<p>Analogous results for students admitted to Yale:</p>
<p>11 of 21 who applied were admitted to Harvard
12 of 20 who applied were admitted to Princeton
8 of 16 who applied were admitted to Stanford
5 of 12 who applied were admitted to MIT</p>
<p>In terms of the average correlations, with +1 for admission, 0 for waitllist, and -1 for rejection, for those admitted to Yale, the averages are:</p>
<p>Harvard 0.28
Princeton 0.25
Stanford 0.06
MIT 0.08</p>
<p>For students admitted to Princeton and applying to the other schools listed:</p>
<p>15 of 28 were admitted to Harvard
11 of 25 were admitted to Yale
13 of 21 were admitted to Stanford
7 of 15 were admitted to MIT</p>
<p>The average correlations are:
Harvard 0.25
Yale 0.00
Stanford 0.26
MIT 0.27</p>
<p>Of those admitted to Stanford,
8 of 16 were admitted to Harvard
8 of 14 were admitted to Yale
13 of 17 were admitted to Princeton
3 of 10 were admitted to MIT</p>
<p>The average correlations for those admitted to Stanford are
Harvard 0.19
Yale 0.14
Princeton 0.65
MIT 0.10</p>
<p>Of those admitted to MIT (a smaller fraction of the posters, and hence less reliable information)
5 of 7 were admitted to Harvard
5 of 8 were admitted to Yale
7 of 9 were admitted to Princeton
3 of 7 were admitted to Stanford
1 of 2 was admitted to Caltech</p>
<p>This gives average correlations of
Harvard 0.43
Yale 0.38
Princeton 0.67
Stanford 0.00
Caltech 0.00</p>
<p>The outcomes at other schools on the list, for students admitted to HYPS, seem “ballpark” reasonable to me (modulo the small numbers and self-selection). This set is a bit odd. Perhaps the MIT admits who posted in the Ivy cross-admit thread are really atypical of MIT admits in general.</p>
<p>Thanks, again QuantMech!</p>
<p>My two-bit analysis:
The students who were admitted to these schools probably have very similar SES and familial educational backgrounds. They probably have very similar educational achievements as well, whether at prep schools, exam schools, or public schools (which can range in quality from not so great to excellent).
While they may benefit from legacy or facbrat status at one school, they can’t possibly benefit from such hooks at both the two or more schools to which they were admitted (although I know a family that has dual legacy status at Y and H and whose three children went to/are going to Y/H/H).</p>
<p>I did a quick pass through, and was interrupted a couple of times, so this is very rough:</p>
<p>In 30 out of 66 cases, decisions were consistent. “Consistent” meant multiple acceptances or multiple rejections, but never both. Waitlists were considered consistent with either, and all waitlists was also consistent, of course. Two acceptances and two waitlists was consistent. Two rejections and three waitlists was also consistent. One acceptance and any number of waitlists more than one was considered ambiguous (see below).</p>
<p>23 out of 66 cases were inconsistent, meaning a combination of acceptances and rejections (and waitlists), with no clear pattern.</p>
<p>13 out of 66 cases were ambiguous. Three acceptances and one rejection, or three rejections and one acceptance, or only one acceptance or rejection and the rest waitlists. In other words, a basic consistent pattern with one exception.</p>
<p>I ignored Caltech, since hardly anyone applied, and since everyone agrees that its admission criteria are meaningfully different from all of the others. I also ignored people who only applied to one of the (5) schools.</p>
<p>I conclude from this, unsurprisingly, that there is a high degree of correlation in these colleges’ admissions decisions. Remember, this was only a set of people who applied to more than one of them, and by and large the only people who reported were those accepted to at least one. The vast majority of applicants get consistent results (rejection or waitlist) from all of HYPSM to which they apply.</p>
<p>I also found that thread to be very interesting, but I think the results seem even more of a mixed bag if you add more top schools, like Brown and Penn into the mix.</p>
<p>JHS, #26, from the thread on the College Admissions Forum, I selected only the applicants who were at least waitlisted by at least one of HYPSM+C. There were additional posters on that thread who were rejected by all of the schools. They would add to your “consistent outcome” set.</p>
<p>I think that some of the students who were rejected multiple places may have been over-reaching; others were well-qualified, and with just slightly different luck might have been part of the inconsistent or ambiguous sets.</p>
<p>Hunt, yes, if you add other schools, the situation looks less predictable. I think there was a student who was accepted by HYPS and maybe M, and waitlisted by Grinnell, Reed, and Penn.</p>
<p>Thanks, interesting analysis.</p>
<p>So does your chance of getting accepted at any one of HYPSM+C go up if you apply to more of them?</p>
<p>It is always useful to analyze data. This is my understanding of relations between the admissions going thru such analysis over the years.</p>
<p>H (Performing Art Admits) => Y
H (Math/Science Admits) => M => P
Stanford over the years have become more and more unpredictable but it used to be.
H => S
M => S</p>
<p>The above hold true for non-hooked applicant only.</p>
<p>For DD
During EA/RD:
RNAWAA
After getting off Stanford Waitlist:
RNAAAA</p>
<p>Other data from DD school (To the best of my knowledge)
ANAAAA - EA - MC
ARAAAN - EA - S
AAAANN - EA - Y
AAAANN - EA
RNAAAN - EA - S
RNAAAA - EA - MC
RRRRAA - EA - MC
RAARAA - EA - C</p>
<p>lol, vicariousparent, wouldn’t touch that topic with a ten-foot pole!</p>
<p>You didn’t take the bait but I bet someone else will ;)</p>
<p>
If you’re playing Whack-A-Mole, do your odds of winning go up if you have a hammer in each hand?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of us could have told you that without any kind of mathematical analysis. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh no. This controversial topic will likely start a 1000 page tangent, ending up with a discussion of the relative merits of LACs and top 20 national universities. The words Chicago and Pomona are likely to come up frequently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably only if you are extremely qualified, enough so that the subjective opinion of the essays or applicant’s personality may make the difference. In other words, if you are in what I call the “crapshoot regime.”</p>
<p>Oh please… if we’re playing whack a mole, don’t forget that Swarthmore spends more per student than any other college (and apparently invests its endowment with wisdom and foresight aplenty); Wisconsin graduates more CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies than any other college, and that some book about colleges that change lives is a better guide to academic quality than any other qualitative or quantitative measure known to man.</p>
<p>Also that schools which don’t have a lot of Pell Grant kids are clearly elitist and that other people’s kids join frats to drink and play beer pong but mine joined for the wonderful volunteer opportunities and ability to network in his chosen field (once he has a field and once he learns to network.)</p>
<p>Am I missing anything besides our eternal debate about “Can one do scientific research at an LAC” ??</p>
<p>Why oh why do we count the angels on the head of a pin?</p>
<p>I believe the last post was the Cliffs Notes Study Guide to CC. :)</p>
<p>I think quant mec has a bright future in the field of baseball statistics…</p>
<p>Someone page Nate Silver? He’s okay–even if he did to go Chicago ;)</p>