Can we change the thread title?

1. I appreciate your frustration with people who offer result-oriented approaches that favor one particular school. Trust me when I say I really don't care which school gets favored.

2. What's my definition of "desirable" in this context? Probably the one school that the average applicant most wants ... or something like that. If we could poll applicants and ask them to assume they found a magic ticket to be admitted to any school, and then ask them to list their top-3 schools, then I suppose we might get at the answer. But we can't do that. So my admissions % approach looks at how applicants spend their limited money & time. It assumes the applicants understand their spending at schools with lower admissions % offers less chance of success, but that they apply anyway because they consider the school more desirable.

3. I agreed above that a school of a small size (or a large size) can skew the numbers. I'm not sure how to determine where the appropriate cut-off is. I suppose some smart person could tease out a number based on the average number of slots available over a broad range of schools. In the absence of smarts, I'd just go by gut feel. In the world of college admissions, I feel like a college with a freshman class of 2000 can be compared with a bigger college having a freshman class of 10,000. But Curtis's class of 40 feels too small to me.

Also, for Curtis at least, I wonder if a bigger factor in determining skew is the type of education offered. In other words, are the Curtis numbers skewed because the school is small? Or is it because not many people really want to go to a music college?

4. Of course your DC didn't make a mistake in selecting a college. First, just because the raw admissions % numbers might suggest that Harvard is "more desirable" to the collective, those don't tell how desirable it is to an individual. No one can fault your DC if she just hates that Boston accent! Second, I hope we'd agree that a 1% difference in admissions % is pretty negligible, so it does not suggest your DC's college is much less different from Harvard in terms of "desirability." Third, would you really stand behind your most-applications approach, and suggest that your DC should attend Drexel over her Ivy league school, because Drexel has many more applicants in toto? I doubt it.

13:27, as an economist, I have to say that what you're calling "my market approach" isn't really a market-based approach, except in a derivative way. Market analysts talk in terms of prices and quantities.

I don't want to fight. What you are seeing may just be my frustration with a circular approach that basically says, "let's agree that Harvard/Sidwell is more desirable than UCLA/Gonzaga, therefore we must throw out any numbers that don't support this assumption, leading us to conclude that Harvard/Sidwell is more desirable than UCLA/Gonzaga." In trying to expess this as clearly as possible, I may have come off as a little abrupt, sorry.

If you have an alternative definition of "desirability," then please feel free to specify it. Pollsters and economists generally rely on the quantity demanded, in this case the number of applications. It's also possible to measure under the demand curve, but there's no way we have the data to do that in this case.

The problem with the admissions approach is exactly that it is so dependent on size - size is the denominator of the ratio of applications to acceptance. We can't arbitrarily decide that, yeah, maybe Curtis is too small so we'll throw those numbers out, but we'll consider Sidwell's 20 slots in 9th grade to be valid. Nor can we choose to interpret low acceptance #s as a measure of pure desirability, and to ignore the dependence on size. The acceptance numbers are inextricably dependent on size, and that's the problem.

As an aside, my DC was just accepted to a top ivy with an acceptance rate less than 1% different from Harvard's rate. Yet it wasn't Harvard. Does that mean my DC made a big mistake in missing Harvard's greater desirability? No, it means DC made a binding early commitment to this other ivy because it offers a certain course path that Harvard doesn't offer. This is all to underscore my point that we can't just make statements to the effect that Harvard - or Sidwell - is the "most" desirable to everyone or even to a majority.

13:27 yet again. In re-reading my post, I realize that the examples in #3 are not of consumers that are not "rational and informed." Instead, #3 is for market subsets of rational and informed consumers who have just a limited focus. Just wanted to correct that.

13:27 again. BTW, my market approach is based on the assumption that most applicants (or perhaps rather the applicant pool collectively) are rational and informed consumers. I fully recognize that assumption might not hold true in all situations. Here are just a few examples:

1. If many people are unaware of a "hidden gem" school, then that school's admissions % will seem less desirable, even though the school itself is just as good as others with a lower admissions %.

2. Everyone has heard of the Harvard effect, where scads of people apply to Harvard despite the low odds of admission and perhaps not even interested in the school, just to see if they can get admitted. That would skew the admissions %.

3. Some schools might have a skewed admissions % because of certain specific applicant pools. Curtis Music is one example. Another example might be MIT or CalTech, because the course of study will limit the applicant pool. Another example might be a religion-affiliated school, like Liberty Baptist, because it's applicant pool is not reflective of the general population. I'd guess historically black colleges like Howard or Spelman might have similarly skewed numbers.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:It's not just "interesting," it makes a lot more sense than using odds of admission numbers. For example, the Curtis Institute of Music and Julliard have the lowest admissions rates in the country, lower than Harvard's rates, but would you really argue that all high school seniors find these two schools more "desirable" than Harvard? No, and that's because your odds of admission numbers are contingent on key factors outside of pure desirability, such as the number of open slots.

It's debatable whether or not your approach makes more sense. I guess it depends on how you define "desirable" and what you're trying to measure.

If we apply your approach to colleges, here are the 10 most desirable colleges, ranked by the number of applications each receives:

School name (state) / Applications received / U.S. News rank & category
University of California—Los Angeles / 57,670 / 25, National Universities
St. John’s University (NY) / 54,871 / 152, National Universities
University of California—Berkeley / 50,393 21, National Universities
Drexel University (PA) / 48,718 / 88, National Universities
University of California—San Diego / 48,093 / 37, National Universities
California State University—Long Beach / 47,673 / 26, Regional Universities (West)
University of California—Santa Barbara / 46,671 / 42, National Universities
University of California—Irvine / 45,742 / 45, National Universities
San Diego State University 44,848 / 164, National Universities
Tulane University (LA) / 43,815 / 50, National Universities

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The selectivity and yield numbers are interesting in their own right, but they're irrelevant for this "desirability" question. What matters is raw numbers of applicants. Honestly guys, this is basic numeracy.

So, for example, (a) using the Sidwell admissions odds of 14::1 that someone quoted, we could assume about 280 applicants for 20 9th grade slots at Sidwell, and (b) looking at high school only (because Gonzaga doesn't have Pre-K or K admissions so that would weight the comparison unfairly), we get:

1000 applicants for 250 Gonzaga slots > 280 applicants for 20 Sidwell high school slots

=> 1000 kids applying to Gonzaga > 280 kids applying to Sidwell HS

=> Gonzaga is more desired than Sidwell

NP here. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. By that logic, the most desired schools will always be the ones with the single biggest entering class: Gonzaga, Mecersburg Academy, St John's, Good Counsel, Dematha. If you really want to compare schools on that basis, then I guess you'd need to total up all the applications that a school with multiple entry grades receives across those multiple grades. So for example, if Sidwell has 100 students in its senior class, and a 14:1 ratio, then you'd assume it took 1400 applications to select them all over several years. And of course the most desired school under this approach is DCPS/MCPS/FCPS, because they have the most applicants of all!

Interesting way of looking at it.

It's not just "interesting," it makes a lot more sense than using odds of admission numbers. For example, the Curtis Institute of Music and Julliard have the lowest admissions rates in the country, lower than Harvard's rates, but would you really argue that all high school seniors find these two schools more "desirable" than Harvard? No, and that's because your odds of admission numbers are contingent on key factors outside of pure desirability, such as the number of open slots.

11:39 again. Just to be clear, I posted on this thread several pages earlier, but am new to this particular discussion about applications and yields.

Anonymous wrote:The selectivity and yield numbers are interesting in their own right, but they're irrelevant for this "desirability" question. What matters is raw numbers of applicants. Honestly guys, this is basic numeracy.

