<p>
Actually, it wasn't ranked in the top ten the first year, 1983, and it was ranked #12 in 1989, but other than that you are correct. :)</p>
<p>Point is still valid. Columbia/Penn/Brown weren't ranked in 83 either. There was also no "meteoric" rise because it has been nearly always in the top 10 anyhow.</p>
<p>I love Duke!!!! I am applying ED. It was revealed to me that Duke's range is 1350-1540 (a Decline from last year). Penn's is 1330-1530. And a few others, I'll post in a bit.</p>
<p>Maybe 'terrible game' wasn't the right thing to say.. but Penn will waitlist/reject many who the school believes is simply looking at them as a safety, people who 'fail' to demonstrate an interest in Penn. </p>
<p>What I'm saying is that could be a reason why Penn's acceptance rate is as low as it is and its yield rate is as high as it is! I know this may not be it.. but it is a possibility one must admit.</p>
<p>^ As I said, Penn readily--and PROUDLY--admits this. From Newsweek's "America's Hot Colleges" for 2005:</p>
<p>
[quote]
HOTTEST FOR HAPPY-TO-BE-THERE
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
While other Ivies deny that applying Early Decision or Early Action yields any advantage, Penn's admissions office has long acknowledged it's more likely to select students who declare the 9,700-undergrad school to be their first choice. Lee Stetson, the dean of undergraduate admissions, says the more students he admits who are eager to be at Penn, the happier the campus. The emphasis on picking students who've picked Penn means freshmen fit in quickly, and "by and large everyone here has found a niche," says rising senior Rachel Fersh, chair of the Undergraduate Assembly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So it's not a "game", it's a longstanding and publicly announced policy, and one that has worked very well.</p>
<p>MovieBuff,</p>
<p>You obviously aren't reading my posts. I asked you to explain why data from THES, US News, Collegeboard's SAT scores, Center for University Performance, National Merit Scholarship competition, and Wall Street Journal feeder rankings are all meaningless. </p>
<p>You did not do this, but instead make fun of my screen name, since I just think that real facts are more accurate than fictional ones (the ones you rely on).</p>
<p>Every ranking/piece of data available has Duke ranked above at least 3-4 Ivies, yet you seem to think these don't matter....</p>
<p>Also, I got into Brown, not a big deal since its not Harvard. Visited and stayed overnight at Motown and Emworth (the dorm names were similar to that...but I forgot), smoked a lot of green, met a few good looking chicks one of whom I met up with in NYC this summer, then went to Duke instead because its placement was better and the students partied harder. </p>
<p>I would expect Duke to be bashed when compared to HYP, but I think its laughable to think Brown is any better in any way - look at placement, look at student strength, look at resources, blah blah blah. Btw, I don't think Duke is better, I just think its equal in academic strength yet different.</p>
<p>Well mahras2, open up your mind..Something that rises out of nowhere ....meteoric !! Get it?.. I wont speculate about what you suffer from...</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess, you say:
[quote]
Also, of course I've read the RP study, its not real data, its hypothetical cross-admit data that the researchers admit could/should be better. The sample students have an SAT score of around 1300, 50% from private schools, and 90% White. Duke, Penn, Columbia, Brown, and Dartmouth all have about 70-80% of students from public schools, average SAT of around 1460, and are about 60% white. Also keep in mind regional bias - most top private/public schools are in the Northeast.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is REAL data to you? Hand collected information from a very large sample of high achieving students is not?? The study is very interesting because it does not allow colleges to manipulate data and practice strategic admissions and it takes into account subjective characteristics that may make a school more appealing. Georgetown did better, probably because people were allowed to consider the location and all the culture and other stuff going on in DC. Others, ( Duke ) may have done poorer because of that...(Durham sucks !). Again, not perfect, but takes into account the students preferences. </p>
<p>And people, re read my posts. I do not know why the hell you keep saying that I am bashing Duke. All I have done is praised the school. I am not getting anymore anecdotal than any of you. All I am saying is that it loses in cross admits to Brown and Dartmouth. That's all.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree.. it has worked very well for Penn. Penn is very good at picking out those who really want to go and taking them in! In some ways it is admirable (everyone I know of who is at Penn really wants to be there!) and it is also a way to increase yield rate..</p>
<p>
Dude, that dorm's at Wayne State.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I am saying is that it loses in cross admits to Brown and Dartmouth. That's all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You really don't have proof for this.. the RP study (as has been stated MANY MANY times) has its biases.. and it is far from perfect by the way! The students are not an accurate representation of those who are accepted. As thethoughtprocess states the average SAT is a 1300 not 1460.. and most are from private schools. </p>
<p>How the hell can it be accurate when it isn't even a sample of people who would typically be accepted at the school?</p>
<p>
