<p>^^^ if that is the truth how can it not include Yale? That is ridiculous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the time being, let's take the graduate student population at Harvard and MIT into consideration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all why the need to start including grad schools in this discussion? Do you feel that your arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own in a discussion about undergrads?</p>
<p>Next, you have totally side-stepped the fact that Harvard has THE highest Asian percentage (tied with Penn) of incoming Ivy League freshman (according to data from USNWR):</p>
<p>Brown 14
Columbia 16
Cornell 16
Dartmouth 14
Harvard 18
Penn 18
Princeton 13
Yale 14</p>
<p>Please explain that to me and how that proves your argument that:</p>
<p>1) Asians are somehow underrepresented at Harvard (given that Asians represent less than 5% of the general US pop)
2) Asians shy away from Harvard (or believe that its not as prestigious MIT)
3) Asians turn Harvard down when faced with a choice between Harvard and MIT</p>
<p>Point 3 - you also fail to address the fact that Harvard slam dunks MIT when it comes to Harvard+MIT cross admit yield (over 70%).</p>
<p>Finally, my point about bringing up math was a simple one: that in a world based on a complete "meritocracy" (i.e. in a system based on math and simple rankings - e.g. SATs, APs etc.) Asians would probably represent an even higher %-age at elite schools such as the Ivies, but because schools such as Harvard look (and take into account) other "intangible" factors (more so than MIT or Caltech does), Asians (indeed, EVERY applicant from ANY background) are going to find an acceptance letter from Harvard that much harder to come by - its a much more arbitrary process when compared to, say, the UC system - where Asians are representing anywhere from 40-50%. But, the point is even against those LONG ODDS, Asians still represent a hefty 18% (nearly 1 out of every 5 freshman) at America's most prestigious college. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.</p>
<p>Please try to address at least one of those points (or if you feel up to it, all of them) instead of bringing up other variables.</p>
<p>Finally, let me ask you a simple question:</p>
<p>Do you believe that Asians think that UC-Irvine, UC-Davis and UC-Riverside are all more prestigious than MIT? (all three freshmen classes at these UC schools are all near or at 50% Asian) </p>
<p>Well, based on your logic (i.e. that the higher the Asian %-age at any given school vs. another - in our case Harvard vs. MIT - the higher the prestige preference. In other words that %-ages are the definitive metric in defining and measuring prestige preferences of Asians).</p>
<p>If the answer to the question above is "no" (which most people will readily agree) - then you will have gone a long way in understanding why your arguments using Asian %-ages as a conclusive metric of Asian prestige preferences is so flawed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your logic, not mine, is flawed. People who apply to Berkeley are those that don't qualify for NEED-BASED scholarships and that's the only form of aid that the Ivies and many other privates provide for internationals
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There certainly are people who qualify for need-based scholarships but apply to Berkeley anyway. There is a difference between being able to afford a college and qualifying for need-based aid. For example, someone who is currently making $40,000 a year in the US for a family of four, but have $300,000 saved up, would qualify for all kinds of financial aid. Yet we can agree that this family can easily afford to pay full-price for any college in the US. Another example: those students who qualify for free lunches at school can certainly afford to pay for them. It's just a matter of calculating expected familiy contribution, and you know that internationals, especially in Asia, have a tendency to save up, and contribute more than "family expected contribution" towards education because they value it so much.</p>
<p>I've even seen a few internationals on CC say they can't afford a certain college but apply anyway. The logic behind that is beyond me, but hey, it happens.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all why the need to start including grad schools in this discussion? Do you feel that your arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own in a discussion about undergrads?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe I already explained that in my previous post.
ConfidentialCLG wrote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
My reasons are:
1. Prestige is not determined solely by undergraduate schools.
2. Asians apply to graduate schools in much higher numbers than undergrad schools in the USA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nonetheless, since you insist on discussing undergraduate population at Harvard, look at the following data:</p>
<p>Harvard College Asian/Pacific Islander population: 1192 or 18%</p>
<p>Harvard College Asian (international) population : 144 or 2.18%</p>
<p>What does that tell you?
