<p>What do you mean by plumetted? How many percentage points did it drop?</p>
<p>are you ready for the naked truth, my friend?</p>
<p>Harvard's yield rate increased after they started admitting too many weak students who could not get accepted at other schools. I personally know about half a dozen students who were not accepted at either Rice, Duke, Stanford, Wharton or Princeton, but were admitted to Harvard.</p>
<p>What about the sucky engineering and miniscule NIH grants (ranked 30th) at Harvard? I wonder if it reflects quality of the medical research at Harvard.</p>
<p>The overall yield dropped from 74% for the Class of 2006 to about 67% last year and this, with the RD yield over the same period dropping from 58% to a little under 51%.</p>
<p>^ what do you think is the reason for miniscule NIH grants at Harvard which is ranked 30th?</p>
<p>Thanks. Princeton should definitely switch to SCEA - it'd most likely help the yield rate with more applicants applying early, probably an 80% matriculation yield from that group, and therefore, higher overall yield.</p>
<p>Too bad Rapelye doesn't want to go SCEA.</p>
<p>simba - could that be because other much bigger schools are getting more money? I mean, Harvard's not the biggest school....and there are much much bigger schools. Just a though. I really have no clue what an NIH grant is. yikes</p>
<p>The benefit of going SCEA, as HSY have seen, is doubling the number of early applicants, but decreasing the yield on them from 100% to 91% (in Harvard's case) and 88% in Stanford's and Yale's. That's a big boon to the schools.</p>
<p>ivyboy05: It could also mean that nothing useful comes out of those grants at Harvard. Better support the programs that are useful. NIH means National Institute of Health.</p>
<p>germane to the posts a page back:</p>
<p>"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half a century of U.S. dominance in science and engineering may be slipping as America's share of graduates in these fields falls relative to Europe and developing nations such as China and India, a study released on Friday says."</p>
<p>The NIH grant number at Harvard seems low for artificial accounting reasons. The Harvard-affiliated hospitals are listed separately rather than under the University total as with many schools. Mass General, The Brigham, Beth Israel, Children's Hospital etc receive huge NIH grants.</p>
<p>you may not like it, but are you ready for the naked truth, my friend?</p>
<p>NIH numbers for Harvard are just low because they haven't produced any useful scientific breakthrough in recent years. Money goes where most productive/promising research is conducted.</p>
<p>spinning is not going to help you here my friend.</p>
<p>"UP THE RANKS National Institutes of Health's top 10 grant recipients in 2003.</p>
<p>Rank '03 Rank '98 Institution Amount (millions) 1 1 Johns Hopkins* $556 2 3 Univ. of Washington 441 3 2 Univ. of Pennsylvania 434 4 4 UC San Francisco 421 5 33 Science Applications International Corp. 417 6 6 Washington University 383 7 5 Univ. of Michigan 362 8 12 Univ. of Pittsburgh 348 9 10 UCLA 347 10 13 Duke University 346 *Harvard University, which ranks No. 12, would be No. 1 if grants to Harvard-affiliated hospitals were included.</p>
<p>Source: National Institutes of Health"</p>
<p><a href="http://www.matr.net/article-11367.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.matr.net/article-11367.html</a></p>
<p>so it is 12th and not the 30th.....12th rank is still pretty low. do you know why this decline in the past few years?</p>
<p>Damn. Penn is up there.</p>
<p>Byerly, are the university-affiliated hospitals included for the other schools?</p>
<p>It is worth repeating a chineese proverb by Xiggi. "Empty barrels make the most noise".</p>
<p>Yes. Harvard and its affiliated institutions, as always, lead the nation in NIH grant funding.</p>
<p>affiliation doesn't mean a thing as long as each hospitals have different governing bodies they are independent.....it is 12th and the rank is plumetting.</p>
<p>That is the ugly reality, my friend.</p>
<p>back to the original post, the princeton homepage now features a press release summarizing the annual giving results.</p>
<p>"In addition to the record-breaking performance of Annual Giving, which provides unrestricted funds, Princeton also received exceptionally strong support this past year through designated gifts. These gifts, from alumni, parents and friends, together with corporations and foundations, amounted to $134.6 million, bringing the overall total of philanthropic giving for the year to $171.6 million. New funds were contributed for a wide range of purposes, from endowed professorships to undergraduate scholarships to new facilities such as Whitman College, the new collegiate gothic facility now under construction that will house some 500 students."</p>
<p>a preemptive strike, byerly: i don't care how much harvard brought in last year or this year in philanthropic giving.</p>
<p>1 Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) $582,583,760
2 Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) $385,936,236
3 University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA) $336,989,459
4 Columbia University (New York, NY) $292,976,831
5 Yale University (New Haven, CT) $268,119,700
6 Princeton University (Princeton, NJ) $126,481,970
7 Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH) $118,643,672
8 Brown University (Providence, RI) $94,653,854</p>
<p>ah, so total contributions to princeton are up 35.7% this year. thanks for the unsolicited "context."</p>