<p>duke and stanford used to be not far off from each other in rankings so i was wondering which is harder to get into? Stanford seems to be the right answer but i have also heard otherwise. And how much harder is one college to get into than the other?</p>
<p>Stanford is more selective than Duke. They have a much higher yield, so they can afford to be ultra-selective.</p>
<p>Stanford is definetely, for an Ivy League analogy - Stanford is like Harvard or Yale in terms of selectivity, and Duke is like Penn or Dartmouth in terms of selectivity</p>
<p>Based on what i've seen from friends who have applied to both and such, Stanford looks for outstanding numbers as well as outstanding extracirriculars. And when I mean outstanding extracirriculars, i mean they are above varsity sport captain of three teams or starting your own club at high school. they have to be really oustanding. a girl i know got into stanford because she started three orphanages in romania (where she's adopted from) and yeah...
i think duke is selective, but you don't need to have outstanding ECs to get in... i think if you have strong/excellent ECs, test scores, grades, essays, etc. you have a better shot.
but overall, both are great schools!</p>
<p>The above being said, there are plenty of not-extraordinary people at Stanford (and any top school Duke included) who just study alot and get high test scores, and also join select clubs and really learn how to word resumes well...don't be suprised if you get into Stanford and not Duke, because that sort of thing happens sometimes lol</p>
<p>Not saying I don't agree with warblers and thoughtprocess (because I do), but I have to take a little bit of issue with the wording of the original post. Duke and Stanford WERE tied at #5 in the rankings last year, and this year Duke has dropped below Stanford -- this is true. But (and I could just be reading your post wrong, I will admit this), the truth is, they are both the same schools that they were last year. Duke dropping 3 spots in the rankings doesn't suddenly mean that we're getting a worse education than we were just a year ago. So, I mean, to use the rankings as a basis for figuring out which school is more selective, #4 or #8...well, I think that's a bit silly.</p>
<p>That being said, I do agree that Stanford TENDS to be more selective. However, as mentioned before, I also know people at Stanford who didn't get into Duke (and, naturally, people at Duke who didn't get into Stanford). Once you hit a certain "tier," it's all a crapshoot anyway.</p>
<p>I think one year we should just put a block on the admissions form that says "Did you apply to any of HYPSM" and not admit any of those people. Naturally, that class would likely not be as good as others because many of the best students apply all over the place, but then for one year we could say that 100% of people that applied to any of those schools were rejected by Duke :-D</p>
<p>...lol i have a sneaky suspicion we already play games like that with some of the strongest applicants...</p>
<p>by giving them full rides?</p>
<p>tufts syndrome?</p>
<p>LOL - I had no idea such a thought already had a name...</p>
<p>frankly, I don't think so, or at least not as much as Tufts. Duke already has a relatively low yield compared to the schools that we seek to compare ourselves to. Maybe they just need to do a better job?</p>
<p>The term is "yield protection", and the economics literature (I can dig up a citation if you want) indicates that even Princeton plays it.</p>
<p>The idea is that your candidates are basically grouped into four tiers:</p>
<p>1.) We don't want you. Reject.
2.) We want you, and we think we can get you, so we admit you. Admit.
3.) We want you, but we think you're going to get into a school you're going to prefer over us, so we preemptively reject or (more likely) waitlist you. Waitlist.
4.) We want you, and while we think you're going to go somewhere else, we think you're worth the risk. Accept, usually with financial incentives.</p>
<p>This results in a few interesting side effects:
1.) Candidates who show interest are considered much more appealing.
2.) Candidates from the area (who are therefore more likely to pick us) are also more appealing.
3.) Waitlisted candidates are often more qualified than admitted candidates.
4.) A kid who barely misses the cutoff for a scholarship interview invitation will often be waitlisted or rejected altogether, rather than admitted without money. Notice that this is a large disparity: barely missing a scholarship becomes rejected completely. You would normally expect that kids move along a relatively linear scale.</p>
<p>Duke compares itself to Columbia, Brown, Penn, and Dartmouth - and has a great yield against these schools (45 - 55%) so about even - that is why these are considered Duke's peer schools</p>
<p>HYPSM are still ahead of Duke, though more students pick Duke over these than suspected</p>
<p>Also, something that cannot be mentioned enough is that selectivity does not equal fit. Unfortunately, looking back on how I was in high school, I suspect that I would have chosen H or Y over Duke had I been accepted (S was too far for me, and I had no interest in P or M). However, having been at Duke for a little over a year now and after having spoken to/visited friends at H and Y, I'm in shock that I could ever have even considered them. They're great schools, I know, but just so not the kind of atmosphere that I get at Duke and really love. There's no way in hell now that I'd ever pick any other school over Duke.</p>
<p>That being said, to get back to the original topic, Duke and Stanford do happen to be very similar. I personally think that any differences in prestige between them are minor. If an employer's going to hire you if you went to Stanford but not if you went to Duke then, well...that's just sort of sad. Just visit both places and see which one YOU like best. It'll just feel right when you're at the place where you're supposed to be.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if you went to Harvard or Yale and were looking back at considering Duke. thethoughtprocess, I meant overall yield at which Duke is behind peer schools still. The thought is, if Duke was rejecting applicants "too good" for them, then they would have an increased yield. This hasn't happened, so I don't buy it.</p>
<p>Oh, yeah, well its overall yield is lower</p>
<p>... maybe our yield is increased over what it would be. Come on. You can't take a single data point and infer any information from that. Seriously.</p>
<p>Well if Duke does do it, I'm sure it's not alone. Those "overqualified" kids who get rejected do fine anyways I'm sure</p>
<p>1.) Duke is most certainly not alone in this. At the point where it's being called "Tufts" syndrome, Wash U applicants complain about it, Emory is notorious (true or not) as the school that pioneered the strategy, and the economic literature indicates that Princeton engages in it, Duke is certainly not alone. Duke, however, is the only school that received front-page status on the WSJ for this.</p>
<p>2.) These kids usually do fine - but sometimes Duke guesses wrong, they don't actually get into "better" schools that they would otherwise have chosen, and, yes, they slip through the cracks.</p>