The data that you provided from USNews consists of students who are second or third generation Asian-Americans. Their views and beliefs resemble more to Americans than Asians. Whereas International Asians represent true belief system of Asia.</p>
<p>The_Prestige, Michigan did not copy Princeton's helmet design. The winged helmets were Fritz Crylser's design. He just happened to have been coach at Princeton when he came up with the design. It's not like that design was Princeton's for decades until Michigan recruited Fritz away from Princeton and "copied" or stole Princeton's traditional helmet design. Fritz was coach at Princeton for a total of 4 seasons and used the winged helmet for just 2 of those 4 seasons.</p>
<p>Its hard to imaging that Asians don't think of Harvard as the most prestigious university considering that the Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings (well respected ranking) has Harvard at no 1, while MIT is at number 5 with a significantly lower score.</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<p>You are spinning. :) Even Stanford gives very limited # of need-based scholarships to internations and their admission isn't need-blind. Like I said, I haven't met anyone from Hong Kong that didn't pay the full amount for privates. I can safely assume the hypothetical ones you are thinking of rarely come from Hong Kong. </p>
<p>Countries like Thailand and Malaysia have full government sponsorship (the Malays/Thais I knew at Northwestern were supported (full tuition/room & board) by their government) and therefore finance is an non-issue for them. </p>
<p>I am guessing many of those that turned down Berkeley didn't actually get into HYPS. They turned down Berkeley for something else. My former high school was one of the top schools in Hong Kong and students get offers from Berkeley/Michigan/Cornell year in and year out. But they consider themselves lucky to have one person getting in either one of the HYPS. Getting in HYPS is a lot more special. </p>
<p>You can certainly think of all kind of situation but you and I both know those would be rare, if there actually exist in reality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What kind of birds are the most serious?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For Starters, there are birds of prey:</p>
<p>Eagle(f15), falcon(f16) known for grande vitesse
Black Hawk (uh60), Sea Hawk (sh60) known for their knack for hovering
Then, there is a cross-over: Osprey (V22)</p>
<p>It is no coincident that Wright bros conducted their first flight in a small town, kitty hawk NC (which is located right next to DUCK). The rumor has it that Wright bros got the idea of flying wing while watching those serious birds flapping their wings!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Really! If they don't think that tech schools are more prestigious, then why are they studying tech in the first place; in their own countries and again in other countries like USA. Who is stopping them from enrolling in arts or business majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because, like I said, you work on what you THINK you can succeed in. How many times do I have to say it? I don't go out for spring training with the Red Sox trying to get a roster spot. Why? Because I'm quite certain that I won't be picked, so I'm not going to waste my time.</p>
<p>In the case of Chinese nationals specifically, one of their biggest problems in arts and business is a lack of English skills. In contrast, math and technical skills are universal - if you are good at math in China, you are going to be good at math in any country. But being good at arts/business in China doesn't mean that you are going to be good at arts/business in some other countries, because of the inherent cultural specificity of those fields. So you are going to tend to choose something that you know you can succeed in. Similarly, someboy who is a successful businessman in the US may not be successful if he is in China. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't seriously think that Asian Universities don't have other majors than tech. You claim to be an Asian and you are the one arguing about it. Do you have any idea how much reputation an engineer in India has compared to other arts or science majors? Ever heard of IITs in India. Do you think that those guys, who claim to the best engineers in the world, give a damn about Harvard? If they do, then how come they are enrolling in droves at MIT but not Harvard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You bring up the India issue. Well, let me ask you this. Who is the Prime Minister of India? An engineer? I don't think so. Seems to me that Manmohan Singh is an economist from Cambridge and Oxford. In fact, has an engineer EVER been the leader of India? If engineering in India was really so prestigious, then you would expect MANY Indian prime ministers to be engineers, right? After all, it's so prestigious, so wouldn't that get you votes? </p>
<p>What you are seeing is that engineering in India, as in the US, will give you a comfortable life. So it's a great deal for those Indians who are not well established. But once your family is established, then you start worrying about other things. For example, the richest Indian guy in the world is Lakshmi Mittal, head of Mittal Steel. He doesn't have an engineering degree - his degree is in commerce. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I was saying that the peer review score of those universities by THES is a better indicator of relative prestige of those universities than your opinion or mine. This is the point I am trying to make
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I disagree. It seems to me that you are just cherry-picking the particular categories that you like and ignoring the ones that you don't like. For example, USNews has its own peer assessment ranking that shows that Harvard (and Stanford) have a higher rating than Berkeley does, but you have ignored that, choosing to go with THES. But why is USNews any less believable than THES? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Does USNews "peer assessment" rank represent international academic community?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seems to me that the Shanghai Jiao Tong ranking, which is also just as 'international' as THES is, ranks Harvard over Berkeley. So what do you make of that? </p>
<p>And besides, why are we talking about international 'academics' anyway? Most people in the world are not academics and don't really know or care what academics think. Most college students have no intention of becoming future academics. They are just going to school to get a decent job, nothing more, nothing less. They don't really care what academics think. In fact, many instances exist of schools that are highly prized by academics that regular people have never heard of. For example, academics tend to have deep respect for the University of Chicago, but this is a school that very few regular people have ever heard of. Heck, one of my high school teachers thought that Chicago was just a low-end no-name city school. Hence, I don't think we should be using the opinions of academics as a strong proxy for what regular people think. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I only said that tech majors in Asian countries like India or China prefer MIT or Berkeley over Harvard. I was talking about TECH MAJORS not every Asian. And since those guys represent the majority of Asian students in Asia or America they must give technical schools like MIT more prestige than non tech centered universities like Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here is what you said in post #81</p>
<p>
[quote]
Asian countries (particularly China and India) consider MIT Stanford Berkeley and maybe Harvard</p>
<p>My reason for the last assertion being that China and India are tech centered countries, where most competitive students tend to have engineering and tech background, so they prefer tech centered universities
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And, no, engineering are NOT the majority of students in those countries. According to figures published in 2006, about 1/3 of the undergrads in China study engineering. This is NOT a majority. </p>
<p>"Out of a total of 13.3 million students, nearly 4.4 million, one-third, study engineering."</p>
<p>Similar numbers point to the same thing in India - that engineers are NOT the majority of college students in India.</p>
<p>Now, to your point that the majority of Asians studying in the US are studying tech. This might be true, but even so, I doubt that this means much. Again, I believe that is because it is difficutl for Asians to study other subjects in the US because of language and cultural differences, whereas tech knowledge crosses borders easily. I am quite sure that quite a lot of Asians would want to go to Harvard Law School or Harvard Business School but cannot because they don't have the requisite background. Again, it's like saying that just because I don't play pro baseball doesn't mean that I don't want to. I just can't. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am pretty clear about that argument. YOU ARE THE ONE, who needs have that argument with yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, YOU ARE NOT CLEAR. You need to have a discussion with yourself and ask yourself why is Berkeley lower ranked than Stanford and Harvard in THES. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So who is stopping them from applying to Harvard and studying there; if they think that Harvard is so much more prestigious? If they will accept Harvard over MIT in a heartbeat, why don't they? If your last argument makes Harvard even more attractive than MIT, then what the hell is wrong with Asian community?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because you only apply to Harvard if you think you can get in. How many times do I have to say it? Have you SEEN a Harvard application? It's not a small thing to complete. You are going to complete it only if you think you actually have a shot. If you don't think you have a shot of getting in, you won't even apply, just like if I thought I had a shot, I'd be trying out for the Red Sox right now. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust me, I have been in Asia long enough and I have enough Asian friends to understand their mindset. And I say this without revealing my ethnicity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I am quite confident about my knowledge of Asians. So where does that leave us?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nonetheless, since you insist on discussing undergraduate population at Harvard, look at the following data:</p>
<p>Harvard College Asian/Pacific Islander population: 1192 or 18%</p>
<p>Harvard College Asian (international) population : 144 or 2.18%</p>
<p>What does that tell you?
