ECU details:

http://www.reflector.com/News/2017/08/17...chaos.html

Two sections from it:

“There are many institutions around the country with enrollment problems, a point that shouldn’t be lost on any of us,” the chancellor said. “There are 2.4 million fewer college students in America than there were five years ago, an indication of a declining student population in many states. North Carolina isn’t one of them, though. (ECU) enrollment will grow by at least 500 over last fall and we have to assume some of the responsibility for continued growth.”

Enrollment this year is expected to exceed 29,000, including about 5,000 online students and 1,900 transfer students. About 5,880 students on Wednesday began moving into ECU residence halls, including the freshman class of about 4,400, according to Dave Meredith, director of ECU undergraduate admissions, and John Fletcher, associate provost for enrollment services, who were at the residence halls to watch the culmination of their work.

(08-17-2017 06:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 09:18 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 09:10 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 07:39 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  This is a record for us. As is the 22,500 freshman applications.

https://twitter.com/UHpres/status/897815883774668800

You know what that tells me? Fallback school.

Then you can't be that smart. Yale had 31,000 applicants last year. Fallback schools are defined by acceptance rate, not quantity of applicants.

acceptance rate is a meaningless number

the only thing it tells you is the % of students that were accepted Vs the total number that applied and the % that were not accepted

it lacks the main needed information about the actual quality of the student and the metrics of the students that were actually accepted

I find it hard to believe that people that are college educated cannot understand this

if a school has 1,000 applicants and they all have a 4.35 GPA with honors classes and a 1,550 SAT and all 1,000 are accepted that school would have a 100% acceptance rate

if another school has 20,000 applicants and 15,000 of them have a 2.45 GPA with no honors classes and a 950 SAT and they are rejected and the ones that are accepted have a 2.75 GPA and a 1,025 SAT that means that school has a 25% acceptance rate

but only those with the 2.75 GPA and the 1,025 would remotely think they are a better class of freshman based on the ratio of students that applied and were denied Vs applied and accepted

acceptance rate is totally meaningless in comparisons of the admitted students

the fact that you can improve your acceptance rate by not increasing your admissions standards and instead recruiting more unqualified students makes it even more meaningless

because that is what happens at any school that has not changed their admissions metrics and yet sees a change (to the down side) in acceptance rate.....they have just managed to field applications from unqualified students and that is only magnified at schools that have guaranteed admissions metrics

(08-17-2017 12:34 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 09:10 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  You know what that tells me? Fallback school.

Wrong. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board keeps stats.

For 2016, the number of kids each school REJECTED who were accepted by and enrolled at another state public university:

Texas = 7,630
A&M = 5,347
Houston = 3,195
Texas Tech = 2,290
Texas St = 2,049
North Texas = 1,275
UTSA = 1,211
UTEP = 0

Clearly, Houston's getting a great applicant pool, and is the first choice of a lot of kids.

Are we a safety school to A&M or Texas? OK. But we don't take a back seat to any other public university in the state.

this is also a meaningless set of numbers

it tells us nothing about the admission requirements of those other universities that students decided to attend

you are pretending that all those students that decided to go to another Texas public university chose one that had admissions standards that were somewhat difficult to achieve

when the reality is many of them could have decided to go to another university with much lower admissions standards

if all of those 3,195 students decided to attend TSU or UH-D where the admissions standards are "fogs mirror has pulse and check book" then the fact that they were rejected really means nothing in the context of showing that "top quality" students were just "-> <-" to getting into dem coogs doh

it just means that there are other public universities they were able to get into

plus as to the "fall back school" one needs to actually look at the stats of the students that were actually ADMITTED to dem coogs doh and then decided to go elsewhere

the numbers you are showing are more the numbers of an "aspiration" choice

the applicable numbers to refute "fall back school" would be the disposition of the students that were ACCEPTED and then made a CHOICE of a school they found to be more to their liking

a fall back school is one that you apply to with strong certainty that you will be accepted Vs the one you aspire to be accepted to

giving us numbers (with no other context) about "rejected" students tells us very little information and more importantly it tells us NOTHING about the students that were accepted and then made a choice to go to the school they felt was more to their liking.....and again those are the students that would be the "fall back" applicants not students that were rejected

Sparknotes? I ain't got time to sift through this crap.

