(05-21-2015 08:12 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:46 AM)PAmedic Wrote:  ^^^
this was a problem for many years. A problem of perception.

LU's philosophy was provide a quality education for as many as possible... the acceptance process was basically "first come first served"

when the numbers were full, they cut off the applications: therefore = artificially high acceptance rate.

After many years of getting slammed in educational circles, LU started reporting the numbers the way everyone else does: % of applications accepted out of the entire number processed. Voila: Acceptance rate now as selective as any in the country.

proving yet again why some of the USA Today (and other) elitist rankings are so subjective.

nothing changed- just the way some accountants report things.

So you have not changed your acceptance procedures but have fudged the numbers to look like everyone else's?

Fudging the numbers? More like the previous numbers were fudged so they have been corrected.

(05-21-2015 08:31 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:12 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:46 AM)PAmedic Wrote:  ^^^
this was a problem for many years. A problem of perception.

LU's philosophy was provide a quality education for as many as possible... the acceptance process was basically "first come first served"

when the numbers were full, they cut off the applications: therefore = artificially high acceptance rate.

After many years of getting slammed in educational circles, LU started reporting the numbers the way everyone else does: % of applications accepted out of the entire number processed. Voila: Acceptance rate now as selective as any in the country.

proving yet again why some of the USA Today (and other) elitist rankings are so subjective.

nothing changed- just the way some accountants report things.

So you have not changed your acceptance procedures but have fudged the numbers to look like everyone else's?

Fudging the numbers? More like the previous numbers were fudged so they have been corrected.

If you didn't change your acceptance procedures, then yes, your acceptance rate is a false number. Meaning, if it is "first come, first served" but now you count all of the applications (including the ones that were sent in "late"), that still isn't a fair comparison to how most schools calculate their acceptance rate.

Or the previous acceptance rates were false in comparison to peers. I love schools living in a 20th Century paradigm complaining about the 21st Century models. It reminds me of the old codger on the corner complaining about the kids making too much noise riding their bikes by his lawn.

(05-21-2015 08:57 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:31 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:12 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:46 AM)PAmedic Wrote:  ^^^
this was a problem for many years. A problem of perception.

LU's philosophy was provide a quality education for as many as possible... the acceptance process was basically "first come first served"

when the numbers were full, they cut off the applications: therefore = artificially high acceptance rate.

After many years of getting slammed in educational circles, LU started reporting the numbers the way everyone else does: % of applications accepted out of the entire number processed. Voila: Acceptance rate now as selective as any in the country.

proving yet again why some of the USA Today (and other) elitist rankings are so subjective.

nothing changed- just the way some accountants report things.

So you have not changed your acceptance procedures but have fudged the numbers to look like everyone else's?

Fudging the numbers? More like the previous numbers were fudged so they have been corrected.

If you didn't change your acceptance procedures, then yes, your acceptance rate is a false number. Meaning, if it is "first come, first served" but now you count all of the applications (including the ones that were sent in "late"), that still isn't a fair comparison to how most schools calculate their acceptance rate.

Of all the things to start an argument over. Geez. Sounds like your problem is that Liberty accepts "everyone" even if they have a comparable average SAT/ACT and other entry requirements. They accept the earliest applications that meet the requirements and now they record how many applied afterwards too which makes them JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

(05-21-2015 09:46 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:57 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:31 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:12 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:46 AM)PAmedic Wrote:  ^^^
this was a problem for many years. A problem of perception.

LU's philosophy was provide a quality education for as many as possible... the acceptance process was basically "first come first served"

when the numbers were full, they cut off the applications: therefore = artificially high acceptance rate.

After many years of getting slammed in educational circles, LU started reporting the numbers the way everyone else does: % of applications accepted out of the entire number processed. Voila: Acceptance rate now as selective as any in the country.

proving yet again why some of the USA Today (and other) elitist rankings are so subjective.

nothing changed- just the way some accountants report things.

So you have not changed your acceptance procedures but have fudged the numbers to look like everyone else's?

Fudging the numbers? More like the previous numbers were fudged so they have been corrected.

If you didn't change your acceptance procedures, then yes, your acceptance rate is a false number. Meaning, if it is "first come, first served" but now you count all of the applications (including the ones that were sent in "late"), that still isn't a fair comparison to how most schools calculate their acceptance rate.

Of all the things to start an argument over. Geez. Sounds like your problem is that Liberty accepts "everyone" even if they have a comparable average SAT/ACT and other entry requirements. They accept the earliest applications that meet the requirements and now they record how many applied afterwards too which makes them JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I'm not arguing. I asked a question. However, you are mistaken as that is not how other schools evaluate applicants. Every other school wants the most qualified applicants, so they are evaluated 'together' not on a first come/served basis. This is what makes the acceptance rate an indicator of a school's admission standards. Hence my comment about Liberty's acceptance rate being a false number.

(05-21-2015 10:10 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 09:46 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:57 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:31 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:12 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  So you have not changed your acceptance procedures but have fudged the numbers to look like everyone else's?