The data that you provided from USNews consists of students who are second or third generation Asian-Americans. Their views and beliefs resemble more to Americans than Asians. Whereas International Asians represent true belief system of Asia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are plenty of Asians (obviously) in Asian schools, including the no-name Asian schools. So does that make them more prestigious than Harvard or MIT? </p>
<p>ConfidentialCLG, you keep ignoring my central point, which is that you cannot judge these things by sheer numbers. Just because you want something doesn't mean that you will get it. I'm sure that many Asians would love to be professional soccer stars, but very few of the top soccer players in the world are Asian. In fact, most of them don't even try, even though they would like it, because they don't think they can get it. But if you ask a random Asian guy if he would like to be Ronaldinho or Andrey Shevchenko, I'm quite sure that he would. Who wouldn't want that life? Lots of money, lots of glamour, lots of fame. </p>
<p>So you might ask what's wrong with all these Asians who would like to be professional soccer players, but don't even try? It's for the same reason that I am not trying to be a pro baseball player. What matters is not only what you want, but critically, whether you reasonably think you can get it. Most Asians have concluded that they can never be like Ronaldinho, so they won't waste their time trying. But success in engineering is something that they feel they can actually do. On the other hand, in the favelas of Brazil, you really do have hordes of young boys practicing soccer every day in the hopes of being the next Ronaldinho. That's because they believe that they can do it, because they have seen many other Brazilians become great soccer players in history. It's also because Brazil also has a strong infrastructure that will discover and nurture soccer talent, something that Asia doesn't really have.</p>
<p>Have you ever stared at the nose of Barbra Streisand when shes singing Songbird?
It did remind me of a hawks beak :)</p>
<p>Song bird~~ sings from the heart
Each word~~ can tear you apart
I sing - you sing along
You find your life in my song
When you need~~~ the strength~ to carry on~~~
You've got me to turn to~~~~
With the songs that I sing~~~
And the MAHHH..GIC(look at her nose now) they bring~~~
They've helped you be strong now</p>
<p>
[quote]
The_Prestige, Michigan did not copy Princeton's helmet design. The winged helmets were Fritz Crylser's design. He just happened to have been coach at Princeton when he came up with the design. It's not like that design was Princeton's for decades until Michigan recruited Fritz away from Princeton and "copied" or stole Princeton's traditional helmet design. Fritz was coach at Princeton for a total of 4 seasons and used the winged helmet for just 2 of those 4 seasons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alex, regardless of how many seasons it was used, these are the facts:</p>
<ul>
<li>The winged helmet FIRST debuted at Princeton University in 1935.</li>
<li>Coach Fritz Crylser DID indeed design it</li>
<li>Coach Fritz Crylser WAS the Head Coach FOR the Princeton Tigers Football Team when he designed it and implemented it</li>
<li>The design is meant to be the folded back ears of a Tiger and the three stripes represent the stripes of a Tiger </li>
<li>Last time I checked, Wolverines don't have stripes (though I'm sure you are aware of this)</li>
<li>This design was then implemented at Michigan when Coach Fritz was named Head Coach at UM -- but this took place AFTER it debuted at Princeton</li>
</ul>
<p>There is no ambiguity there Alex, as those are the facts - and that is undisputed.</p>
<p>Your dismissal of the fact that "he just happened to be coach of Princeton at the time he came up with the design" ignores the fact that the winged helmet is a representation of a TIGER and was designed for the PRINCETON TIGERS. Period. Whether it debuted for just one day or one game or whether it lasted 100 years is irrelevant. </p>
<p>It was created at Princeton. It was created for the Tigers Football Team. Period.</p>
<p>Now whether that famed design is now more associated with Michigan Wolverine football, I will not argue with you there. But let's give some credit where credit is due.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I said that Chinese and Indian students, most of whom have technical backgrounds, don't consider Harvard to be as prestigious as MIT or Stanford or Berkeley engineering schools. It is evidenced by the majority of Asian students in these schools compared to other arts, social sciences or even business schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's take a step back and look at the crux of what ConfidentialCLG is claiming - i.e. his assertion that:</p>
<p>A) Chinese and Indian students consider MIT/S/Cal engineering schools more prestigious than Harvard <a href="an%20aside:%20whether%20the%20claim%20that%20Chinese%20and%20Indian%20students%20constitute%20everything%20%22Asian%22%20is%20another%20matter%20entirely,%20be%20that%20as%20it%20may...">i</a>*</p>
<p>^^^ statement A is proven by B:</p>
<p>B) This bold claim is backed up by the fact the majority of Asian students across all of those aforementioned schools happen to be in engineering vs. humanities, arts, social sciences or business.</p>
