern throughout the T30-100 range. Look at University of Oregon. It is the flagship in Oregon and really the only place that outstanding students in Oregon who want instate schools apply. It also draws a strong student population from other West Coast states. University of Oregon on any resume is going to be respected, and its graduates are well-regarded. In fact, if you are a competitive student looking for a job in the northwest, you are probably much better off with a degree from Oregon than much higher-ranked schools on the east coast. But it had an admissions rate of 86-93% in recent years. Why? Because it is a huge school, and really one of the only good destinations on the West Coast for kids who want a big football flagship school. That means that it attracts a group of highly qualified applicants. But at the same time, it’s not going to get a lot of kids looking for a lottery ticket. That combination of factors leads to a very high admissions rate.

I don’t really understand why anybody looks at admissions rates as a serious metric of academic quality, to be honest. It seems like a low-quality signal.

Interesting, thanks. But to argue the other side, for a place like SCU, if it has a reputation as being easy to get into, wouldn't it attract lower quality candidates, ie people who wouldn't even bother to apply to T30 schools? If SCU is automatically attracting from a lesser pool as a result of this dynamic, then the 80% acceptance rate is even more problematic, because their pool is not great to begin with, no?

With your caliber-of-student argument, you are leaving out the high-scoring children of donut-hole families who must chase merit aid at places like Santa Clara.

This is us!