When you can’t get into an Ivy +

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

NYS is a sinking ship under Cap'n Hochul. Getting out is rational.

[Anonymous]

Ga Tech has EA, not ED

[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.

Yes, but also in-state even higher than those numbers (UCLA 60%, Cal ~50%).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ga Tech has EA, not ED

Correct, they do not have ED.

[Anonymous]

Top tier colleges (public flagship or Private) are really, really hard to get into. Single digit and low double digit admit rates.

So there is only a tiny sliver of the population actually making a decision between Ivy, Ivy+, and top-tier in-state flagship. I think most of the discussion here is speculation, not actual parents helping their kids to make rational decisions.

I get a strong "Sour Grapes" vibe from this thread.

[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.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

[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.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

[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.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

Disagree. A lot of those Asiana have parents who won't pay for a top private if they have UCLA or Berkeley as an option. This is definitely cultural as well.

[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.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

Sorry you don’t understand yield. Nowhere has 100% yield. But cross admit pushing the yields up to 70-80% is in line with what the PP was saying. Again, you probably should know what you’re talking about before calling people idiots. But I suspect you are an angry kid so I’ll give you a pass.

[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.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

No, a lot of Asians (some maybe) will not pay for top 15 privates if they get into Cal or UCLA. I am Asian and many of my friends draw the line at HYPMS when it comes to paying full price tuition. I have friends whose kids got into Cornell and Columbia and they stuck to instate at UCLA and Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

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.

Not PP and I agree with you but second tier privates are those outside the top 50. Inside the top 50 they are pretty much better than most of the flagships.

+100

The PP has such a narrow view. There isn’t one reason that applies to everyone.

My oldest went to Top25 flagship public school, and my second child chose another top 50 urban private school.
There are clearly benefits to attending that private school, and the difference in peer quality is minimal.

Of course, you won’t understand unless you’ve experienced it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

No, a lot of Asians (some maybe) will not pay for top 15 privates if they get into Cal or UCLA. I am Asian and many of my friends draw the line at HYPMS when it comes to paying full price tuition. I have friends whose kids got into Cornell and Columbia and they stuck to instate at UCLA and Berkeley.

yes. Previous poster does not get Asian culture at all. Those parents are not going to put down $400K for Cornell if Berkeley is a fraction of that. I can give you a dozen examples among my friends alone.

[Anonymous]

This thread is another example of posters knowing nothing. All of the yield rates being cited here are very good and very impressive. The overwhelming majority of colleges don’t have anywhere near a 50% yield. The only ones that are like 60 or 70 are the top 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

No, a lot of Asians (some maybe) will not pay for top 15 privates if they get into Cal or UCLA. I am Asian and many of my friends draw the line at HYPMS when it comes to paying full price tuition. I have friends whose kids got into Cornell and Columbia and they stuck to instate at UCLA and Berkeley.

yes. Previous poster does not get Asian culture at all. Those parents are not going to put down $400K for Cornell if Berkeley is a fraction of that. I can give you a dozen examples among my friends alone.

This is really helpful to know and explains a lot of the weirdly focused posts on this thread. The cultural differences are very real.
At our private school, waspy parents tend to prefer big SEC schools or small privates with preppy reputations. Saving money and ROI is less of a consideration than a good experience and future networking/alumni connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASP

Above posted, WASP colleges for a smaller undergrad experience/alternative. Or honors program at state flagship

Hate to break it to you folks, but unhooked WASP is a tougher admit than Ivy+, except for HYPSM.