Reply to Sidwell Basketball Article

Forum Index » Private & Independent Schools

Reply to "Sidwell Basketball Article"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The number of applicants approach may not be perfect, but it's a lot more credible than the odds of admission approach (Curtis' 3% acceptance rate is lower than Harvard's 6% acceptance rate).

Specifically, I have a theory for my position (odds of admissions numbers are largely driven by the number of available slots). But your position, that the raw number of applicants is misleading, seems to be based on your assumption that UCLA, St Johns or Drexel are somehow "less desirable" than Harvard, Princeton or Yale. You make the same assumption, without offering proof, that Gonzaga is less desirable than Sidwell. In other words, your "proof" is based on your unproven assumptions, in circular fashion.[/quote]

You seem like you want to fight about this.  I don't.  I don't really care whether Gonzaga or Sidwell -- or Harvard or Drexel -- is more desirable.  I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in your most-applications approach.

I suppose it also comes down to what you mean by "most desirable."  It seems you mean by "most desirable" that the school receives the most applications.  If you want to define desirable in that circular fashion, than your approach is absolutely correct.

Personally, I think an admissions % approach will usually yield more accurate results for comparing schools, because it takes into account each school's size.  It's effectively a measure of applications per slot.  A person applying to a school is investing time/money in the process, in hopes of getting admitted (return on her investment of time/money).  If all schools were equally desirable, then most rational people would apply to the schools that give the greatest odds of admission (i.e., the highest admissions %).  But all schools are not equally desirable.  So if we look at the schools with a low admissions %, we see those schools where people were willing to invest time/money in applying, even though they expect less ROI.

FWIW, I agree with you that if a school has a very tiny number of slots -- or perhaps a very narrow market focus --  then that can skew the admissions %s to suggest the school is more desirable under my market theory than it really is in terms of consumer preference.  That's what's happening with Curtis School of Music, I believe.  Also, IIRC, Deep Springs College somewhere out West is often considered the most selective school in the country, because it has only something like seven students admitted every year.  At the other end of the spectrum, you might find a school that people consider very desirable, but has a high admissions %, because it has loads of slots available.  I suspect you'd see this if you look at admissions numbers for places like Michigan, UVa, or Berkeley.

So I'm not saying the admissions % approach is perfect either.  But I think it's better than a most-admitted approach, especially for schools that are not abnormally large or small.

[/quote]

Good analysis, clearly and calmly stated -- thanks![/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics