Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.
UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.
Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?
If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?
UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.
What do you think?
Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Maybe this is OK because publicly funded state institutions are intended to educate the citizens of that state. Admitting out of staters is fine but their mission is different from private institutions. So of course the pool of applicants, accepted students and enrolled students should be different.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.
UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.
Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?
If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?
UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.
What do you think?
I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.
It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?
Stop injecting NEU to every single thread and trolling.
This must be a mental disorder.
Mod, you should ban this person please.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.
UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.
Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?
If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?
UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.
What do you think?
I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.
It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.
UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law[u]. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.
Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?
If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?
UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.
What do you think?
No law about 2/3 in state for UVA. I would say if state reduces funding, this can change quickly to compensate.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You guys are so lame on this board. So rankings obsessed. It is really sad. Also, Northeastern will never ever be prestigious.
pres·tige
noun
widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality.
According to the definition, Northeastern is already prestigious.
Anonymous wrote:You guys are so lame on this board. So rankings obsessed. It is really sad. Also, Northeastern will never ever be prestigious.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.
UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.
Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?
If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?
UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.
What do you think?
I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.
It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?
Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.
UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law[u]. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.
Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?
If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?
UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.
What do you think?