Columbia vs. Princeton

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
241

<p>quant:</p>

<p>here is access to the report that says stanford only loses 2% (of all the students it loses) to Columbia. it is unclear how many it loses head to head.</p>

<p>[Mathacle’s</a> Blog: HYPSM Cross-Admit Data](<a href=“Mathacle's Blog: HYPSM Cross-Admit Data]Mathacle's”>Mathacle's Blog: HYPSM Cross-Admit Data)</p>

<p>i still question how stanford arrives at this data (and its accuracy) because of what i know about admission statistics sharing and the legality of what would need to happen to share this information would involve breaking FERPA to create a common data set.</p>

<p>it does however, from a stanford perspective, give a good barometer of how things are going. that they only lose significantly to HYPM. it should not, however, be treated as gospel because there are some serious concerns with data collection.</p>

<p>i don’t doubt that it is close to the truth (columbia is not outstripping stanford on head to head battles - about 200 or so students are admitted to both schools, though unclear how many of those are SCEA admits that columbia didn’t really stand a chance on), but i think more information would be needed for us to call it the Truth.</p>

<p>and as for columbia’s yield, it has steadily begun to increase. before when seas used to lose all students to mit and stanford for engineering, this stopped about 4 years ago and it is rising. like stanford should feel good about its progress, so should columbia. the last time cross admit data went public for all schools using an academic data set (the princeton article) columbia was losing to brown, and i doubt that is the case now. hopes of course remain that columbia will eek into the 60s+ over the coming years.</p>

<p>the one thing that we should always say to qualify stanford is that as amazing as it is it has something that no east school has: the west coast. it creates a level of difference that always makes it impossible to compare apples to apples.</p>

242

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry, I didn’t predict that others would think that’s just a “wild assertion.” It comes from data released by Stanford’s admissions office: <2% of the students who chose not to attend Stanford attended Columbia. I assume that that number would be even smaller for HYP, because they’re geographically closer to Columbia.</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1118844-stanford-harvard-yale-princeton-mit-others.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1118844-stanford-harvard-yale-princeton-mit-others.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, how the admissions offices do it is by collecting data from the students who turn them down (when you decline your spot in the class, they ask you where you’re attending). The admissions offices at different colleges then trade their data to do cross-admit analysis.</p>

<p>It doesn’t make sense to look at the waitlist for cross-admit analysis, because a college can simply avoid taking any off the waitlist by accepting more people initially. If it’s afraid that it might over-enroll (say, it just announced a new financial aid policy, and it’s not sure how that might affect the yield), it’ll accept fewer people initially, just to be sure, and then accept some off the waitlist. But if they weren’t being so cautious in the first place, they would not have had to take any off the waitlist. So waitlists aren’t helpful here.</p>

243

<p>By the way, the only way that the above data is “suspect” is if the students are lying when they say they’re attending X when they turn a college down. But I doubt that’s possible, since the colleges likely trade lists of names as well to verify. Considering that the top schools have been analyzing cross-admits (by trading their collected data) for many years, I have a feeling they have this down to a science, and it’s pretty statistically accurate.</p>

<p>I seriously doubt that any of this is illegal or against any regulation, even trading names (e.g. how else would colleges enforce the ED policy if they can’t mention student names?). It’s for purely statistical purposes only, not for collusion or anything of the sort.</p>

244

<p>phantas: they don’t trade names though. i know this for a fact. and the issue with ED students is handled case-by-case, and only on the rarest of cases will a university consult another university, when someone goes beyond the pale. almost always the responsibility for following the ED agreement is on the student. as far as i know, the sharing of ED names hasn’t occurred for over 5 years.</p>

<p>ex. stanford would admit someone who does ED to columbia because the onus is on the student to not keep other applications open; stanford would just presume the student was not an ED admit. if someone lets the cat out of the bag - let’s say a student tells their counselor, or tells someone while they are visiting stanford, then it is possible action could be taken against the student by both schools. but all schools with ED policies always account for a reasonable number of cheats who will just not come even though they signed an agreement. in cases where a student is known to be playing two hands, usually because someone informs, then maybe there is some communication, but columbia would choose to rescind their admission irrespective of whether or not stanford (or the other school) would comply with NACAC rules on the subject. each school decides on their own.</p>

