Anonymous
09/19/2017 13:46
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Late 70s Amherst. Accepted the lowest percent of applicants at least one year. And that was a way higher number than these days.
Anonymous
09/19/2017 13:35
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Anonymous wrote:Entirely subjective.
Wasn't it widely reported that the vast majority of Harvard graduates graduate with a cum laude?
Grade inflation is rampant everywhere. How do you know grading is easier at Brown than other Ivies?
And let's not forget, we're talking about very highly accomplished and intelligent students. They are, by default, going to be doing well.
Brown's open curriculum may give off the impression that students can be lazy. But how do you know this? Just because the potential to slack might be there doesn't mean the students are going to be lazy. From my understanding most students at Brown take advantage of the open curriculum to be very high performing by focusing on the subjects they're interested in. So that's a different angle and that's what Brown uses to distinguish itself from the other schools. As it is, from what I remember from a Brown information session, despite the open curriculum the vast majority of students take a broad spectrum of classes and would meet the pre-reg requirements of most schools.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lol @ implying Brown is an easy Ivy to get into, or it's where slackers apply. Look at the SAT to its elite peers, virtually indistinguishable.
not easy in terms of getting in, easy in terms of getting out. In that regard brown sure is the easiest ivy.
avg SAT
Brown, Duke, Penn 97 percentile
Stanford 98
Harvard 99
virtually indistinguishable
You are showing how easy it is to get in, and of course the differences are small amongst these schools. But in terms of how rigorous it is once you get in, Brown is the easiest ivy (high grade inflation, open curriculum, no GPAs are calculated, failing grades are not recorded etc). this is what we mean by easier.
Brown and Harvards big grade inflation even relative to the other ivies, is well known and documented. http://www.gradeinflation.com
Also Brown does not even calculate GPAs and does not record failing grades. Harvard has big grade inflation too but they do compute GPA and the competition is much higher there due to the inordinate concentration of super brilliant prodigies that attend (the Brown student body is nowhere near as strong). There is no question that Brown is the easiest ivy once you get in, and its reputation as such is established.
Anonymous
09/19/2017 02:44
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Entirely subjective.
Wasn't it widely reported that the vast majority of Harvard graduates graduate with a cum laude?
Grade inflation is rampant everywhere. How do you know grading is easier at Brown than other Ivies?
And let's not forget, we're talking about very highly accomplished and intelligent students. They are, by default, going to be doing well.
Brown's open curriculum may give off the impression that students can be lazy. But how do you know this? Just because the potential to slack might be there doesn't mean the students are going to be lazy. From my understanding most students at Brown take advantage of the open curriculum to be very high performing by focusing on the subjects they're interested in. So that's a different angle and that's what Brown uses to distinguish itself from the other schools. As it is, from what I remember from a Brown information session, despite the open curriculum the vast majority of students take a broad spectrum of classes and would meet the pre-reg requirements of most schools.
Wasn't it widely reported that the vast majority of Harvard graduates graduate with a cum laude?
Grade inflation is rampant everywhere. How do you know grading is easier at Brown than other Ivies?
And let's not forget, we're talking about very highly accomplished and intelligent students. They are, by default, going to be doing well.
Brown's open curriculum may give off the impression that students can be lazy. But how do you know this? Just because the potential to slack might be there doesn't mean the students are going to be lazy. From my understanding most students at Brown take advantage of the open curriculum to be very high performing by focusing on the subjects they're interested in. So that's a different angle and that's what Brown uses to distinguish itself from the other schools. As it is, from what I remember from a Brown information session, despite the open curriculum the vast majority of students take a broad spectrum of classes and would meet the pre-reg requirements of most schools.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lol @ implying Brown is an easy Ivy to get into, or it's where slackers apply. Look at the SAT to its elite peers, virtually indistinguishable.
not easy in terms of getting in, easy in terms of getting out. In that regard brown sure is the easiest ivy.
avg SAT
Brown, Duke, Penn 97 percentile
Stanford 98
Harvard 99
virtually indistinguishable
You are showing how easy it is to get in, and of course the differences are small amongst these schools. But in terms of how rigorous it is once you get in, Brown is the easiest ivy (high grade inflation, open curriculum, no GPAs are calculated, failing grades are not recorded etc). this is what we mean by easier.
Anonymous
09/18/2017 23:01
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Anonymous wrote:I would consider that virtually indistinguishable, yes. You can see Brown's profile- they can fill their class five times over with people scoring in the 99% if they wanted, but they don't.
What does all this have to do with what was hot 20-30 years ago?
Anonymous
09/18/2017 21:47
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
I would consider that virtually indistinguishable, yes. You can see Brown's profile- they can fill their class five times over with people scoring in the 99% if they wanted, but they don't.