(08-17-2017 06:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that people that are college educated cannot understand this

Stated by the poster who is apparently completely unaware of the concepts of punctuation, capitalization, and paragraph usage.

Hilarious!

(08-17-2017 03:45 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:28 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  This is a demographics game. In a few years a big drop off will happen. I am in the education field and I will say that out of all of the AAC schools, Temple has made the biggest climb in terms of brand appeal. They are now a top 100 school a big jump over 5 years ago. Temple has become a very desirable place for students. I say this as an ECU grad.

Yup, and it's going to cause all kinds of chaos, because Temple is now mostly suburban white kids from around the country. A lot of people here aren't going to like it, because outside of val and sal, inner city students are not going to be able to get into Temple in the next 3-5 years. This goes against our historical mission. The library with our first quad is going to be a huge tipping point.

Not sure I understand what you mean, Temple is still one of the most diverse schools in the country. What do you mean by Library quad?

(08-17-2017 06:43 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:45 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:28 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  This is a demographics game. In a few years a big drop off will happen. I am in the education field and I will say that out of all of the AAC schools, Temple has made the biggest climb in terms of brand appeal. They are now a top 100 school a big jump over 5 years ago. Temple has become a very desirable place for students. I say this as an ECU grad.

Yup, and it's going to cause all kinds of chaos, because Temple is now mostly suburban white kids from around the country. A lot of people here aren't going to like it, because outside of val and sal, inner city students are not going to be able to get into Temple in the next 3-5 years. This goes against our historical mission. The library with our first quad is going to be a huge tipping point.

Not sure I understand what you mean, Temple is still one of the most diverse schools in the country. What do you mean by Library quad?

Temple had been undergoing rapid expansion and development. Two of the main projects include a new library and quad/green space. As this development continues, applications will increase and Temple may have less spots for inner city students.

(08-17-2017 11:12 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  The 5,000 number is for the main campus only.
It does not include UH satellites: Downtown, Clear lake, Katy or Sugarland.

Kids enroll at the satellites due to distance and latter many transfer to the main campus. Katy is approximately 31 miles from the main campus. Driving that for 4 years would cost a car, a lot of petrol, and a lot of time.

One could say much in comparing Tulsa and UH. We should refrain from comparisons.

UH Downtown, UH Clear Lake, UH Victoria are all completely separate universities from UH main. Just under the UH System. Like UT Arlington or UT Dallas is under the UT system.

They all have their own application process and requirements. They'd never be included in something like this unless you're talking about the system as a whole. Although in some cases there are situations where an application could be referred to one of the other campuses from main campus in case someone can't be admitted to the system flagship.

(08-17-2017 06:36 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 06:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that people that are college educated cannot understand this

Stated by the poster who is apparently completely unaware of the concepts of punctuation, capitalization, and paragraph usage.

Hilarious!

Todge is to lazy to type anything thats why he uses chat to text.

(08-17-2017 06:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the fact that you can improve (decrease) your acceptance rate by not increasing your admissions standards and instead recruiting more unqualified students makes it even more meaningless

Let's put this in context.

For the freshmen class of 2008 and earlier, Houston was averaging a 78% acceptance rate.

In 2016, Houston accepted 58% of applicants.

For your statement to have any basis in reality as it applies to Houston (i.e. if Houston was simply attracting a whole lot of unqualified applicants), then we should not expect to see any improvement in SAT scores or other measures of HS success between 2008 and 2016.

In 2008, 16% of the enrolled freshmen graduated Top 10% of their HS class. The average SAT was 1060. The average ACT was 21.7.

