The dissemination of technology and the concept of open markets with their different methodologies and estimates promised huge dividends to the US which underwrote these policies based on projected gains.

These assumptions were solely based on the outcome of multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements as well as unilateral policy changes.

Questions of causality and numerous omitted variables in statistical analysis between trade and growth underlie the uncertainty surrounding robust estimates.

Models are used that omit geography, size, demographics, and social and behavioral dynamics in order to create predictive values representing elastic measures as a means of adjusting policy exposure.

We are told that we gain when we acquire a larger array of diversity and immigration liberalization. That liquifying assets increases scales of efficiency. Using sifting and sorting as main mechanisms, our presenters are attempting to estimate dividends from these stimulative moves as a new model towards excellence while we observe our potential student populations entry, exit, and reallocation to low productivity schools.

Gains from these perspectives are convincing, where cultures, peoples and diverse lifestyles are swept from history.

The question we must ask is whether such great progress in investments towards liberalization will realize substantial benefits to the US in its future. In other words, are market consideration valid for social systems? It appears that our societies today are under the influence of competing trading systems.

Can we consider the “gravity model”, where the effects of common language, shared borders, common relationships and other variables affect our admissions policies?

The distribution of gains from our economic policies which have impacted our admissions policies as a direct result of our political economy of trade liberalization has failed to take into account the benefits to our native households where the real benefits are concentrated on an increasingly smaller fraction of Americans as viewed from the continuing viewed yield results.

Just to comment on that. Sam was actually telling my story: I watched *many* student visa applications rejected after a long interview in the US embassy; when it was my turn, I got my visa right away, without any interview just because I was going to Yale. Most of my friends who go to Ivy League/top liberal arts schools had the same experience.

Every once in a while, there is mainland Chinese student who cannot get their US student visa to attend Yale. Then someone in the international admissions office at Yale picks up the phone to call a Yale alum working for a US embassy in Beijing – and the visa issue is sorted out right away. Admissions officers at less-known colleges often do not have resources like this, and every year, many Chinese students cannot attend a US college because their visa application was denied. Here’s another reason to want to go to a brand-name school if you are an international…

This is not entirely true. The Korean schools in question are great (in fact, Minjok Academy was one of only 2 non-US schools on the World Street Journal’s top-50 high schools list in 2007; the list was made based on the acceptance rate at the most prestigious US schools). But a lot of their Ivy League-bound students receive finaid. Until around 10 years ago, students attended it for free (then one of their major donors went bankrupt, so they had to make student pay).

I attended the other non-US high school on that list; around 80% of our students, I believe, receive finaid. I can safely claim that more than a half received full scholarships. This means that when my classmates apply to college, they have to apply for some very extensive finaid — and they usually get it.

That said, I fully expect Williams to “fall” from the number 1 spot within the next few years, if not next year–not necessarily because I think USNews will intentionally jumble things up, but because I think year-to-year small fluctuations can typically be enough to switch up the top 3. Ultimately, I think we can all agree that the appreciable differences between Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore are far more issues of “fit” than potential quality (which, I guess you can say, is what USNews attempts to measure).

You can click on any year in the chart and sort the rankings for that year.

By following any one college (below the top 3) across the page, it’s pretty easy to identify years when USNEWS changed their ranking system — the only plausible explanation for a college moving from say 12 to 8 to 21 over a 3 year span. Colleges don’t actually change much year to year, so we know that movement wasn’t actually measuring anything real.

Enjoy.

Whatever number we are talking about (2s or 3s), we are talking about the majority of applicants to Williams. There are relatively few AR 1s, and while there may be a bit more 3s and 4s, few of them stand much of a chance of getting into Williams without a pretty significant hook.

Now, I don’t know that it’s necessarily true that Williams persistently accepts AR 2 US students over AR 1 International students. My gut is that this is not the case–8% of the student body is international, and that would represent a very high percentage of the total international applicant pool rated 1s already, and that is assuming that every international 1 is accepted. I think it’s much more likely that rejected international students typically fall into the AR-2 (and lower) categories, and don’t participate in as many ECs as US students.

However, even if Williams does accept well-rounded AR 2 US students over one-dimensional AR 1 international students, I don’t have a problem with that. AR 2 students are plenty smart and plenty qualified to be at Williams. The difference between AR 2 and AR 1 is approximately 50 points on the SAT and the difference between being top 5% and being 1st or 2nd in one’s class. Personally, I believe that a student with strong EC commitments adds much more to Williams than a student who was 2nd in their class (instead of being, say, 10th). That’s just me, though–I suspect that many of those who feel like internationals are consistently slighted feel differently.