So, for example, (a) using the Sidwell admissions odds of 14::1 that someone quoted, we could assume about 280 applicants for 20 9th grade slots at Sidwell, and (b) looking at high school only (because Gonzaga doesn't have Pre-K or K admissions so that would weight the comparison unfairly), we get:

1000 applicants for 250 Gonzaga slots > 280 applicants for 20 Sidwell high school slots

=> 1000 kids applying to Gonzaga > 280 kids applying to Sidwell HS

=> Gonzaga is more desired than Sidwell

NP here. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. By that logic, the most desired schools will always be the ones with the single biggest entering class: Gonzaga, Mecersburg Academy, St John's, Good Counsel, Dematha. If you really want to compare schools on that basis, then I guess you'd need to total up all the applications that a school with multiple entry grades receives across those multiple grades. So for example, if Sidwell has 100 students in its senior class, and a 14:1 ratio, then you'd assume it took 1400 applications to select them all over several years. And of course the most desired school under this approach is DCPS/MCPS/FCPS, because they have the most applicants of all!

Interesting way of looking at it.

The selectivity and yield numbers are interesting in their own right, but they're irrelevant for this "desirability" question. What matters is raw numbers of applicants. Honestly guys, this is basic numeracy.

So, for example, (a) using the Sidwell admissions odds of 14::1 that someone quoted, we could assume about 280 applicants for 20 9th grade slots at Sidwell, and (b) looking at high school only (because Gonzaga doesn't have Pre-K or K admissions so that would weight the comparison unfairly), we get:

1000 applicants for 250 Gonzaga slots > 280 applicants for 20 Sidwell high school slots

=> 1000 kids applying to Gonzaga > 280 kids applying to Sidwell HS

=> Gonzaga is more desired than Sidwell

The selectivity and yield numbers are interesting in their own right, but they're besides the point for this question. What matters is raw numbers of applicants.

So, for exam

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's just me -- applying my DS to a few schools, neither of them being Sidwell nor Gonzaga.

But can someone please explain why on Earth it matters which school has a more competitive admissions process?

And by the way, good luck to all applying to either, or both. They're obviously both very fine schools.

Somebody stated that everybody wants to go to Sidwell as their first choice and then everybody ends up going somewhere else because they don't get accepted or can't afford it.

The idea is crazy - but somebody said they preferred Gonzaga and then the conversation turned into statistics.

So many schools but this site is obsessed with Sidwell.


- signed never considered Sidwell

I don't believe that's what the OP said. I think the point is that if you polled parents, and all else was equal (i.e. money was no barrier to entry and admission was guaranteed for their one student), Sidwell would end up as the #1 choice. It wouldn't be unanimous, it probably wouldn't even be a majority. But a plurality would choose Sidwell. I think the co-ed/religious factor would prevent places like NCS and STA from being particularly close competitors, even when considering the preferences of each gender's parents in isolation.

And many of us think it would not be # 1. Not because we dislike Sidwell but because we prefer something else.

Again, that's your personal choice. No one school is everyone's #1 choice. Your preference has nothing to do with what a plurality would pick though. Who do you really think would be #1 in a poll like the one I proposed?

If you did a true statistical analysis you would find that there is no real #1. Any top contender would not be statistically significant.

It also depends on your sample size. Are you going to sample as far as Southern MD - which has students commuting for 1.5 hours just to go to Gonzaga.

Would you poll everybody - even public school parents - parents of dyslexic kids probably prefer LAB or McClean even though their scores and intelligence and work ethic would make them successful at Sidwell.

Some public school parents would choose their public school over private. Do you think Whitman parents can't afford or do not have the contacts to get their kids into the school of their choice, do you think their child's academic abilities have any bearing on whether their kids go to private or not.

The problem with this forum is you can't get real information. Sidwell is not preferred by the majority of people for various reasons (not that it is not good enough) it just is Sidwell with it's own positives and negatives just like all other schools that are equally amazing in their own way.

The whole idea that most parents want Ivy kids or NMS or Sidwell is not true.