In 2016, 30% of the enrolled freshmen graduated Top 10%. Their average SAT was 1145, and their average ACT was 25.5.

Clearly, Houston is attracting a far better pool of applicants now. Which explains why so many kids who Houston rejects end up enrolling at other Texas public universities.

So your whole diatribe doesn't apply to Houston. It might apply to Texas Tech. Or North Texas. Take it to those boards. It doesn't belong here.

So much hate towards the HTown Takeover

Texas Tech is where one goes to get herpes and tortillas.

(08-17-2017 05:27 PM)TforTempleU Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:17 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:22 AM)TforTempleU Wrote:  Similar situation for me with at Temple. Acceptance rate has dropped about 9% within a few years. I just graduated this year but might have a little more trouble getting in if I applied today lol.

We should be under 50% acceptance rate this year.

The number I'm finding is around 56% but I believe that was from about a year or two ago? Hopefully you're right, then we can safely say kids who don't get into Temple end up at Penn State.

52.2% last year. Penn State is just over 51%.

We have a record frosh class too but it was posted on...you know...the UC board....

(08-17-2017 07:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 06:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the fact that you can improve (decrease) your acceptance rate by not increasing your admissions standards and instead recruiting more unqualified students makes it even more meaningless

Let's put this in context. LETS TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT

For the freshmen class of 2008 and earlier, Houston was averaging a 78% acceptance rate.

In 2016, Houston accepted 58% of applicants.

For your statement to have any basis in reality as it applies to Houston (i.e. if Houston was simply attracting a whole lot of unqualified applicants), then we should not expect to see any improvement in SAT scores or other measures of HS success between 2008 and 2016.

In 2008, 16% of the enrolled freshmen graduated Top 10% of their HS class. The average SAT was 1060. The average ACT was 21.7.

In 2016, 30% of the enrolled freshmen graduated Top 10%. Their average SAT was 1145, and their average ACT was 25.5.

Clearly, Houston is attracting a far better pool of applicants now. Which explains why so many kids who Houston rejects end up enrolling at other Texas public universities.

So your whole diatribe doesn't apply to Houston. It might apply to Texas Tech. Or North Texas. Take it to those boards. It doesn't belong here.

well since we are discussing dem coogs doh in this thread surely a discussion about them belongs here

and you are again taking things and trying to put your contextual spin on it while not actually proving anything about the quality of applicants you are just insisting that the context you wish to put the numbers in is the actual reality when you have not proven that at all

lets look at the actual numbers again and see what they tell us

in 2007 total applicants were 9,755 and total admitted was 7,490

2008 11,694/9,182

2009 11,393/7,941

2010 12,799/9,026

2011 14,320/9,053

2012 17,019/9,565

2013 17,407/10,167

2014 17,328/10,915

2015 17,917/10,732

2016 19,860 (percent admitted 59%) 59% * 19,860 = 11,717

so from 2007 until 2016 there was a growth in applicants of 103%

19,860 (2016 applicants) - 9,755 (2007 applicants) = 10,105 (total growth in applicants per year over that time frame)

10,105 (applicant growth) / 9,755 (starting year total applicants = 103.6% growth in applicants

next we look at the admitted students

2007 7,490 and 2016 11,717

so (11,717 - 7,490) / 7,490 = 4,277

4,277 / 7,490 = 56.44%

so looking at the actual numbers there is no reason that anyone would not expect that a school that has grown total applicants by 103%+ while only admitting 56.44% more of the applicants would have a declining acceptance rate

there is nothing to take out of context there because the simple fact is you can lower your acceptance rate by having more unqualified applicants and since dem coogs doh dramatically grew the number of applicants while only allowing a little more than half that increase to be admitted that shows that more unqualified students are applying and that is just a simple fact

and more importantly none of that actually says anything about the QUALITY of the actual applicants

