Lake Placid roll call

billhoward

upprdeck
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%

ugarte

marty

billhoward

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.

marty
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.

Apparently RIT did not offer courses on Designing Practical Consumer Applications for the Kodak-Invented 1975 CMOS-Sensor Digital Camera.

billhoward
No question RIT is a pretty good school. Maybe RIT joining ECAC will raise its profile with recruits. Atlantic Hockey where RIT resides now has 10 schools and other than Army and Air Force, the only other school you think as a name sports school is Holy Cross. RIT has 17,000 undergraduate students; the others have 1,700 (AIC) to 4,400 (Army, Air Force). Academically, RIT is at 117 in the US News Top National Universities, Clarkson is 127, RPI is 55, Quinnipiac is 148. St. Lawrence is ranked among Liberal Arts schools, #57, where Union is #50. So RIT's entree would not water down the league, if that is a quote concern.

Atlantic Hockey is Air Force, AIC, Army, Bentley, Canisius, Holy Cross, Mercyhurst, Niagara, RIT, Sacred Heart. Used to include Iona, Fairfield and Robert Morris, all dropped hockey; Quinnipiac to ECAC 2005, UConn to Hockey East 2014.

marty

ugarte

marty

billhoward

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.

ugarte

marty

ugarte

marty

billhoward

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

marty

ugarte

marty

ugarte

marty

billhoward

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

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

marty
Can Q move to the AHL?

billhoward

upprdeck
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%

Trotsky

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.

Jeff Hopkins '82
What does "yield" mean? Percent of accepted applications that actually enroll?