True, the opportunities may not be there or the students may not be savvy about taking advantage of or forging opportunities, but I have a lot of empathy with the admission staff.

In graduate school, I lived for a semester in a dorm that was at least 50% “foreign” students. There was no residential hall social life. Few of my hallmates did much beyond spend 18 hours a day in the library, despite extraordinarily rich opportunities offered by the university. Many students formed tiny groups with a few others from their countries. They ate together, walked to the library together, did their laundry together, and rarely spoke to anyone outside the group. That was understandable, but it was not good for anyone or for the university. Some of the Americans tried hard (most much, much harder than I) to get to know the overseas students, but without a lot of success. After a semester, the situation hardened further with a mass exodus of the American students. That’s a worst case scenario, but I can understand the worry.

Even to the extent that these students don’t have the ludicrous number of ECs that US students cram their applicant with, AR 1s should still beat out AR 2s, as they do among US applicants.

I guess my question is whether or not that is true? Does an AR 1 from the US automatically beat an AR 2 from the US, or are there other considerations? Obviously, all things being equal a 1 beats 2, but the academic rating is just one part of the decision, isn’t it?

An AR 1 who does nothing but study, in my opinion, isn’t a better candidate than an AR 2 who plays a sport or instrument or paints or volunteers or is president of student government or holds down a part-time job. It says something about the ability of the person overall to fit into Williams and make a contribution to the community if s/he can study and do something (anything) else.

Certainly a student shouldn’t be punished if there school doesn’t offer sports, but are there no other activities? Does the student have a job or volunteer?

But my sense is that several factors make this not nearly as expensive a proposition to Williams as it would have been even ten years ago: 1) the rapidly increasing wealth of countries like China/India/Korea and 2) the wealth of the families that send their children to the sort of expensive English-language immersion high schools that we would recruit from and 3) the price-cutting that Williams is doing for many US students anyway.

But I am no expert on this topic.

[current eph] I don’t know how much impact being a tennis player (who can’t play at Williams) gives one in admissions. If your admissions friends said this is a help, then maybe it is. But note that we are talking about AR 2s here. Although the mapping from Williams to Amherst ratings is not perfect, here is what an AR 2 means:

1440-1510 SATs; most As; top 5% of high school class

So, maybe among these intellectually elite students being a tennis player helps. But note that the vast majority of these applicants do something already. If you come from an elite high school (as many of these applicants will) it is essentially impossible not to do various ECs. So, while it may be true that the College turns down AR 2s that don’t do anything outside of academics, this doesn’t eliminate more than a small portion of the applicants.

Does the College prefer AR 2s who spend 10 hours a week playing tennis (and who can’t play for Williams) over those who spend 10 hours a week volunteering or 10 hours a week doing theater? I have my doubts.

But, as you say, we may be in agreement about all these facts.

But the topic here is not: How should Williams choose among AR 2 applicants? The topic is: Should Williams replace 50 AR 2 students who are US citizens with 50 AR 1 students who are not US citizens — students from places like Daewon and Minjok and their counterparts in China and India.

Even to the extent that these students don’t have the ludicrous number of ECs that US students cram their applicant with, AR 1s should still beat out AR 2s, as they do among US applicants. And, just as the Admissions Office does not penalize students at lousy high schools for not taking a bunch of APs since their schools don’t offer them, a fair admissions office would not punish an applicant from these schools for not playing a sport in high school of their schools don’t offer sports.

For example, the addition of a “peformance” versus “estimated” graduation rate was the last big change that shook up the ratings and moved Williams to the top after about five years of Swarthmore/Amherst topping the charts. It’s all rather arcane.

They are already doing “manual adjustments” to the estimated graduation rate (because it dropped CalTech down below Appalachian State), so that measure might get revised.

Yeah…I’m inclined to agree with you hwc. They’re bound to lower their opinion of Williams at some point…especially if they read your posts.

Just to respond to #1, ronit- I don’t know if this is true for Williams, but for Yale, at least at certain embassies, it is very common story among many internationals I know that they would come up to the embassy for their visa applications and watch people behind and in front of them be rejected, rejected, rejected and then when they saw Yale, they’d get rubber stamped, practically–we have many fewer problems dealing with visa quotas than college XYZ. Williams is not XYZ, though, and I wonder if they benefit from similar treatment?

a) International enrollment at Williams (or any other school) is limited by the tuition discounts the schools is prepared to offer. The average international student gets very close to a free-ride deal. To enroll more internationals, you have to increase the budget for discounting tuition.

b) No school will stay #1 in USNEWS for more than a few years in a row. USNEWS will juggle some arcane aspect of the formula to mix things up. That’s how they sell magazines.

