<p>then go to What people think of Midd and what Midd thinks of itself.</p>
<p>The real facts:</p>
<p>Head to head competition in Fall of 2000
Princeton v. Midd = 87%
Dartmouth v. Midd = 89%
Amherst v. Midd = 84%
Swat v Midd = 83%
Williams v. Midd = 76%
Bowdoin v. Midd = 23%</p>
<p>By the logic of NYCFan, Dartmouth would lose to Princeton in a head to head competition</p>
<p>The numbers in all cases are fairly small. You can see that Midd does not run neck and neck with AWS.</p>
<p>"Yale manages to convince two-thirds of its admitted students to attend. What happens to the other third? The majority are lost to a handful of other colleges, most often Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and Stanford. Harvard has long won the majority of students admitted to both Yale and Harvard, but Yale has traditionally won the competition for "common admits" with other colleges. Recently, however, Yale has begun to lose more Stanford common admits than it wins, particularly students from the Western states."</p>
<hr>
<p>And from a Harvard Crimson article quoting a member of the Admissions Committee:</p>
<p>"Harvards yieldthe percentage of accepted students who choose to enroll at the Collegeis around 80 percent, which is 10 to 15 points higher than its closest competitors. And according to Leverett Professor of Mathematics Benedict H. Gross, who also serves on the admissions committee, more than three-quarters of students who are accepted at Harvard and one of its top three competitors (Yale, Princeton and Stanford) come to Harvard."</p>
<hr>
<p>Quote from a Yalie in the Harvard Independent:</p>
<p>"I got the impression that Yale is continually in some sort of struggle to remain competitive in attracting talented students and faculty. To some extent, this is due to the frequent Daily and Herald articles about how this or that department failed to recruit someone, or how some other school had increased financial aid, and Yale hadn'tHow 83% of those admitted to both Yale and Harvard choose the latter."</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Yale hadn't—How 83% of those admitted to both Yale and Harvard choose the latter."<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>83% of what total? 100, 50, 200. How many kids actually apply and are admitted to both, some yes, but a lot, 1000, I doubt that. Probably not enough to make a big difference in the class.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Yale hadn'tHow 83% of those admitted to both Yale and Harvard choose the latter."<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Incorrect, more like 63 %. It's significant, but remember 50% would choose H if it were random. If Yale were not in New Haven, which has a bad rep, it would be much closer, esp since Yale is a hot school now, and it's an open secret that Harvard treats undergrads poorly.</p>
<p>There is a pretty persuasive argument in the Hoxby paper for using revealed preference over actual admissions data - the latter is highly manipulated by colleges and not a true representation of student preference which the former tries to measure (by asking students and not universities). </p>
<p>For instance, if a stellar applicant to both harvard and yale has two harvard parents, she might be denied admission by Yale, even though she is completely qualified, solely because of her high possibility of going to Harvard. Thus the pool of admittees to both colleges is skewed (in this instance, Yale is hedging its bet on the student and trying to skew the cross admit ratio towards its favor). College admission committees do this and help their yield rates all the time and the result is that conclusions based on cross admit data are confounded. This problem can be observed in the 15% difference between cross admit data and revealed preference (if the sources are accurate and up to date with the Hoxby data, which I am not so sure).</p>
<p>As a proponent of using actual cross admit data, Byerly, I ask you how is it superior to revealed preference as a tool for measuring student preference?</p>
<p>The numbers of cross admits Harvard has with Stanford, Yale Princeton and MIT - the principal "rivals" for top candidates - varies from year to year, depending in part on changing early admissions policies, from 150 to 400 or so at each school. In recent years, Harvard's largest cross admit group has usually (but not always) been with Stanford, with Yale close behind, followed by Princeton and then MIT. The picture is generally similar at the other schools - ie, that they are each other's leading rivals. As a result, the cross admit numbers largely explain the differences in overall yield rates at the schools.</p>
<p>In the current "Independent" there is a pro and con debate on Admissions Dean Furstenberg's embarrassing private (now, unfortunately, public) letter asserting that Dartmouth would benefit if football were abolished.</p>
<p>From the "pro" Fustenberg column:</p>
<p>"Sure we all want to beat Harvard on the field and in the rink, but just maybe its more important to beat a Harvard applicant when applying for the same job at Clifford Chance ten years from now."</p>
<p>From the "anti" Furstenberg column:</p>
<p>"Perhaps you find no enjoyment in chanting at the refs or zealously booing Harvard at football and hockey games, but a lot of people do, as evidenced by the high attendance numbers at such events. That should be enough for the rest to accept sports, if not relish them."</p>
<p>I also just read the Dartmouth Independent's "crossfire" debate on Furstenberg's letter to Swat. Both pro and con positions use Harvard as their foil.
