Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASP

Above posted, WASP colleges for a smaller undergrad experience/alternative. Or honors program at state flagship

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

No, a lot of Asians (some maybe) will not pay for top 15 privates if they get into Cal or UCLA. I am Asian and many of my friends draw the line at HYPMS when it comes to paying full price tuition. I have friends whose kids got into Cornell and Columbia and they stuck to instate at UCLA and Berkeley.

yes. Previous poster does not get Asian culture at all. Those parents are not going to put down $400K for Cornell if Berkeley is a fraction of that. I can give you a dozen examples among my friends alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

No, a lot of Asians (some maybe) will not pay for top 15 privates if they get into Cal or UCLA. I am Asian and many of my friends draw the line at HYPMS when it comes to paying full price tuition. I have friends whose kids got into Cornell and Columbia and they stuck to instate at UCLA and Berkeley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Because we are rich.

I know you’re trying to be cool, but just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you’re smart. The second tier schools, private, and not, are just not as good as the top state flagships. So you’re throwing your money away. Maybe you have the money to throw, but that doesn’t make it smart.

Not PP and I agree with you but second tier privates are those outside the top 50. Inside the top 50 they are pretty much better than most of the flagships.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

California is well represented at the top 15 privates for a reason and it’s sure as hell not because they got rejected at the UCs when the admitted profile stats for UCLA and Berkeley are meh even discounting for test optional. They are largely asian who would absolutely go to a top private if they could

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

Is 60 or 50% equivalent to “that’s where you’re going after getting admitted?”. Didnt realize those numbers even accounting for cross admits = 100%. No you are an idiot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

Anonymous wrote:Ga Tech has EA, not ED

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you just go to your state flagship, especially if it’s ranked in , say, the top 50? Tell me it makes no sense to pay all of that money for a private university that isn’t ranked in the top 15 or 20 when you could go to UVA, Michigan, North Carolina, maybe Florida, and obviously the UC schools?

Well, people that have instate Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT-Austin as options are in a wonderful place. And I suspect very few of those families can be persuaded to drop an additional $250,000 for undergrad at a different school.

But that's five schools out of 5000 colleges. There are a bazillion reasons why people choose something different than the state flagship. And for middle class families, the elite private schools are often cheaper than state flagships. Plus major strength, programs, vibe, network, opportunities, sports, location, community, weather, and on and on.

Many people who have instate in CA go private if they can afford it. UCB and UCLA are great graduate schools and they can be good choices for many kids but any top UC comes with alot of compromises which limits their attractiveness to many.

Please. If you’re in-state and get admitted to Berkeley or UCLA that’s where you’re going. UCLA is a dream for most California teens.

are you an idiot? is that why the in state yield is only like 50%?

DP. UCLA’s is 60%. UCB’s is 50%. These are already strong yields. Then factor in that some kids get into both and can’t choose both so they show up in one school’s yield but not the other. That means the two-school yield (i.e., they chose at least one of the two) is even higher. Maybe use that big brain of yours before calling people idiots.

.

Cal is around 45%, UCLA around 52%, and for comparison, Michigan is around 42%. UVA and UNC are low 40s as well, but UVA has had ED and UNC has EA. These are strong yield rates for such large entering classes for schools with total enrollment over 20,000, only NYU betters them in the upper 50s and it uses ED to lock in students.

And, as noted, there are also CA students who get admitted to multiple UCs and choose another one over Cal and UCLA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in NY. There are many SUNY schools, and some are quite good. Unfortunately, they’re not a great fit for DC for various reasons. We’re looking at a few OOS flagships instead.

This is just dumb
There are no out of state flagships better fits than suny schools

You just don’t want to send your kid instate which is completely idiotic at this juncture