Anonymous
09/18/2017 19:43
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lol @ implying Brown is an easy Ivy to get into, or it's where slackers apply. Look at the SAT to its elite peers, virtually indistinguishable.
not easy in terms of getting in, easy in terms of getting out. In that regard brown sure is the easiest ivy.
avg SAT
Brown, Duke, Penn 97 percentile
Stanford 98
Harvard 99
virtually indistinguishable
You are showing how easy it is to get in, and of course the differences are small amongst these schools. But in terms of how rigorous it is once you get in, Brown is the easiest ivy (high grade inflation, open curriculum, no GPAs are calculated, failing grades are not recorded etc). this is what we mean by easier.
Anonymous
09/18/2017 15:21
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lol @ implying Brown is an easy Ivy to get into, or it's where slackers apply. Look at the SAT to its elite peers, virtually indistinguishable.
not easy in terms of getting in, easy in terms of getting out. In that regard brown sure is the easiest ivy.
avg SAT
Brown, Duke, Penn 97 percentile
Stanford 98
Harvard 99
virtually indistinguishable
Anonymous
09/18/2017 15:14
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Anonymous wrote:Brown doesn't fill its class with ED students to the same degree as all of those schools. Brown filled 42% with ED admits. Penn filled 54.5%. Columbia filled 46.8%. Duke filled 49.3% of its class with ED students AND has a lower yield than Brown (not sure why it was mentioned??).
UChicago has manipulated its yield with early decision considerably. Just a few years ago, its yield was 40%. Now it's nearly 70% thanks to two ED processes and only admitting 2% of RD students (lower than both Stanford and Harvard).
I have no affiliation with any of these colleges, but I hate when posters not only post incorrect statements, but those without context.
Brown still has lower RD yield rate than Columbia, Penn, Chicago and i think even Dartmouth this year. Chicago yield was ~ 65% last year with just EA +RD, not 40%. Of course now Chicago has gone crazy with its admissions policy and admitted 75%+ of the class early. Now it doesn't make sense to compare Chicago to any other school.
Anonymous
09/18/2017 15:12
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Late 80s. Williams, Williams, Williams. And Brown.
Anonymous
09/18/2017 15:10
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Anonymous wrote:lol @ implying Brown is an easy Ivy to get into, or it's where slackers apply. Look at the SAT to its elite peers, virtually indistinguishable.
not easy in terms of getting in, easy in terms of getting out. In that regard brown sure is the easiest ivy.
Anonymous
09/17/2017 21:11
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
lol @ implying Brown is an easy Ivy to get into, or it's where slackers apply. Look at the SAT to its elite peers, virtually indistinguishable.
Anonymous
09/17/2017 20:42
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
I went to Washington University and no one had heard of it in the early 90s, apparently it's super popular and elite now? It was hard to get into when I got in (my other option was Northwestern but they didn't give me any money), but Northwestern was definitely considered more elite.
Anonymous
09/17/2017 19:06
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Brown doesn't fill its class with ED students to the same degree as all of those schools. Brown filled 42% with ED admits. Penn filled 54.5%. Columbia filled 46.8%. Duke filled 49.3% of its class with ED students AND has a lower yield than Brown (not sure why it was mentioned??).
UChicago has manipulated its yield with early decision considerably. Just a few years ago, its yield was 40%. Now it's nearly 70% thanks to two ED processes and only admitting 2% of RD students (lower than both Stanford and Harvard).
I have no affiliation with any of these colleges, but I hate when posters not only post incorrect statements, but those without context.
UChicago has manipulated its yield with early decision considerably. Just a few years ago, its yield was 40%. Now it's nearly 70% thanks to two ED processes and only admitting 2% of RD students (lower than both Stanford and Harvard).
I have no affiliation with any of these colleges, but I hate when posters not only post incorrect statements, but those without context.
Anonymous
09/17/2017 16:53
Subject: Which colleges were the "hot" colleges several decades ago?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:University of Chicago was so not hot in the 80s, it was an easy admit. Brown was hot.
Yes I remember Brown being very sought after and those who got in, highly thought of.
Brown is still that way in California and NE. Only clueless striver wannabes dismiss it. 5% acceptance rate., hipster vibes, grade inflation.
8% admissions rate. It's not in HYPSC territory yet.
https://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/03/admitted
Brown is invariably considered the bottom of the ivy league these days along with Cornell, it is nowhere near HYPSM. There are even several non-HYPSM schools have been consistently hotter than Brown in the past couple of decades (Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke). The relatively low acceptance rate is due to its reputation for being the easy ivy. Look at its yield rate, it is lower than HYPSM, Penn, Columbia and Dartmouth. As for the strengths of its departments, is it nowhere near that of the top 10 schools.