The average SAT scores of pubic schools will never be as high as for private schools. Different mandates.

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin already did this a few years ago, I think it was circa 2015. They decreased the in-state quota, citing declining in-state population and OOS demand, and increased OOS enrollment, which of course includes international. Intl students can help fill some of that gap at higher ranked universities, and state schools in many instances will have the advantage of having lower tuition in many instances compared to private (though not always the case with IIS at top publics). There are many intl students who cannot afford US tuition—the high tuition and self-pay model is antithetical to how many countries send students to college.

Yes I agree. I don't know why the other poster is harping on about.
If a public university wants to adjust its acceptance criteria in the future, I'm pretty sure it can.
Additionally, there are already states like California with both strong in-state mandates and a declining population. I'm pretty sure Cal and UCLA are still prestigious

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Publics usually have a mandate to educate its citizens. Rich, poor, young, old. Privates can be much more selective. Same old same old as public secondary schools versus private schools.

That's one of the reasons you see such higher SAT scores at selective privates.

Cite examples please

In 2019 (last year before COVID), these were the schools with the highest average SAT scores: Chicago, MIT, Harvey Mudd, Harvard, Wash U, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, Brown, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Amherst, Williams, Haverford, Cornell, Pomona, Tufts, Northeastern, Swarthmore, Mount Holyoke, Georgetown, Emory, Hamilton. Do you see any public schools on that list?

What is your point though? Why do you care about SAT scores on the margins when are in a TO environment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Publics usually have a mandate to educate its citizens. Rich, poor, young, old. Privates can be much more selective. Same old same old as public secondary schools versus private schools.

That's one of the reasons you see such higher SAT scores at selective privates.

Cite examples please

In 2019 (last year before COVID), these were the schools with the highest average SAT scores: Chicago, MIT, Harvey Mudd, Harvard, Wash U, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, Brown, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Amherst, Williams, Haverford, Cornell, Pomona, Tufts, Northeastern, Swarthmore, Mount Holyoke, Georgetown, Emory, Hamilton. Do you see any public schools on that list?

Anonymous wrote:Publics usually have a mandate to educate its citizens. Rich, poor, young, old. Privates can be much more selective. Same old same old as public secondary schools versus private schools.

That's one of the reasons you see such higher SAT scores at selective privates.

Cite examples please

Publics usually have a mandate to educate its citizens. Rich, poor, young, old. Privates can be much more selective. Same old same old as public secondary schools versus private schools.

That's one of the reasons you see such higher SAT scores at selective privates.

*citing declining in-state population and INCREASED OOS demand

Wisconsin already did this a few years ago, I think it was circa 2015. They decreased the in-state quota, citing declining in-state population and OOS demand, and increased OOS enrollment, which of course includes international. Intl students can help fill some of that gap at higher ranked universities, and state schools in many instances will have the advantage of having lower tuition in many instances compared to private (though not always the case with IIS at top publics). There are many intl students who cannot afford US tuition—the high tuition and self-pay model is antithetical to how many countries send students to college.

Admission requirements may be changed to adjust to population needs, community priorities, etc. to be agreed upon by appropriate stakeholders.

I think now is a good time to adjust admission requirements given the clamor from instate families for the opportunity to attend these well regarded state flagship universities.

No need for it to be fiercely competitive when your mandate is the serve your community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose it is easier (perhaps more entertaining) to snipe about certain schools than to discuss the more substantive question of addressing the educational mandate of state flagship universities in light of the shortage of slots for qualified and motivated instate applicants.

Yes, but this is how it is now - fiercely competitive with not enough slots to go around. How will it look in 5 or 10 years? The population pool of college students will be much smaller. A student now might need >4.0 to get in. In the future, most likely there will be more slots than students. UVA must have 2/3 in-state. With a lower total applicant pool, it's not realistic to assume everyone will have >4.0. The school will have to be much more lenient towards in-state applicants and accept weaker scores in order to achieve their 2/3 requirement.

This assertion that you keep making is unfounded, just dumb. Provide your math and citations please.

Anonymous wrote:I suppose it is easier (perhaps more entertaining) to snipe about certain schools than to discuss the more substantive question of addressing the educational mandate of state flagship universities in light of the shortage of slots for qualified and motivated instate applicants.

Yes, but this is how it is now - fiercely competitive with not enough slots to go around. How will it look in 5 or 10 years? The population pool of college students will be much smaller. A student now might need >4.0 to get in. In the future, most likely there will be more slots than students. UVA must have 2/3 in-state. With a lower total applicant pool, it's not realistic to assume everyone will have >4.0. The school will have to be much more lenient towards in-state applicants and accept weaker scores in order to achieve their 2/3 requirement.

I suppose it is easier (perhaps more entertaining) to snipe about certain schools than to discuss the more substantive question of addressing the educational mandate of state flagship universities in light of the shortage of slots for qualified and motivated instate applicants.

Why not expand enrollment to a reasonable degree? Why not accept all instate applicants who achieve the requirements stipulated by appropriate stakeholders? Remove all the guess work and seeming randomness of the selection process.

As an instate applicant, you achieve a certain GPA or test score - you are in.

Quality institutions will always be quality institutions even with a larger enrollment as long as the state values the education for residents.

Anonymous wrote:Can we stop talking about NEU and focus back on UVA, UMich and UNC

Normally I would say yes, the sick poster should stop trying to hijack the college threads with his rants about NEU.

But I do want to say a big congratulations to NEU for winning yet another Bean Pot - five out of six, is it?

So I guess it really does suck to B.U.

Can we stop talking about NEU and focus back on UVA, UMich and UNC

Anonymous wrote:What’s sad is that Northeastern has always had a distinctive niche on the Boston higher education landscape—its convenient urban location & co-op programs make it unique. They should have just been content with maximizing those features instead of striving to be something it’s not.

+1000