<p>I perceive Yale as being slightly weaker than Harvard in math and physics. Harvard gets a lot of Math Olympiad qualifiers. Does this mean that</p>
<p>(1) Harvard gives more weight to math and science achievement, so that such students have a better chance of being admitted to Harvard than to Yale.
(2) Because Yale has a relative dearth of such students, it tries to admit them when they apply, so that they have a better chance of being admitted to Yale than Harvard.
(3) Neither.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In general, TOO much is made of the Pell numbers. </p>
<p>First of all, especially when looking at the Pell Capital of the World aka California, one has to wonder about the correlation of Pell and the creative abilities of reporting income. Immigrants’ family businesses that operate on a cash basis bring an added dimension to the already effective musical chairs income syndrome. </p>
<p>Fwiw, the number of Pell at Caltech presents an interesting data point, as the school is known to be race neutral, or at least purported to be. Again, considering the location of the school and its proximity to UCLA where Pell grantees are common, why are the numbers different from say MIT, the school that might be its closest competitors, short of Harvey Mudd?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair point, but I’ll buy it only up to a point. Princeton (10%) is within a 90-minute bus or train ride from NYC, Philadelphia, and Newark, not to mention a dozen other battered and impoverished New Jersey cities. Cornell (15%) and Dartmouth (14%) are more remote from major urban centers, yet they manage to enroll more Pell grant recipients than either Yale or Princeton. And Penn, Georgetown, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, WUSTL, and Caltech are all in major urban centers or close-in suburbs, yet they’re all average or below average for their peer group in Pell grant recipients.</p>
<p>So I still say it’s a question of commitment to recruiting and enrolling lower SES students that matters most here. Geographic location may help or hinder those efforts, but it’s at best one factor. Johns Hopkins (9%) and WUSTL (7%) certainly have no shortage of lower SES urban kids within a few miles of their respective campuses, so that can’t be all that’s going on here.</p>
<p>I strongly believe Beliavsky’s #(2) is correct, but I also believe that more Math Olympiad qualifiers apply to Harvard than to Yale, and that those with a choice disproportionately choose Harvard. I have personally known a total of 5 Math Olympiad qualifiers in the past decade. All of them who applied to Harvard or Yale were accepted; in fact, as far as I know only one of them was rejected anywhere (Princeton). Among this group, Harvard, and Yale each got four applications, and MIT and Stanford got three, but four went to Harvard and one to Yale (legacy w/ strong emotional commitment to Yale accepted SCEA, didn’t apply anywhere else). </p>
<p>I want to cycle back to Harvard not being much of a music college. Umm, why didn’t anyone tell Leonard Bernstein, John Adams, Tom Lehrer, Yo-Yo Ma, Bonnie Raitt, Tom Morello, Joshua Redman, Rivers Cuomo, Stefan Jackiw . . . . Harvard has an incredible music tradition. It’s perhaps not as deep as Yale’s, but it’s a good deal glitzier.</p>
<p>bclintonk: Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that urban location was all that mattered. I thought the examples of Hopkins and WUStL made that clear. And Princeton ought to be able to attract more low-income kids, but I do think they don’t try that hard, and also the vibe of the place is not so welcoming to urban low-income kids,</p>
<p>Regarding the commitment by schools to admit low SES students, it is noteworthy that Harvard has remained on the sidelines of the QB juggernaut:</p>
<p>[Partner</a> Colleges](<a href=“http://www.questbridge.org/partner-colleges/overview-listing]Partner”>QuestBridge)</p>
<p>Re the post by JHS, #6–well, I have to admit to a slight glimmering of a hint of a suspicion that sally305 suggested that I start a new thread just to get me off the other one. 
