IvyGate has a piece discussing this year’s record low admissions rates for the Ivy League. They postulate that the Ivy League’s commitment to need-blind financial aid has led to the record number of applicants during this time of economic uncertainty. I said in a recent post that in general, higher-priced universities would have higher acceptance rates because of lower anticipated yields, but I suppose both points are feasible. They also have an interesting analysis for the slightly higher admissions rates at Princeton and Penn:
Perhaps the decrease in selectivity at both Princeton and Penn is due to the fact that they are, or rather have been, traditional feeders into Wall Street – a Wall Street that is no longer as glamorous as it was a few years before. If that yawn-inducing class on financial derivatives or corporate valuation isn’t going to net you that super sweet 100-hour a week gig at Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns you might as well learn hot boxing 101 and take creative writing classes pass/fail at Brown.
This seems very speculative- apart from the obvious Wharton connection, I don’t see why any other Ivy wouldn’t be considered a more likely “traditional feeder” for Wall Street. On another note, I have just looked through the Courses of Study for Fall 2009 and regret to inform my fellow Cornellians that hot boxing 101 will once again not be an available course. Dang.