245

<p>so the question as to how accurate the information is still up for grabs. as i said, i don’t want to say it is widely inaccurate, it is probably close to the truth, but it doesn’t say the whole story.</p>

<p>there are a lot of students that NEVER tell a school they are coming or not coming even though it is good etiquette to let all schools know of your decision to register.</p>

246

<p>Thanks for clarifying the source of the 2 percent number.</p>

<p>I do not understand at what point does a student tell a school that he/she is turning them down to go to another. It could be if the student was bargaining with different schools for aid. Otherwise unless Stanford does it with every student that it accepts…i fail to see how it collects good data. My son was accepted at nearly all the schools he applied to and being the lazy/nice chap he is, did not bother to tell of the schools he was not going to. Many of them did send reminders, some did call but Stanford certainly did not hear back from him.</p>

<p>I do agree that being the only beauty queen on the west coast has a powerful attraction. Surf, sand and sun are three more powerful incentives. And its leaders have displayed tremendous foresight and vision over the last fifty years while Columbia’s slept on the job. It has very good financing: you can get more from Stanford than from any east coast school if you have gotten into a good ivy.</p>

<p>For a engineer, accepting Stanford over an east coast school would be very understandable for these reasons. But things are moving on. The nature of research is shifting away from Stanford’s traditional strengths and the computer industry is now less about hardware than about monetizing existing knowledge. Here New York which is the center of the advertising, consumer,entertainment industries is the place where companies such as Google are hiring and relocating offices to. Columbia is well-placed to nudge Stanford out as Stanford did to it. </p>

<p>While Stanford should continue to do well, I do see less of a future for the traditional undergraduate liberal arts schools such as Princeton and Yale.</p>

247

<p>

</p>

<p>How do you know this?</p>

<p>Even if they didn’t trade names, that still doesn’t call the validity of the data into question, because if there were a few students who lied, it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Plus, even if students were to lie, it would only make that number smaller–i.e. a student lying and saying they’re going to Columbia when they’re not. Even if students are lying to Columbia and saying they’re going to Stanford when they’re not, that just changes the cross-admit % (i.e. who wins more cross-admits; and I’ve never made any claim about that), but the # students who choose Columbia over Stanford is the same: it’s still fewer than 13. Also, I honestly doubt that there’s a significant number of students at Columbia who didn’t bother to reply to Stanford’s offer or who lied.</p>

<p>All this is immaterial to me, because I’m pretty certain they trade lists of names to be sure of cross-admits. They are all–Ivies + MIT and Stanford–pretty hellbent on getting this data right so that they know the reality and can try to improve the next year. But I have a friend who graduated last year and was hired by the admissions office to read for them, so I’ll ask her whether she knows and get back to you.</p>

<p>The only reason to doubt it is if you really don’t want to face the fact that Columbia is likely losing pretty badly to Stanford (and by extension, HYPM). Which is understandable; I don’t like that Stanford only takes 40% with Harvard and other times under 30%. But I’m not going to assume that the data is wrong.</p>

<p>quantman,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Each college gives students a reply card in their acceptance package. They also allow students to reply online. In both cases, they have a part that basically says “If you’re not coming, please state where you are attending” and give a space for you to do that. It’s the first (usually only) question they ask those who turn them down. So yes, Stanford does this with every student who turns them down. I know for a fact that all of HYPS do this, and the UCs as well, so while I didn’t apply to Columbia or other Ivies, I’m pretty sure that they do as well.</p>

<p>But again, even if they didn’t, trading names tells them all they need to know. I’m certain that Stanford’s aware of where your son is attending. ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But Stanford’s “traditional strengths” extend far past hardware. You also forget that Stanford is always adapting. Google may have an office in NY, but its headquarters are still next to Stanford in Mountain View. Remember, also, that New York is currently trying to get a top engineering school to set up shop in their city, because they feel that they are not as competitive when it comes to IT/engineering.</p>

248

<p>phantas: i know with certainty. i have this kind of privileged knowledge. if you doubt me, feel free to private message me and i will explain more. but no, no schools trade names. saying so is a lie. stating things that are not true just because you’re ‘pretty sure,’ really reduces your credibility. </p>