it simply shows the fact that when you grow application numbers by a much higher rate over many years while not growing the number admitted at the same rate you would expect that you will have a lower acceptance rate

but that shows nothing about the quality of the student admitted over that time period or for any of those years

and there is nothing to put in "context" about that other than the fact that acceptance rates are meaningless and that if you want to improve your acceptance rate one way to do so is take many more applicants from many more unqualified students

after all if the "quality of applicants" was improving one would expect the admissions rate growth to at least keep up with or GROW FASTER THAN the application rate

because if you are getting better applicants at a university with GUARANTEED admissions then you would expect that you would be admitting a higher % of them

and even with an increase in GUARANTEED admissions standards if you are trying to claim that a university is getting a higher quality of applicant over a number of years then you would expect that the "higher quality of applicants" would help keep the acceptance rate steady because as that rate went up the "higher quality applicants" would keep up

so as clearly stated before acceptance rate is a meaningless number that is often taken out of context and used to show something that is has no reflection on

and when a university dramatically increases the number of applicants and does not also increase the number admitted at near the same rate one would expect that the acceptance rate would decrease.....but again that reflects that a university is recruiting a larger number of UNQUALIFIED applicants and it shows us nothing about the quality of those that were admitted nor does it tell us anything about the difficulty or ease of being accepted

it simply shows us that more unqualified applicants results in a declining acceptance rate

(08-17-2017 09:36 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Quality over quantity, any day.

I'm proud to say that I would not be accepted to ECU today, if I tried again with my High School GPA.

I graduated HS with a 2.5 GPA and scored a 1310 on the SAT (out of 1600... don't know why they changed it.)

My guidance counselor told me "This discrepancy just shows colleges that you're very smart, but very lazy."

I just didn't like doing homework...

Upvote

(08-17-2017 10:40 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 07:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 06:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the fact that you can improve (decrease) your acceptance rate by not increasing your admissions standards and instead recruiting more unqualified students makes it even more meaningless

Let's put this in context. LETS TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT

For the freshmen class of 2008 and earlier, Houston was averaging a 78% acceptance rate.

In 2016, Houston accepted 58% of applicants.

For your statement to have any basis in reality as it applies to Houston (i.e. if Houston was simply attracting a whole lot of unqualified applicants), then we should not expect to see any improvement in SAT scores or other measures of HS success between 2008 and 2016.

In 2008, 16% of the enrolled freshmen graduated Top 10% of their HS class. The average SAT was 1060. The average ACT was 21.7.

In 2016, 30% of the enrolled freshmen graduated Top 10%. Their average SAT was 1145, and their average ACT was 25.5.

Clearly, Houston is attracting a far better pool of applicants now. Which explains why so many kids who Houston rejects end up enrolling at other Texas public universities.

So your whole diatribe doesn't apply to Houston. It might apply to Texas Tech. Or North Texas. Take it to those boards. It doesn't belong here.

well since we are discussing dem coogs doh in this thread surely a discussion about them belongs here

and you are again taking things and trying to put your contextual spin on it while not actually proving anything about the quality of applicants you are just insisting that the context you wish to put the numbers in is the actual reality when you have not proven that at all

lets look at the actual numbers again and see what they tell us

in 2007 total applicants were 9,755 and total admitted was 7,490

2008 11,694/9,182

2009 11,393/7,941

2010 12,799/9,026

2011 14,320/9,053

2012 17,019/9,565

2013 17,407/10,167

2014 17,328/10,915

2015 17,917/10,732

2016 19,860 (percent admitted 59%) 59% * 19,860 = 11,717

so from 2007 until 2016 there was a growth in applicants of 103%

19,860 (2016 applicants) - 9,755 (2007 applicants) = 10,105 (total growth in applicants per year over that time frame)

