Lake Placid roll call

[ugarte]

If Kodak were in the mix wouldn't it be less selective.  How many Kodak engineers would be rejected?

George Eastman's money the U of R one of the best endowed schools in America, per capita, for much of the 20th century. It also spent R&D funds at RIT and Rochester and sent a lot of Kodak staff to RIT for grad degrees. The funding let RIT hire better profs, buy more equipment, make it a more desirable school. Now, pretty much no more Kodak: 80,000 down to ~6,000.

I'm just saying statistically if 99% of the Kodak folks get in the program that would mean it was less selective overall.  Not arguing about the quality of the students or the program,  just the silly statistic.

If the engineering school is more selective,  which I'm guessing it still is, the current overall selectivity number might not reflect what many of us think of as RIT.

It's no Q.

only true if kodak isn't a destination company recruiting top candidates to work for it that it then sends to the local school. i would argue that for a long time kodak was one of those companies.

But I'm not talking about whether it truly is a selective school.  I was only talking about the paradox that a 100% admission rate for Kodak folks would make their selectivity statistic worse,  not better.

well, fine, but that's a definition of selectivity only relevant to people reading USNWR like it's the bible

[marty]

If Kodak were in the mix wouldn't it be less selective.  How many Kodak engineers would be rejected?

George Eastman's money the U of R one of the best endowed schools in America, per capita, for much of the 20th century. It also spent R&D funds at RIT and Rochester and sent a lot of Kodak staff to RIT for grad degrees. The funding let RIT hire better profs, buy more equipment, make it a more desirable school. Now, pretty much no more Kodak: 80,000 down to ~6,000.

I'm just saying statistically if 99% of the Kodak folks get in the program that would mean it was less selective overall.  Not arguing about the quality of the students or the program,  just the silly statistic.

If the engineering school is more selective,  which I'm guessing it still is, the current overall selectivity number might not reflect what many of us think of as RIT.

It's no Q.

only true if kodak isn't a destination company recruiting top candidates to work for it that it then sends to the local school. i would argue that for a long time kodak was one of those companies.

But I'm not talking about whether it truly is a selective school.  I was only talking about the paradox that a 100% admission rate for Kodak folks would make their selectivity statistic worse,  not better.

well, fine, but that's a definition of selectivity only relevant to people reading USNWR like it's the bible

I think the engineering school is likely more competitive and selective than the rest of the school but I have no evidence.  No matter as RIT is a better fit than Q in the ECAC.

Can Q move to the AHL?

[BearLover]

If Kodak were in the mix wouldn't it be less selective.  How many Kodak engineers would be rejected?

George Eastman's money the U of R one of the best endowed schools in America, per capita, for much of the 20th century. It also spent R&D funds at RIT and Rochester and sent a lot of Kodak staff to RIT for grad degrees. The funding let RIT hire better profs, buy more equipment, make it a more desirable school. Now, pretty much no more Kodak: 80,000 down to ~6,000.

I'm just saying statistically if 99% of the Kodak folks get in the program that would mean it was less selective overall.  Not arguing about the quality of the students or the program,  just the silly statistic.

If the engineering school is more selective,  which I'm guessing it still is, the current overall selectivity number might not reflect what many of us think of as RIT.

It's no Q.

only true if kodak isn't a destination company recruiting top candidates to work for it that it then sends to the local school. i would argue that for a long time kodak was one of those companies.

But I'm not talking about whether it truly is a selective school.  I was only talking about the paradox that a 100% admission rate for Kodak folks would make their selectivity statistic worse,  not better.

well, fine, but that's a definition of selectivity only relevant to people reading USNWR like it's the bible

No matter as RIT is a better fit than Q in the ECAC.

Why? I don't understand this concept.

[Trotsky]

Can Q move to the AHL?

Q is destined for HE.  It's just a matter of time.  Then we'll pick up RIT or Holy Cross or Army will take another run at it.

[upprdeck]

Rit Getting scholies will help their hockey profile i suspect

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

as many of the ivy kids apply to several of the schools its not really selective anyway.. if 50K apply to the same 5 schools and they all take 10K it looks like each school only accepts 20% of applicants.. but is that really reflective of what happened.

Sometimes when I think about admissions rates, selectivity, and yields, I'm never sure if cause and effect get confused.

This is my take on the historical trend:
-- Smart boomers & early early millennials, 1-1/2 to 2 generations ago, apply to ~6 schools: 2 Ivy-class, 2 good, 2 safety. Paper documentation is a pain to do even a half-dozen, and the guidance counselor counsels against making more work for him or her.
-- Computers happen, easy to apply to more schools, applications jump to 10? 12? for smart students or students with nervous parents  
-- Good schools admit smaller fraction of applicants knowing higher fraction of admits who were reach-applicants will accept the best school they get in to
-- Yield becomes a better measure of selectivity
-- Some good schools may deny admission to overqualified admit suspecting they won't attend, so even the yield number can be tinkered with.

US News says 2020 admit rates for the eight Ivies was 7.6%. For all other national universities it was 68.3%, nine times as much. Early admissions applicants are admitted at an 18.1% rate vs. 55.1% for non-Ivy nationals. For most but not all Ivies, an early decision acceptance is bindjng, so there's no loss to other schools.

What happens at Cornell has a big impact on Ivy League admits because Cornell educates a quarter of the 15,000 students entering the Ivies each year and that will go up a bit higher when all the new North Campus dorms come online.

There are only two dozen schools that have a yield of 50% or better. Harvard is at 82% and Cornell is at 60%; the other Ivies are in between. A number of high-yield schools are religious and Gallaudet is for deaf and hearing-impaired. They are many, many more schools with yields of 10% or less. Quinnipiac is at 11%.

Harvard University (MA), 82%
Stanford University (CA), 82%
Brigham Young University—Provo (UT), 81%
University of Chicago, 81%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77%
Harding University (AR), 71%
Princeton University (NJ), 70%
University of Pennsylvania, 70%
Yale University (CT), 69%
Dartmouth College (NH), 64%
Gallaudet University (DC), 63%
Columbia University (NY), 62%
Brown University (RI), 61%
Keiser University (FL), 61%
Yeshiva University (NY), 61%
Cornell University (NY), 60%
University of Notre Dame (IN), 58%
Georgia Southern University, 56%
University of Texas—Rio Grande Valley, 56%
Kennesaw State University (GA), 55%
Northwestern University (IL), 55%
Duke University (NC), 54%
William Carey University (MS), 50%

What does "yield" mean?  Percent of accepted applications that actually enroll?

And just for the record, this Boomer/Gen-Xer applied to 7 schools:  4 Ivies (Cornell, Penn, Harvard, Yale), 2 good schools (Tufts, Lehigh), and one safety (Penn State).  I got into all but Harvard and Yale...but I applied to them simply to reject them.  I had no intent of going to either.

[marty]

Can Q move to the AHL?

Q is destined for HE.  It's just a matter of time.  Then we'll pick up RIT or Holy Cross or Army will take another run at it.

The other AHL. American not Atlantic.

[billhoward]

What does "yield" mean?  Percent of accepted applications that actually enroll?

Exactly that. I don't know how early decision candidates are treated; I assume they count as part of the yield because they do attend. Maybe there's another stat — yield excerpting early-admits.