Anecdotally, I said it seems to be Harvard.
If you think about it Dartmouth is so Dartmouthy no other schools seems to be a perfect rival.</p>
<p>Crimsonbulldog:
You mentioned schools trying to protect their yield rates...my child received 4 waitlists last year.....5 acceptances and 1 rejection....I was surprised at the number of waitlists...I have suspected that they hedged their bets...expecting him to enroll at his legacy school....they know about the legacy because most all apps ask where parents went to school....</p>
<p>do schools like Dartmouth, MIT, Amherst and Williams typically waitlist kids who are legacies at schools ranked higher than them? I suspect they have a clear sense of what the HYP's will take....and use their waitlist to protect their yield......</p>
<p>in the big scheme of things my child got into his #1 choice....but, I wonder what might have been if he hadn't.....I never anticipated sooo many waitlists.. I know it all worked out for the best.....slots were not tied up by him etc....</p>
<p>I remain curious because we have another child...I don't think we would have done anything differently......but, I have never heard of sooo many waitlists and next time I want to be prepared.....was it active on the parts of these schools or was it truly a coincidence? thanks for any thoughts.....</p>
<p>The use of waitlists has expanded greatly, if for no other reason than because waitlist admits generally come in with a nice juicy 100% yield rate. The school will feel them out: "Just supposing we admitted you... could we get a commitment card signed by Friday?" If the answer is equivocal, they go on to the next name on the list, and haven't "wasted" an admit slot.</p>
<p>"There is a pretty persuasive argument in the Hoxby paper for using revealed preference over actual admissions data"</p>
<p>This is a real good point. H is notorious for rejecting kids whose parents went to Pton or Yale. Guidance counselors in this area tell students to "forget" to fill in that piece of info when applying to H. Now I understand why. good gosh!</p>
<p>I don't think so. You have to understand that with that 80% yield rate it seldom occurs to Harvard that top students - given a choice - would go elsewhere. The greatest fear is that kids they want will be lost to fullride athletic scholarships, or to huge merits scholarships, at schools offering them, and that Harvard won't be able to match. They'll seldom lose any kid to another Ivy on the basis of a superior aid package.</p>
<p>You are confused (as frequently seems to be the case, I've noticed.)</p>
<p>With a naturally high yield rate over the years, Harvard has never felt the need to resort to yield-boosting devices such as "binding ED", Tufts Syndrome or excessive use of the waitlist. You will not see the huge dropoff in SAT scores, for example, from the admit group to the enrollee group that is the rule rather than the exception at most schools - the best indicator that top candidates are being lost to competitors.</p>
<p>Your "speculations" are, as usual, ill-informed and utterly absurd.</p>
<p>Again, you are ill-informed. "Restricted EA" is no great advance whatsoever. It is virtually the same as ED in practice, since it prevents "poaching" with respect to early candidates.</p>
<p>Since the admit rate for "restricted ED" is still far higher than for RD at these schools, people who want to apply to them are crazy not to apply early if they want any reasonable chance at getting in. </p>
<p>Now, when they do apply, these people are forced to chose one school - and one school only - just as when Stanford and Yale had binding ED.</p>
<p>"Restricted EA" is hardly the "high road" --- as a "reform", it is fraudulent.</p>