A real fool’s errand would be to disagree with lookingforward on a thread . . .oh, wait. (or maybe 2 or 3 of those smiley icons).</p>
<p>As it happens, I am inclined to agree with lookingforward in post #13–I think that the statement that H, Y, and P seek certain “patterns in the strengths and maturities” of the applicants is spot on, within my circle of acquaintances. But that might not be general. I also think that there is some stability over long stretches of time in what the various colleges are seeking.</p>
<p>I appreciate the suggestion by Tuppence, and think that insight beyond the reaches of the independent and boarding schools could be gathered from that study–I may try that out over time. I’ve been on CC long enough that another 3 or 4 years wouldn’t hurt (despite the cries of “Oh, no!” that I am hearing in the background).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do think there’s something to the “vibe of the place.” Harvard and MIT feel urban. So does Yale in a way; New Haven’s a small city, but there’s no question it’s a city. But if you come into Princeton from NYC or Newark or Philadelphia, you feel like you’re entering another planet–the hushed tones, the manicured lawns, the leafy campus and leafier high-end residential neighborhoods, the well-scrubbed and well-dressed students, the upscale shops on Nassau Street, the whole picture-perfect atmosphere of the place. It somehow feels much farther from the city than it actually is. And the social scene can be off-putting, too. The whole eating club scene is probably not that inviting to many lower SES students and/or first-gens.</p>
<p>“why are the numbers different from say MIT, the school that might be its closest competitors, short of Harvey Mudd?”</p>
<p>MIT and Caltech are similar academically but have very different admissions philosophies. MIT is much closer to the Ivies in the attitude that diversity of all sorts is valuable, and they make an effort to evaluate holistically and admit a balanced class in terms of race, gender, extracurricular interests, etc. It’s a tech school, but one that cares about having a great choir and robust community of women and so on. Caltech is more single-minded in looking for academic fit far more than other factors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not true. Last year Harvard had 7 out the top ~100. MIT had like 39. There is some year to year variation but I don’t think Harvard has gotten anywhere close to half of the top 60 in recent years.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how accurate the CDS most important / not considered lists are, but they do have notable differences between the schools. For example, Harvard lists class rank as “not considered”, while the other two have it as “very important.” Princeton is the only one that says they consider the level of the applicant’s interest. Anecdotally, it seems that several people posting in RD threads with near perfect stats, but mediocre ECs get rejected at Stanford and Harvard, and instead go to Yale. Cross admits between the 3 are more likely to choose Harvard, suggesting it is more selective, which is consistent with the CDS stats.</p>
<p>However I’d expect the largest differences relate to self selection among students due to differences between the schools. For example, I applied to 3 of the 5 HYPSM schools. I did not apply to Harvard and Yale because they were much weaker in the areas that interested me at the time (mostly engineering). I’d expect many other techy types to come to similar conclusions, influencing both the student body and the admissions process.</p>
<p>Xiggi,
I stand corrected.2004 it was</p>
<p>“I’m not sure how accurate the CDS most important / not considered lists are, but they do have notable differences between the schools. For example, Harvard lists class rank as “not considered”, while the other two have it as “very important.””</p>
<p>I don’t buy that from Harvard. Nothing on the transcript is “not considered.” It’s true that if they see the kid they want, they won’t worry about whether he’s #1 or #17, but it’s human nature to see the #1 and take note if it’s in front of you, even if it doesn’t go into their numeric formula.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, and MIT strongly considers SES in its context for reviewing applicants, whereas Caltech does not focus on it as much, so naturally wealthier students who attended better schools will make it into Caltech in higher numbers. (They do at MIT, too, but the proportion is a little less dramatic.)</p>
<p>As a note on Harvard, 40% of students next year will not qualify for any need-based aid. That means about 40% of Harvard’s student body come from families whose FAFSA-calculated EFC is over $60,000 (meaning income of probably $150k+). For comparison, only 10% of MIT students will not qualify for need-based aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard’s net price calculator makes it convenient to do “what if” scenarios for financial aid there. There are scenarios where a parental income of $230,000 would qualify for a small amount of financial aid at Harvard.</p>
<p>[Net</a> Price Calculator](<a href=“http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/]Net”>http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/)</p>
<p>“That means about 40% of Harvard’s student body come from families whose FAFSA-calculated EFC is over $60,000”</p>
<p>That percentage is way too high, IMHO. Harvard needs to do better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then, what I said is actually an understatement…Yikes. At a $200,000 income with $350,000 in cash assets a student STILL is part of the 60% on financial aid. So 40% of students are in the $200-250k+ range and/or have major assets.</p>
<p>Edit: And with $200,000 income + $350,000 cash, you could still be in the bottom 60% of Harvard students financially. Totally unacceptable in my opinion, but it’s not my college to run obviously :)</p>
<p>
I think the Harvard MIT difference relates more to using different definitions of receiving financial aid. For example, MIT’s website says, “61% of MIT undergraduates are awarded a need-based MIT scholarship that doesn’t have to be repaid.” Harvard’s site lists similar stats for need based scholarships saying, “over 60 percent receiving need–based scholarships.” However, if you include loans and jobs instead of just scholarships, the MIT figure jumps from 61% to 90%.</p>
<p>I think self-selection is a large part of the differences (which aren’t really that great in the first place) among the students who end up at these three schools. While there are Harvard types, Yale types, and Princeton types, they all exist in large numbers at each of the other schools. I find it hard to imagine a set of characteristics (except legacy or being local) that would make a candidate significantly more attractive to one of these schools than the others.</p>
<p>I think it helps to be the kind of student they don’t attract in as large #s. Future math and physics majors have the best odds at Yale. Actors have the best odds at Princeton --and even better at Stanford.</p>
<p>There are also some weird ECs. For example, a young woman was a champion ice dancer–not Olympic level, but just below. At least when she applied, P was the only one of the 3 that had an ice dancing troupe. So, it was interested in admitting an ice dancer. It had less impact at H or Y.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, here’s the 2010-2012 HYPSM matriculation data (3 year total) for the two most well-known New England boarding schools (that is, if you ever get to know any boarding school) - Phillips Academy Andover and Phillps Exeter Academy. I do see some interesting trend from the data. The size of their graduating class is about the same (i.e. 300 to 330 depending on the year) with Exeter maybe slightly smaller. Note this is the matriculation data so it could be reflecting both the colleges’ preferences if any of graduates from either school and the students’ preferences of colleges when they are cross-admitted.</p>
<p>Andover: H 36, Y 43, P 19, S 33, M 14;
Exeter: H 34, Y 32, P 29, S 12, M 28;</p>
<p>While both schools are academic powerhouse, “historically”, Exeter was considered to have stronger math and science programs while Andover stronger humanities.</p>