<p>I cannot express in words how fundamentally flawed this kind of logic is:</p>
<p>For a simple analogy, just looking at sheer numbers, there are more Chinese and Indian workers doing low level jobs / working in sweat shops of Multinational corporations vs. the number of Chinese and Indian executives at Multinational corporations (regardless of the country of origin) - so I guess that those sheer numbers indicate that Chinese and Indian people deem those sweat shop jobs more "prestigious" - "just look at those numbers!" It's silly, I know, but it proves a point: that executive jobs are much more selective and harder to come by than a spot in a sweat shop - just because there are more numbers in the sweat shop doesn't make it more prestigious.</p>
<p>i.e. the proper way to analyze what a group of people regard as more desirable, more preferable is to analyze what they do when faced with a choice between the two choices in question. now, bear in mind, not EVERY person is going to be lucky enough to even be in a position to have such a choice (i.e. you've got to be pretty good indeed to even be in the position of choosing between Harvard and MIT). i.e. there is a certain subset of Asians that won't even bother applying to Harvard because they feel they don't stand a chance (this doesn't mean that they don't consider it more prestigious, simply that its not worth the effort or the application fee). at any rate, one of the easiest ways to analyze preference is to look at cross-admit yield. now, i'm not saying that this is the be all and end all, but it's a start. and its a heckuva lot more meaningful than just looking at absolute numbers in a vacuum. </p>
<p>so let's look at those numbers for a moment. gee, looks like Harvard manhandles MIT when it comes to cross admit yield (as it does to every other school to varying degrees). CCLG would you like to explain that?</p>
<p>*P.S., even if one were looking at numbers in a vacuum, CCLG's response in countering the fact that there is a hefty proportion of Asians at Harvard was to conveniently use selective demographics and state that only a small portion of that Asian population are "international Asians".</p>
<p>Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. i.e. to be fair, in order to compare apples to apples, one should strip out ALL Asian-Americans from these engineering programs and those numbers will look significantly reduced indeed... though, again, this is all irrelevant to any discussions regarding prestige preferences.*</p>
<p>ConfidentialCLG,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust me, I have been in Asia long enough and I have enough Asian friends to understand their mindset. And I say this without revealing my ethnicity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess you are saying I don't understand the mindset of my own people. lol! Somehow your Chinese friends seem to have very different mindset from the ones I lived among for 17 years. I wonder why...lol! The book "Harvard Girl" was the best seller for many weeks in China. Wait, I guess based on your view, whoever wrote that book simply wasn't smart enough to use "Berkely" instead. Now, I am suprised you haven't teamed up with one of your Chinese friends that share your view to publish "Berkeley Girl". Wouldn't that be a better book with better sales? The market is huge out there and if you and your friend <em>TRULY</em> believe Berkeley is more prestigious than Harvard (some people still believe earth is flat..lol!) in Asia, what are you waiting for? </p>
<p>I don't have data for HYP, but Stanford 2004 data says out of the 800 that declined Stanford's offer, no more than 1% chose another Pac-10 school. That's no more than 8 students! Most likely all of them were in-state residents that found Stanford's aid wasn't enough. That means undergrad internationals don't turn down Stanford for "another Pac-10 school". Since HYP have similar profile to Stanford, it's reasonable to assume internationals don't usually turn down HYP for "another Pac-10 school" (except Stanford of course) either. ;)</p>
<p>At this point can't we just agree to disagree. Ultimately, this argument will achieve nothing, no one will change their minds, and the world will continue, as it always has. The selection of top colleges is relative: not definitive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You bring up the India issue. Well, let me ask you this. Who is the Prime Minister of India? An engineer? I don't think so. Seems to me that Manmohan Singh is an economist from Cambridge and Oxford. In fact, has an engineer EVER been the leader of India?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The President of India is APJ Abdulkalam (not sure about the spelling of his name). He is an engineer with a Bachelor of Engineering degree. In fact most his earlier years have been spent working as an engineer with Indian Space Research Organization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because you only apply to Harvard if you think you can get in. How many times do I have to say it? Have you SEEN a Harvard application? It's not a small thing to complete.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes I have seen a Harvard application and let me add, I have gone much further than that. But the point is, is Harvard application that bigger than let's say an MIT application?