10,105 (applicant growth) / 9,755 (starting year total applicants = 103.6% growth in applicants

next we look at the admitted students

2007 7,490 and 2016 11,717

so (11,717 - 7,490) / 7,490 = 4,277

4,277 / 7,490 = 56.44%

so looking at the actual numbers there is no reason that anyone would not expect that a school that has grown total applicants by 103%+ while only admitting 56.44% more of the applicants would have a declining acceptance rate

there is nothing to take out of context there because the simple fact is you can lower your acceptance rate by having more unqualified applicants and since dem coogs doh dramatically grew the number of applicants while only allowing a little more than half that increase to be admitted that shows that more unqualified students are applying and that is just a simple fact

and more importantly none of that actually says anything about the QUALITY of the actual applicants

it simply shows the fact that when you grow application numbers by a much higher rate over many years while not growing the number admitted at the same rate you would expect that you will have a lower acceptance rate

but that shows nothing about the quality of the student admitted over that time period or for any of those years

and there is nothing to put in "context" about that other than the fact that acceptance rates are meaningless and that if you want to improve your acceptance rate one way to do so is take many more applicants from many more unqualified students

after all if the "quality of applicants" was improving one would expect the admissions rate growth to at least keep up with or GROW FASTER THAN the application rate

because if you are getting better applicants at a university with GUARANTEED admissions then you would expect that you would be admitting a higher % of them

and even with an increase in GUARANTEED admissions standards if you are trying to claim that a university is getting a higher quality of applicant over a number of years then you would expect that the "higher quality of applicants" would help keep the acceptance rate steady because as that rate went up the "higher quality applicants" would keep up

so as clearly stated before acceptance rate is a meaningless number that is often taken out of context and used to show something that is has no reflection on

and when a university dramatically increases the number of applicants and does not also increase the number admitted at near the same rate one would expect that the acceptance rate would decrease.....but again that reflects that a university is recruiting a larger number of UNQUALIFIED applicants and it shows us nothing about the quality of those that were admitted nor does it tell us anything about the difficulty or ease of being accepted

it simply shows us that more unqualified applicants results in a declining acceptance rate

Todge gonna todge

https://youtu.be/0iK1BdrqJtI

(08-17-2017 08:25 PM)CornellCoog Wrote:  Texas Tech is where one goes to get herpes and tortillas.

LOL... Tortilla Tech fans are often confused.

(08-17-2017 10:40 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it simply shows us that more unqualified applicants results in a declining acceptance rate

dear todge, no one cares or believes any of your long explanations that are just full of manipulation. like you always do..you hate UH..we get it

here is a 10 year chart (2 5 years charts) showing an increasing SAT/ACT mean accepted
http://www.uh.edu/ir/reports/statistical...AT_ACT.PDF
http://www.uh.edu/ir/reports/statistical..._final.PDF

a same trend was seen in GPA, which was quoted by numerous officials who were granted access but universities dont release that info to the public

all while dropping from 70% acceptance rate to 56%

but you're right, dem coogs tho has their admissions standards increasing, while also lowering the amount they accept, but increasing the total amount they enroll in yearly must mean its just a ton more unqualified applicants ..youre right Dem coog tho actually received better applicants when they were a less touted institution 10 years ago

ps dont bother refuting, i know you wont change your mind..lets just agree to disagree

Todd waste so much time trying to put UH down on every post.. everyone just skip over his nonsense..

(08-17-2017 11:53 PM)Philipvarg Wrote:  Todd waste so much time trying to put UH down on every post.. everyone just skip over his nonsense..

Can anyone explain what the hell he means by "dem coogs tho"?

Tortilla Tech... lol... that's good! New one to me, but I will file it away.

Anyone who wants to crap on Wichita should probably take the few hour drive SW and visit Lubbock for context. Makes Wichita seem like Paris.

TTU has got to be in the top 5 of P5 schools that got balls arse lucky during realignment in the past. They're an AAC/MWC-like school that won the conference lottery due to Texas politics. Another major re-shuffle and they could easily find themselves on the outside looking in.