<p>as i stated above, it is not to say the data is not ‘close to accurate,’ it is just wrong to say that it is accurate. it is not verifiable because for it to be, would require a step that a) does not occur because names are not traded, and even beforehand in the 90s and early 2000s when ed names were shared, rd names were not shared, b) an invasion of students’ privacy. so just be ok with the fact the data is a ‘good proxy’ for real data. it is for this reason that they are kept usually as internal memoranda and not for external use. columbia has similar data that it presents to trustees, and like stanford i presume it bases that data on its own collection of who goes where.</p>

<p>it doesn’t mean that the numbers are not significant, indeed the sample size may be large enough to make the percentage values significant. but the actual number of students cross-admitted certainly is up for error. ever wonder why the report only deals in percentages?</p>

<p>i am quite puzzled by your insistence about facts that you do not have knowledge. being proud of stanford is fine, but being bull-headed is bad no matter where you went to school.</p>

249

<p>If you go to Princeton, you have to watch Columbia professors from a video. ;-)</p>

<p>[Sachs</a> lecture on poverty, charity streamed from Columbia - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/04/12/28220/]Sachs”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/04/12/28220/)</p>

250

<p>

</p>

<p>You need to provide a source. Saying that you are “certain” without providing any evidence to back up your claim really reduces your credibility.</p>

<p>I am waiting for my friend in the admissions office to respond to my question about how Stanford gathers its cross-admit data. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In general they don’t want people to reconstruct the data, because it shows where the school isn’t doing well. But they have released enough info to reconstruct most of it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am quite puzzled by your insistence that the facts are “wrong” because the dean of admissions is “fishy.” It’s fine to be proud of Columbia, but being pigheaded about how it does in cross-admits simply because Columbia loses spectacularly to its peers is really unbecoming.</p>

<p>By the way, the default position is to assume the facts are right unless there’s something to show that they’re wrong (and there’s plenty of reason to believe that they’re right). You so far have not been able to give any reason to shed any real doubt on the numbers (especially in light of the reality that these numbers are meticulously studied, so there’s a high probability that they’re right), other than your gut instinct that they are “fishy” and that the dean is also “fishy.” And you’re trying to say that I’m the one who’s being “bull-headed” here and not making credible claims?</p>

251

<p>phantasmagoric:
I have read everything you said in this thread. My conclusion? --What a obnoxious guy. My advice? --Get a life.</p>

252

<p>^ because I’m not properly praising Columbia and simply accepting the realities of how it does in cross-admits?</p>

<p>Way to contribute to the discussion, by the way</p>

253

<p>^No, because you seem to be pathological in your effort to push a school down.</p>

254

<p>I have a feeling you’re assuming I’m one of those people with a vendetta against a school and am only out to get it, etc. Here’s the reality:</p>

<p>admissionsgeek is casting doubt (not once, but on different threads) on something that probably isn’t wrong. I’m contesting that doubt. From that you’re assuming that I’m trying to “push a school down”? Not at all. I have the utmost respect for Columbia and have no reason to put it down (I was recently admitted to one of their PhD programs and would be ecstatic to attend). But I’m not going to assume the data is wrong simply because it shows Columbia isn’t doing well against Stanford and by extension HYPM. And that’s what admissionsgeek has been doing, as in another thread when he cast doubt on it because the dean of admissions at Stanford is, in his words, “fishy” and that therefore the data is too.</p>

255

<p>Adgeek is surly not the most objective person when it comes to his school; I can see that. But it’s understandable that he is protective, and prideful, about his alma mater. My point is there are all kinds of schools, and they all have people who love them. You made your point about cross-admission many posts ago, and there is no need to force people to pity their school (it’s sort of like force someone to admit his mother is ugly --I am not in any sense saying Columbia is ugly, far from it). </p>

<p>I don’t argue with your cross-admit stats; I truly don’t care. What I find distasteful is being fanatic about it. So whichever your college is, they got one minus point in my book.</p>

256

<p>Shaw is fishy, but that stands outside of the fact that the data is not verifiable. He is fishy for other reasons. I mean why did he leave Yale in such a huff? In fact most of the Deans of Admission in the Ivy+ are interesting characters. A good book could be written about them.</p>

<p>As I wrote above. I will be happy to tell you my source base privately. It comes because I have knowledge emanating from the admissions office at Columbia, Stanford, other schools and also inter-school admissions groups. I know. You, however, are ‘pretty certain’ and are waiting for your friend to get back to you. Let’s put it this way, my friends already got back to me.</p>