Fudging the numbers? More like the previous numbers were fudged so they have been corrected.

If you didn't change your acceptance procedures, then yes, your acceptance rate is a false number. Meaning, if it is "first come, first served" but now you count all of the applications (including the ones that were sent in "late"), that still isn't a fair comparison to how most schools calculate their acceptance rate.

Of all the things to start an argument over. Geez. Sounds like your problem is that Liberty accepts "everyone" even if they have a comparable average SAT/ACT and other entry requirements. They accept the earliest applications that meet the requirements and now they record how many applied afterwards too which makes them JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I'm not arguing. I asked a question. However, you are mistaken as that is not how other schools evaluate applicants. Every other school wants the most qualified applicants, so they are evaluated 'together' not on a first come/served basis. This is what makes the acceptance rate an indicator of a school's admission standards. Hence my comment about Liberty's acceptance rate being a false number.

How is it "false"? Does South Georgia not count the applications that come in after they are full or do they not have enough apply to max enrollment?

(05-21-2015 10:33 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:10 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 09:46 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:57 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:31 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Fudging the numbers? More like the previous numbers were fudged so they have been corrected.

If you didn't change your acceptance procedures, then yes, your acceptance rate is a false number. Meaning, if it is "first come, first served" but now you count all of the applications (including the ones that were sent in "late"), that still isn't a fair comparison to how most schools calculate their acceptance rate.

Of all the things to start an argument over. Geez. Sounds like your problem is that Liberty accepts "everyone" even if they have a comparable average SAT/ACT and other entry requirements. They accept the earliest applications that meet the requirements and now they record how many applied afterwards too which makes them JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I'm not arguing. I asked a question. However, you are mistaken as that is not how other schools evaluate applicants. Every other school wants the most qualified applicants, so they are evaluated 'together' not on a first come/served basis. This is what makes the acceptance rate an indicator of a school's admission standards. Hence my comment about Liberty's acceptance rate being a false number.

How is it "false"? Does South Georgia not count the applications that come in after they are full or do they not have enough apply to max enrollment?

I think it's something about counting as 3/5th of a person?

(05-21-2015 10:33 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:10 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 09:46 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:57 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:31 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Fudging the numbers? More like the previous numbers were fudged so they have been corrected.

If you didn't change your acceptance procedures, then yes, your acceptance rate is a false number. Meaning, if it is "first come, first served" but now you count all of the applications (including the ones that were sent in "late"), that still isn't a fair comparison to how most schools calculate their acceptance rate.

Of all the things to start an argument over. Geez. Sounds like your problem is that Liberty accepts "everyone" even if they have a comparable average SAT/ACT and other entry requirements. They accept the earliest applications that meet the requirements and now they record how many applied afterwards too which makes them JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I'm not arguing. I asked a question. However, you are mistaken as that is not how other schools evaluate applicants. Every other school wants the most qualified applicants, so they are evaluated 'together' not on a first come/served basis. This is what makes the acceptance rate an indicator of a school's admission standards. Hence my comment about Liberty's acceptance rate being a false number.

How is it "false"? Does South Georgia not count the applications that come in after they are full or do they not have enough apply to max enrollment?

I answered that above but applications are evaluated after the deadline. The best applicants are picked from the pool. I've dumbed that process down but it is not first come, first served at Georgia Southern or any other public school.

(05-21-2015 10:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:33 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:10 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 09:46 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:57 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  If you didn't change your acceptance procedures, then yes, your acceptance rate is a false number. Meaning, if it is "first come, first served" but now you count all of the applications (including the ones that were sent in "late"), that still isn't a fair comparison to how most schools calculate their acceptance rate.

Of all the things to start an argument over. Geez. Sounds like your problem is that Liberty accepts "everyone" even if they have a comparable average SAT/ACT and other entry requirements. They accept the earliest applications that meet the requirements and now they record how many applied afterwards too which makes them JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I'm not arguing. I asked a question. However, you are mistaken as that is not how other schools evaluate applicants. Every other school wants the most qualified applicants, so they are evaluated 'together' not on a first come/served basis. This is what makes the acceptance rate an indicator of a school's admission standards. Hence my comment about Liberty's acceptance rate being a false number.

How is it "false"? Does South Georgia not count the applications that come in after they are full or do they not have enough apply to max enrollment?

I answered that above but applications are evaluated after the deadline. The best applicants are picked from the pool. I've dumbed that process down but it is not first come, first served at Georgia Southern or any other public school.

So then if Liberty is getting the same quality of students by the measure of their average test scores then what's the problem?

Again - LU average freshmen SAT/ACT scores are in the middle of the SBC average. Our honors college features an average SAT of 1380 (700 students). Beyond that...why do admissions procedures matter?

Two simple questions:

1. How does everyone else (public universities, or Sun Belt universities in particular) calculate Admission rates?
2. How does Liberty?

If they are the same, regardless of how it was calculated in the past... Then you are comparing apples to apples.
If they aren't the same, then I would wonder why they do it differently.

That's it.