I totally agree that you only apply to Harvard if you think you have a chance. Likewise for MIT. So why the big difference between the Asian population at the two schools? And if those Asian students at MIT are good enough for MIT, is Harvard that difficult a goal for them? If you have got admission in EECS at MIT; how difficult would Harvard DEAS be?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are plenty of Asians (obviously) in Asian schools, including the no-name Asian schools. So does that make them more prestigious than Harvard or MIT?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, but if the tech majors among them (which these countries have in plenty) decide to apply for higher studies in the USA, they would dream of MIT but wouldn't give a second thought to Harvard. And this applies for all areas of higher studies in the USA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ConfidentialCLG, you keep ignoring my central point, which is that you cannot judge these things by sheer numbers. Just because you want something doesn't mean that you will get it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No Sakky, I understand your point very well. But the numbers don't quite agree with you. Both MIT and Harvard are very difficult to get in. But still, there are lot fewer Asian students in Harvard than MIT. How do you explain that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
At this point can't we just agree to disagree. Ultimately, this argument will achieve nothing, no one will change their minds, and the world will continue, as it always has. The selection of top colleges is relative: not definitive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with the first part.</p>
<p>But the recent trend of Harvard being at the top of almost every ranking is starting make me wonder, is the selection of top college or academic acropolis that relative?</p>
<p>And also, do those rankings represent the true beliefs of international community or they are inherently flawed?</p>
<p>There are some truths in what he said. Lets say a student just graduated from the Seoul National University (SNU) from Korea. Correct me if Im wrong but methinks the SNU is the best school in Korea. Lets further assume that hes got a BS in mechanical engineering. </p>
<p>Now, he wants to further his education and consider US schools for his PhD. I am sure he knows MIT/Stanford/Berkeley is the top three engineering school. He also knows Harvard is the best school in the US except the engineering. In this scenario, he will not apply to Harvard, not because he wont get in but he knows Harvard PhD in engineering is basically a laughing stock. </p>
<p>I believe that those foreign-born students (F1 Visa) who got PhDs in USA and went back to their mother county to work there as high ranking government officers/researchers/professors/lab-directors have contributed greatly to Berkeleys international reputation, mostly in engineering and science but also in other nontech areas as well.</p>
<p>Therefore, for those foreign-BS and USA-PhD students/graduates, the most prestigious schools are: Harvard-Berkeley-MIT-Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I cannot express in words how fundamentally flawed this kind of logic is:</p>
<p>For a simple analogy, just looking at sheer numbers, there are more Chinese and Indian workers doing low level jobs / working in sweat shops of Multinational corporations vs. the number of Chinese and Indian executives at Multinational corporations (regardless of the country of origin) - so I guess that those sheer numbers indicate that Chinese and Indian people deem those sweat shop jobs more "prestigious" - "just look at those numbers!" It's silly, I know, but it proves a point: that executive jobs are much more selective and harder to come by than a spot in a sweat shop - just because there are more numbers in the sweat shop doesn't make it more prestigious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So according to your analogy MIT/Berkeley/Stanford engineering schools are like sweatshops and Harvard is like a very selective executive job. Hey I am looking at the numbers!</p>
<p>This post of mine should answer your question:
Confidential wrote:
[quote]
I totally agree that you only apply to Harvard if you think you have a chance. Likewise for MIT. So why the big difference between the Asian population at the two schools? And if those Asian students at MIT are good enough for MIT, is Harvard that difficult a goal for them? If you have got admission in EECS at MIT; how difficult would Harvard DEAS be?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
i.e. the proper way to analyze what a group of people regard as more desirable, more preferable is to analyze what they do when faced with a choice between the two choices in question. now, bear in mind, not EVERY person is going to be lucky enough to even be in a position to have such a choice (i.e. you've got to be pretty good indeed to even be in the position of choosing between Harvard and MIT).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about something similar to Revealed Preferences Ranking? In the meanwhile since Asians are dime a dozen at MIT; how come they are so scarce at Harvard? At least those might be the one who were in a position of choosing between Harvard and MIT. I can imagine only two scenarios; either Harvard is way too much more difficult to get in compared to MIT or MIT is favored much more compared to Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
P.S., even if one were looking at numbers in a vacuum, CCLG's response in countering the fact that there is a hefty proportion of Asians at Harvard was to conveniently use selective demographics and state that only a small portion of that Asian population are "international Asians".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I didn't fabricate those numbers. You are welcome to verify those numbers at Harvard admissions office.</p>