<p>so you stated your last point as a fact, when in reality it is pure speculation on your part, and quite possibly false speculation?</p>
<p>Well you can think I'm a "false speculator" if it makes you feel better. Actually I do have one semi-reliable source for the fraction of "regular" pools consisting of early pool deferrees - the redoubtable "College *******".</p>
<p>But even without taking the "hidden high-yield group" of ED deferreds into account, I am willing to wager that if the class is projected correctly at 1,220, that the RD yield will be closer to my 52% projection that to your rather sad boast of 54%. We will rely (necessarily) on the CDS form for next year, as voluntarily reported by Princeton.</p>
<p>Class or 2009 RD yield: H-67.9%; Prin-52%; Y-57.1%; S-55.7</p>
<p>I will give you bonus points if, as you hint, Princeton's RD yield rate is better, relative to Yale and Stanford, than last year, even though still trailing those schools. In fact, I think Princeton may slip behind MIT in RD yield this year.</p>
<p>Moving beyond Hargadon to pursue the top scholars and the "green-haired" peoiple not normally viewed as "Princeton types" is a noble goal, but it comes at an unavoidable cost in terms of the yield rate, as we have seen.</p>
<p>the point remains: you passed off speculation as fact.</p>
<p>as for your prediction, i expect that it will prove about as accurate as this one that you trumpeted rather haughtily last year:</p>
<p>Fair warning: </p>
<p>You better get ready for the inevitable, my friend.</p>
<p>I'm not sure about Harvard, but take my word for it: Yale is a mortal lock to surpass Princeton in the upcoming 2006 edition of USNews "Best Colleges."</p>
<p>(a <em>truly</em> "sad boast.")</p>
<p>I note that you failed to mention the other half of the post you cite, my guarantee that Stanford's endowment would surpass Princeton's last year.</p>
<p>A truly "brilliant prediction" --- and accurate, non?</p>
<p>And Yale would have surpassed Princeton on the USNews list if yield were still a factor. The only other explanation for the 2-point differential (98 points vs. 100) is the questionable 'faculty resources" category. Its 2008 yield rate, surprisingly, fell a bit to under 67%. For 2009, its yield rate rose to a bit over 70% - so that perhaps this is the year the Eli's make their move.</p>
<br>
<p>For 2009, its yield rate rose to a bit over 70% - so that perhaps this is the year the Eli's make their move.</p>
<br>
<p>as you just said yourself, yield is no longer a factor.</p>
<p>Yield affects other measures indirectly, however, including peer rankiings. </p>
<p>Regardless of USNews' punting on this issue (motivated by PC criticism that they were encouraging the evil binding ED trend by schools looking to goose their yield rate artificially) yield rate remains the principal measure by which elites measure themselves competitively - the <em>real</em> guide to "selectivity."</p>
<p>And we all know how "selective" and "elite" is WUSTL according to yield.</p>
<p>A few schools - including notably WUStL and Chicago - benefitted when USNews gave in and dropped yield as a selectivity measure.</p>
<br>
<p>Yield affects other measures indirectly, however, including peer rankiings. </p>
<br>
<p>yet yale has seen its peer assessment score fall to 4.8 at least once in recent years, while princeton has not. personally, i don't see yale passing princeton in the rankings unless u.s. news shakes up its methodology in a way that somehow benefits yale more than princeton. there are several reasons princeton currently outranks yale - contrary to your faculty resources as "only other explanation" assertion. these include higher graduation and retention rates, a lower student/faculty ratio, and a much higher alumni giving rate.</p>
<p>The graduation and retention rates are virtually identical, Yale is more selective, and has a higher SAT median. No, its "faculty resources" where Yale falls down under the quirky formula, which Penn, on the other hand, has manipulated to its advantage. Odd to see Princeton ranked only 12 in "financial resources", however.</p>
<p>i've read allegations that penn includes hospital expenditures in a way that pumps up its apparent "resources." something clearly is fishy, since penn's endowment per student is paltry relative to its peers,' and its class sizes, student/faculty ratio, and faculty salaries are certainly no better, either. the rodin administration of the 1990s was certainly unusually driven by rankings, and at times unusually candid about the importance of rankings to its decision-makers.</p>
<p>Hence why "faculty resources" as an indicator of anything is a steaming pile of garbage. </p>
<p>Byerly, predicting that Stanford would pass Princeton in endowment wasn't difficult to do at all. When Stanford fundraises four times as much, it's pretty easy to just look at the numbers.</p>
<p>And yes, Penn, like WashU, needs the rankings to survive. Penn regularly loses to both Brown and Columbia in cross-admits and if they were scraping the bottom of the top ten like they should, the cross-admit gap would be even larger.</p>
<p>Oh really? Where do you get your cross admit numbers?</p>
<p>Revealed preference rankings. </p>
<p>In the original version, at least, Penn was 12th and Brown and Columbia were both in the top ten.</p>
<p>The Revealed Preference Study does not include head to head cross admit numbers for the schools you mention..</p>
<p>Well, Byerly, that's all the data that is available to the public.</p>
<p>Do you care to share any other data?</p>
<p>Generally speaking, I don't have access to recent cross admit data except for Harvard's. I believe the Brown-affiliated poster Pinderhughes would dispute your claim vis a vis Brown/Penn, however.</p>
<p>that "Penn regularly loses to both Brown and Columbia in cross-admits"? i don't think pinderhughes would dispute that at all.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I agree. Penn's yield rate was creeping up on Princeton's last year, at 65%, while the Brown and Columbia yield rates were somewhat similar at 59% and 61% respectively.</p>
<p>whether or not you agree, pinderhughes would. his consistent argument, remember, is that brown comes just after HYP in the ivy pecking order, and consistently bests its ivy rivals for the spot.</p>