It's actually what every other school would really like to do. Stetson recently announced that he's retiring next year after 30 years as Penn's Dean of Admissions, to go into consulting. So maybe we'll start seeing some other schools' yields begin to rise. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well mahras2, open up your mind..Something that rises out of nowhere ....meteoric !! Get it?.. I wont speculate about what you suffer from...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stop trying to rationalize your [indefensible] position. I am certain the reason why Duke nor a handful of the Ivies didn't make the list the first time was because of some data related issue instead of any perceived lack in quality. If thats the case than Columbia, Penn, Brown all had "meteoric" rises. That doesn't hurt Duke when being compared to those schools. The only school that you can rationalize as having a positive trend in rankings is Columbia. </p>
<p>You are essentially asserting that Duke admissions office saw the US News come out in 83, paniced that it wasn't even ranked, built up every infrastructure or manipulated information to be ranked #6 the next year and stayed in that range for over a decade. I will actually speculate what you suffer from: stupidity.</p>
<p>^^^ Dude, how old are you? Easy with the insults, please....</p>
<p>MovieBuff, </p>
<p>Again, explain why so every empirical ranking has Duke ahead of at least 3-4 Ivies. It just isn't logical that Duke would lose in cross-admits. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What is REAL data to you? Hand collected information from a very large sample of high achieving students is not?? T
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Real data to me is based off of empirical things such as grad placement, SAT scores, NMS, resources, Rhodes/Fulbright/Truman, research dollars, faculty:student ratios, etc. You know, things you measure. </p>
<p>Btw, the students in RP don't reflect reality. The SAT scores of students in the RP are quite a bit below the average SAT scores of any top 10 school, the % of students who were white and went to a private school are completely different than reality. Certainly an NE bias is there simply from school selection. Blah blah, this has been discussed ad nauseum. </p>
<p>45 %,</p>
<p>I think the dorm I stayed in while visiting at Brown had a similar/same name - maybe Mo-champ, cuz I remember it sounded like a pokemon. Either way, I would have failed a drug test for a month after...maybe its just that I stayed with some intense kids.</p>
<p>serchingon> Old enough.</p>
<p>thoughtprocess> Morris-Champlin. Same dorm I was in when I visited pre-admission.</p>
<p>Hm. weird coincidence. I guess Brown puts most pre-frosh admits into the same few dorms year-to-year, since I stayed at Brown a few years before you.</p>
<p>No, by pre-admission I mean before I found out I was accepted. Kid I knew lived in that dorm. Not a shabby dorm actually (better than the Cornell ones at least).</p>
<p>45 Percenter, that could very well be the case! </p>
<p>Also I apologize for calling Penn's policy a "game".. I didn't apply to Penn and wasn't familiar with Penn's application (the "Why Penn" essay.. etc).</p>
<p>Many of the colleges try to increase yield through ED (just take a look at the jump Brown made after it switched from EA to ED) but it is RD that really determines how high a school's yield would be.. the one thing I'm annoyed at is people who say Penn>Duke simply because Penn has a higher yield and lower acceptance rate. Both are great schools.. and I'm not going to assert Duke>Penn.. because that isn't true. </p>
<p>Overall, Penn is an awesome school and anyone that goes there is an incredible person. I would have applied to Penn if I didn't get into Duke ED.</p>
<p>Also didn't the US News rankings favor large public schools in 83? Someone has to post those rankings on this thread..</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, explain why so every empirical ranking has Duke ahead of at least 3-4 Ivies. It just isn't logical that Duke would lose in cross-admits.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What does one thing have to do with the other? None of those rankings are measuring student preferences. Cross admits occur because of student preference, not because of any of the empirical things you like instead. The student is given a choice of two places, they choose one. Do they choose the school on the basis of what their peer SAT scores are?, because of how many NMF are attending?..Come on dude. </p>
<p>One of the biggest criticisms of USNews rankings is the fact that there is good evidence that some colleges inflate the scores by underreporting internationals or underreporting lowering scoring groups or by manipulating graduation rates. U of Chicago changed the way it was reporting alumni donations because it was hurting their rankings...and then they went up!. The rankings really measure high school achievement. What does SAT scores and High School rank indicate? Only the ability of the freshmen when they enter. The academic quality of the schools is not measured and more than frequently the student/faculty ratio is about the same,(just like percent of classes greather than 50,) when u compare top colleges with bottom ones. Blah blah, this has also been discussed ad nauseum.</p>
<p>Hope you kicked the habit,...not healthy by the way. Hopefully you are not getting too much peer pressure these days with all that overflowing beer overthere.</p>
<p>MovieBuff, this isn't an argument over the RP - I've already stated why it isn't useful - the sample is biased and not representative of the student bodies at top schools. Duke is 60% white, 70% public school, average SAT 1460. RP surveys students who are 90% white, 50% public school (most likely magnets), average SAT 1300-1350 something. Its unlikely for these surveyed students to even get into multiple top 10 schools. Anyways, RP has been discussed too thoroughly for me to start another argument over it. </p>
<p>I'm pointing out that on EVERY ranking Duke is ahead of at least 3-4 Ivies. So that Duke really can't be considered behind any non-HYP Ivy...that is all.</p>
<p>If Duke's prestige is still less than Columbia's or even Brown's, then its underrated, because in terms of placement, student strength, resources, and so on the schools are pretty much the same.</p>