<p>I will not however put all my cards out on this forum. In the long run it reduces my efficacy and anonymity.</p>

257

<p>and please read between the lines - first i have amended some of my statements in the face of reading the stanford minutes, and my critique has similarly changed. it is VERY clear that you are not reading my statements so i will present it for you simply.</p>

<p>a) universities do not trade names.
b) the data would probably be collected by the source school alone.
c) it probably utilizes statistics to try and arrive at general trends.
d) the data is not ‘wrong’ yet it not ‘accurate/truthful/factual’ either. it is an estimate of behavior with a possible room for error.
e) though i was/am saddened that columbia only wins 2% of all students that stanford loses, i retain some hope that this figure is possibly wrong and within a margin of error (it could be 3%! ha). further it does not allow us to see in actuality what is the head-on columbia v. stanford figure. we could assume, despite the fact that columbia admits 10% of stanford students (200 total cross admits), the vast majority of those students attended other schools (HYPM), 13 or so attended columbia, and a small number (20 or so) actually attended stanford. it would refute the stance that stanford is actually the main competition for columbia. indeed in this last part WE do not know because we actually do not have all the data. i could speculate this, all of which, merely to cast doubt on some things that you and ewho present as matters of fact. particularly your use of the 13 person number, and the claim you make that the 13 person number suggests that stanford clearly outstrips columbia. both of these statements are not verifiable with the data provided.</p>

<p>f) even though i don’t discount the ‘near accuracy’ of the data, i universally and unquestionably reject your peddling of information as truth when it is not. specifically vis-a-vis the process of collecting information of which you have NO knowledge.
g) my ad hominem attacks against certain people are almost always meant to be slight in jest and slightly true. if you are Mr. Shaw’s son, i do apologize. if you are not, then i ask if you’ve actually met the man in an informal setting.</p>

258

<p>Haddon1267,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am by no means trying to “force” anyone to pity their school at all (and there’s nothing to pity here–cross-admit data is not something to cry about). admissionsgeek has made new claims each time and it warranted response. I don’t know why you’re trying to stifle discussion because you misinterpret my intent. Next time, please try to contribute something constructive to the discussion.</p>

<p>@admissionsgeek</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And you don’t think statements like this do worse?:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>By the way, admissions officers switch schools all the time. When you look at where they were previously, it’s usually other elite school admissions offices. Bob Patterson left Berkeley recently to become the director of admission. Doesn’t mean he’s “fishy.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wait, you say that there’s some room for error. If so (assuming a small margin), it would be considered “accurate.” </p>

<p>The rest of your claims are unsubstantiated and unfounded, showing more your reluctance to admit fact than any substantive objection. You’ve also started to recycle all your points, at which time this discussion becomes boring. We’ve made our points, and I think we can agree to disagree (unless you have a source to prove your point).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, I have in fact–he, several other students and I had lunch together during orientation. He’s a very nice man. Again, I don’t know why you’re making him a centerpiece of your argument…</p>

259

<p>what does this all mean? i can’t figure it out. sounds like unconnected thoughts.</p>

<p>explain how ‘small margin of error’ allows accuracy. it allows the possibility of accuracy, but never the absolutism of accuracy.</p>

<p>and Deans of Admission never leave in a huff. especially from jobs as quality as Yale, unless with reason. but orientation during lunch during a structured time (where he acts in a structured way) is far from an informal setting. if you thought it was informal, i do apologize.</p>

260

<p>^ I can’t believe you’re actually contesting whether my judgment of him after lunch could possibly be accurate, because lunch in a small group is not an “informal setting.” Either way, you say everything I would need to by continuing with your claim that somehow the data is wrong because he left Yale “in a huff.” (No evidence, not that it even matters–his reasons for going to Stanford are completely irrelevant to the data, and it’s just sad that you’re grasping for anything to show that the data is wrong.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m saying that in statistics, a margin of error like +/- 3% gives you reason to call the data “accurate.” That’s just how the word is used.</p>

<p>This topic has become pretty pointless, so until you’re ready to make a convincing argument with actual evidence (as in, real citations, not just “I’m certain, believe me, I know”) to back up your claims, we can just agree to disagree.</p>