<p>Of course, you would be satisfied with the Newsweek rankings, zephyr. Stanford is #2, whereas in the USNews rankings Stanford is tied #4 with CalTech and MIT.</p>
<p>Well, Newsweek not only has a far superior methodology ("faculty resources"? "alumni giving rate"?), but the results make more sense.</p>
<p>"a far superior methodology"? a full sixty percent of a school's score under the formula comes from absolute rather than relative numbers (like, e.g., total number of library volumes!), twenty percent from its percentages of international students and faculty (schools don't exactly compete to maximize these numbers; in fact, in the case of students, they impose <em>ceilings</em>), and only the last 20% from reasonable numbers like citations per faculty and student/faculty ratio. it's no surprise, then, that the rankings favor the grad-heavy "factories." stanford benefits, relative to princeton, by having about twice as many faculty members, three times as many total students, and five times as many graduate students.</p>
<p>"the results make more sense"? graduate-only UCSF is a better comprehensive university than three-fourths of the ivies? the university of washington (not washington u., or even george washington u.) is one of the top 25 universities in the world?</p>
<p>Well of course you'd be more satisfied with USNews, because Princeton doesn't get shunted out of the top ten!</p>
<p>unfortunately for you, u.s. news is the only one people care about. way to address my post on its merits, by the way.</p>
<p>Oh, I was going to, when I had more time. </p>
<p>Frankly put, it's hard to LAC's and the like to have a strong international focus. No one in Dubai has heard of Williams, or Amherst. Graduate studies tend to attract far more international students than undergraduates.</p>
<p>Well, scottie, you certainly appear smug with your (undeserved) #1 position in the methodologically-insane USNews!</p>
<p>Cry more loser</p>
<p>wow zephyr. you are quite the sore loser.</p>
<p>Oh, yes, I'm such a bitter Princeton reject.</p>
<p>update: the final yield number for princeton's class of 2010 was 68.8% - closer to the initially reported yield of 69.2% than to byerly's projection of 68%, and up a full point from 2009.</p>
<p>Update #2:</p>
<p>Not my projection, but that of the Director of Admissions, in the Princetonian:</p>
<p>"The expected size of the class this year will be 1,220," Rapelye said, which means that about half of the students admitted regular decision are expected to choose Princeton. The total expected yield, including those admitted under the binding early decision process, is 68 percent."</p>
<p>As I understand it, there were, in the end, 1,793 acceptances, and 1,231 matriculants, which means a yield rate of 68.65%</p>
<p>To her credit, Rapelye has been willing to take a yield hit during her tenure (down from 74% to the present 68%+) by changing her predecessor's emphasis on seeking out the "Princeton type" - ie, those deemed likely to matriculate if admitted.)</p>
<p>Now she has forthrightly faced the possibility of another yield hit that may occur with the bold decision to abandon the binding ED crutch:</p>
<p>As I have said before, one of the things that characterizes Princeton fairly uniquely at the top is the lack of a direct sense of rivalry. The writer had to write that article because no one ever really thinks about Harvard, or Yale, or Stanford, or MIT, when they are at Princeton. You just don't have to. I am thrilled that Princeton is willing to take a "yield hit" to simplify college admissions. If we just happen to wind up with the kids who buy beyond brand, that's a good thing IMO.</p>
<p>There are plenty of outstanding students to go around.</p>
<p>I don't know how much of a yield hit Rapelye will take, since she has stated she will be admitting fewer students now and going to the waitlist.</p>
<p>The waitlist and the "likely letter", apparently, will be asked to accomplish a great deal of the yield protection work previously the role of the binding ED program.</p>
<p>just as they will at post-SCEA harvard, and just as they were last year at SCEA yale (dozens of likely letters to non-athletes, 50+ taken from waitlist).</p>