We’re talking more about the majority of the applicant pool who falls in the AR 3-4 (I think I’m getting these numbers correct) range, and could get in or couldn’t get in. In these cases, Williams’ admissions procedure generally favors equally qualified students who have done something interesting with their high school experience besides study.

Untrue! And the College admits as much. (pdf) If you are an AR 3-4, you have almost zero chance at getting into Williams unless you have a hook: major wealth or URM or tip or (maybe) legacy.

If the first and second readers’ academic ratings differ by more than a point, they put their heads together to try to reach a consensus rating. In general, all applicants with a combined academic rating of 3 or higher are rejected at this point, unless the first and second readers have identified one or more “attributes” that warrant additional consideration.

Without hooks, AR 3s and 4s are doomed.

Don’t believe everything that your “friends” in Admissions tell you.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge

You can infer causality either way from the available evidence. Either Williams has a low rate of admissions for international students because it wants more well-rounded students, or it seeks out more well-rounded students because it wants to restrict the number of international (or Asian, or Jewish, or other unfashionable-minority-of-the-moment) students at Williams.

All of that said, I’m fairly certain that Williams doesn’t weigh ECs that heavily; students who rank a 1 on the academic scale are almost always accepted. We’re talking more about the majority of the applicant pool who falls in the AR 3-4 (I think I’m getting these numbers correct) range, and could get in or couldn’t get in. In these cases, Williams’ admissions procedure generally favors equally qualified students who have done something interesting with their high school experience besides study.

As someone who worked closely with the Admissions Office during my time at Williams I can tell you, that is not true. Williams is not just looking for varsity soccer players, but also IM soccer players. Williams is not just looking for members of the Berkshire symphony, but for students who will join the marching band or even just play around on a guitar in the dorm. Williams emphasizes–more than most top schools–well rounded candidates in its admissions process. Obviously, Williams will still bite hard on candidates who show potential to be consistent leads in the plays, or first chair in Berkshire, but Williams cares very much about students who have shown serious EC commitments, even if those commitments don’t translate to Ws for the Williams hockey team.

There is probably no less accurate means of basing conclusions than on anecdotes of non-admitted students. Internationals are not the only demographic who feel slighted by Williams. I have heard numerous complaints about quotas from Asian-American students denied admission. However, Asians received–at least up until several years ago–a (positive) flag in the admissions process. In other words, being Asian provides a (very, very, very slight) bump in admissions.

http://www.ephblog.com/2005/10/06/brand-management/

I’m not necessarily doubting that there is some loose “target” for internationals admission percentage that Williams aims for…I just don’t think that it would make as huge of a difference in the make-up of Williams as you do if such a target didn’t exist, given all of the above factors.

1) Great topic for a senior thesis!

2) I have discussed this with people involved in elite admissions. The claim that I have heard is that, while you are correct, that internationals can not really compete for the tip/URM slots, they do fine otherwise. Williams does not care that much or at all about playing varsity tennis unless you can play for Williams.

In other words, if we just hid the information on the application about whether or not the student was or was not a US citizen, Williams would be 1/3 international. I do not know if this claim is true, but it is consistent with the need for Williams to have a quota and the anecdotes we hear from international applicants.

On the subject of the post, I think a lot of the disparity in admissions can be traced to cultural factors; US students tend to be more involved in their ECs than international students, and tend to be involved in a wider diversity of ECs. Williams doesn’t love the top-academic 1600 SAT all-state debater nearly as much as it loves the 1500 SAT near-top-academic all state tuba player and varsity tennis player. The latter is much more typical in the US than out.

Additionally, to a certain extent, we’re comparing apples to oranges when we compare international admits with the applicant pool as a whole. Instead, if we compare international admits to the non-tips, non-legacy, non-URM admit pool…well, the difference in admission rate doesn’t look quite so crazy anymore. If we assume that fewer internationals are flagged for music/theater/sports, it looks even less crazy. What percentage of non-legacy, non-URM, non-tipped, non-music/theater/sports flagged athletes get into Williams? My guess is that it’s a pretty darn small percentage.

I’m not necessarily doubting that there is some loose “target” for internationals admission percentage that Williams aims for…I just don’t think that it would make as huge of a difference in the make-up of Williams as you do if such a target didn’t exist, given all of the above factors.

I would bet on colleges in the UK, Canada, Europe, and Australia pulling ahead of the US as the preferred destination for the best English-speaking students worldwide.

This has little to do with Williams itself, and everything to do with the utter insanity of US visa and immigration regulations. There is no prospect in sight for a reversion to normalcy and openness any time soon. Why put yourself through the Kafkaesque absurdity of the process when there are other countries with excellent universities that might actually welcome you, even encourage you to stick around after graduating and contribute something to the economy?