Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYU has an amazing law school and med school. The undergrad seems pretty mediocre.

I don’t know a lot of high stats kids going there, but I do see a steady stream of wealthy families sending their above average kids there That’s where the annoyance comes in … your on the receiving and of this subtle assertion that their kid goes to NYU because they wanted to be in the Village and that it’s somehow preferable to the Upper West Side or Providence or the crummy part of Philly. We all know what’s really going on, so stop trying so hard. Same for USC tbh, another one time commuter school.

Every school was one time commuter school. MIT was one time vocational school. Yawn

Anonymous wrote:NYU has an amazing law school and med school. The undergrad seems pretty mediocre.

I don’t know a lot of high stats kids going there, but I do see a steady stream of wealthy families sending their above average kids there That’s where the annoyance comes in … your on the receiving and of this subtle assertion that their kid goes to NYU because they wanted to be in the Village and that it’s somehow preferable to the Upper West Side or Providence or the crummy part of Philly. We all know what’s really going on, so stop trying so hard. Same for USC tbh, another one time commuter school.

Anonymous wrote:Some Kids who don’t have the profile for the T-20 and don’t want to attend their state flagship or an LAC are happy to attend the so-called pseudo prestige privates. Why all this hate? An Ivy grad, SLAC grad, state flagship grad and the grads of the schools mentioned in this post can easily end up in the same place- law firm, residency program, bank, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BU, BC, NEU, Tulane, Miami who cares. Lots of state flagships better.

Applicants care and they think these schools are better. That's the reality.

Agree - the problem is many of the applicants and their parents try so hard to convince people they are something that they aren’t . The schools on that list are fine, but they are not prestigious. It’s like comparing a Dr. to a nurse. Nurses take a very difficult course load, they are smart and capable, but your friends are going to be way more impressed and excited for you if your kid is a Dr. Only the Ivies and a few others in the too 15 are Drs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BU, BC, NEU, Tulane, Miami who cares. Lots of state flagships better.

Applicants care and they think these schools are better. That's the reality.

For some strange reason 18 year old kids would rather live in Boston, Miami, or New Orleans instead of Norman, Knoxville, or Columbus.

If NYU was in Toledo and USC was in Cleveland they would not be pulling 90k applicants a year.

Berkeley is next door to SF and Boulder is next door to Denver.

If SUNY Buffalo moved to Brooklyn it would get 150k applicants a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BU, BC, NEU, Tulane, Miami who cares. Lots of state flagships better.

Applicants care and they think these schools are better. That's the reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

NYU admits 10% to 15% of its entering class from NYC public schools. This is one likely reason.

75% of students dont submit test score. Basically, unless you're applying to Stern, they're test blind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

NYU admits 10% to 15% of its entering class from NYC public schools. This is one likely reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

There's a reason why nyu doesn't want to have more traditional admissions despite it hurting their rankings. Likely because it would show their applicant pool isnt that strong

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.

Yes, but NYU had over 25,000 ED applicants, so it could fairly easily admit more high stats kid by going test required if it wanted to do so. This would still be true even if going test required dropped the number of ED apps to, say, 15,000-20,000.

NYU also gets around 95,000 applications RD, so, even if NYU went EA and RD only, the yield rate would still be high for a non-Ivy+ school and, again, it could admit lots of high stats kids, even with leakage to Top 20 ones.

In other words, NYU could be pretty prestigious by conventional metrics if it wanted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If "perceived prestige" is what you're concerned with, the simple answer to this question is to look at the school's "yield rate" (the percentage of admitted students that actually choose to enroll in the schools. Harvard's is very high (80%). Most of these schools are in the 40-50% range, on par with, say, Michigan, UVA, or UNC's yield rate, but much higher than Ohio State, Maryland. Some of these, like NYU have >50% yield rates, much higher than state flagships. Others, like Emory and Wake, are in the 30s, much lower than the more prestigious flagships. If you're only interested in the quality of education your kid will receive, there's very little difference between any of these schools.

Yeild has nothing to do with prestige. It can be manipulated with ED, and TO. Schools with higher TO students or just lower test scores in general have a higher yeild. NYU has only 25% of students submit test scores.