<p>Good idea Mr. B. Use lots of " " when your veracity is in question. </p>
<p>I remain curious however, will you answer the above questions?</p>
<p>I understand that when you post stats, and somebody discovers an error in one of them, they will jump all over you, particularly if they don't like the message and prefer "cheerleader mode" to examination of the issues. That's OK. It doesn't bother me. I'm used to it, believe me, having experienced the same syndrome over several years.</p>
<p>I ignore the shrill critics with an axe to grind, and measure the usefulness of my posts by the reaction of others, including the many who ask questions and seek advice via private messages. Occasionally, other posters even have something interesting to say about the topic of college admissions.</p>
<p>well byerly, you've never bothered me because I don't see the cause to get all up in arms over the things you say, becuase sometimes they are correct. my question is, why do you (someone well past the college application age, with no children applying to college) hang around on this board when you're so clearly unwanted? I mean, its sort of sad. Don't you have a job? Some kind of social life? I hope so... but yeah I've always just wondered about you.</p>
<p>Thank you. Final question.
Are you aware of the "slant" or bias that appears in many of your posts (afterall facts are only meaningful in the manner in which they are presented)? I think what ticks people off is not the bias, but your refusal to recognize it.</p>
<p>P.S. You remind of a saynig from the Enchanted Wood (childrens book).</p>
<p>"Stay true to your quest at any cost, veer from the path and all shall be lost"</p>
<p>Is your quest noble?</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>Do I have a point of view? Sure. About a lot of things. And I don't try to hide it. Everybody has a point of view. If you don't like mine, well that's tough. Personally, I 'd far rather discuss issues with people whose views don't square with my own than whisper amens in a group of devout co-religionists.</p>
<p>I don't really much like the way CC has this site broken down into separate "churches" where you are expected to worship the one true god (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn State etc.,) and are treated as an apostate to be shunned if you question even a minute aspect of the "faith."</p>
<p>The attitude of some posters (particularly in the Yale "church") is that if you are not a true believer you are to be driven from the temple. I think that is silly, anti-intellectual, and a sign of insecurity.</p>
<p>But then my background is not in fundamentalist religion.</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that a plcae like Princeton would have such a low yield. I'm not questioning your facts, but it just seems odd.</p>
<p>Remember that many of the top students apply to - and are admitted to - more than one school. They can only go to one of them, however.</p>
<p>See, for example: <a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/october6/decline-106.html%5B/url%5D">http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/october6/decline-106.html</a></p>
<p>He's actually one of my favorite posters - always has been. That said, Byerly, what do you mean by "strategic admissions" as opposed to "going head to head" with H&Y? How can they really tell who would prefer another school?</p>
<p>I assume you are familiar with the concept known as "Tufts Syndrome" - ie, rejecting or waitlisting applicants who, through demographic analysis or otherwise, you feel are likely to be admitted to, and to prefer, another school further up the academic food chain.</p>
<p>Princeton was long rumored, under Hargadon, of minimizing cross-admit conflict with Harvard and Yale in a similar, but less exaggerated fashion. This practice was documented to a degree in the "Revealed Preference" paper - where it was dubbed "strategic admissions."</p>
<p>Repalye has publically announced that she will eschew this practice, while acknowledging that in doing so, the yield rate may take a hit - as indeed it did last year.</p>
<p>Keep in mind as Byerly begins for the upteenth time to introduce his overlap numbers that Princeton has a much smaller class size. Obviously more people will go to the larger classes and especially those with more openings (because they are not ED and/or simply larger).
The overlap #s, which are uncertain at best, are Byerly's only response to the multitude of publications putting P ahead of H in selectivity and all other undergrad criteria (including PR's assessment of Princeton as the Toughest School to get into). This is his "slant". This is his spin.</p>
<p>blahblahblahblah</p>
<p>This has little directly to do with overlap numbers.</p>
<p>... and I hope you're not puffing with pride about one or more of the silly PR "rankings" (biggest party school, most tree-huggers, toughest to get into, best food, etc) based on tiny, non-scientific returns from survey forms handed out on street-corners at various campuses, on which respondents rate only <em>their own school</em> and don't (how could they anyway?) compare their school to any others.</p>
<p>Blah, blah, blah</p>
<p>How many times have posted the Stanford article? How many times have you come here with posts concerning yield?
Answer: Many, many</p>
<p>How many times have you discussed the value of Undergraduate focus here?
Answer: 0</p>
<p>Campus crime: 0</p>
<p>School Integrity/Honesty: 0</p>
<p>etc, etc.</p>
<p>"silly PR "rankings" (biggest party school, most tree-huggers, toughest to get into, best food, etc) based on tiny, non-scientific returns from survey forms handed out on street-corners at various campuses, on which respondents rate only <em>their own school</em> and don't (how could they anyway?) compare their school to any others."</p>
<p>Byerly, Your comment/spin above, the PR ranking criteria below:</p>
<p>"Admissions Selectivity Rating
This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students. This rating is given on a scale of 60-99. Please note that if a school has an Admissions Selectivity Rating of 60*, it means that the school did not report to us all of the statistics that go into the rating by our deadline. "</p>
<p>The PR criteria doesn't sound to "silly" to me. You just can't live with the result.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that S has wanted to go to Princeton since he was a freshman, he used to complain that,"everyone assumes I'm going to Harvard." If everyone in his school and community assumed that, you can be sure the admissions office would have. Fortunately he was certain enough of his choice to apply ED. But what if he needed more time? Princeton doesn't even allow overnight visits in the dorms like many other schools.</p>
<p>Ten years ago, one of the guidance counselors who had been around in the 80's and early 90's said that Princeton stopped taking kids from our high school. He said he called the admissions office and they complained that the kids they admitted ended up going elsewhere. He promsied to only send them applicants who would matriculate, and they did admit someone that year. S is now first one in 10 years to go to Princeton from his high school.</p>
<p>Why would a school that accepts fewer than 10% of its applicants feel the need to go out there and try to get more just so they can reject more is beyond me.</p>
<p>Its like panning for gold. I guess. A lot of "source" needed to get the reward you're looking for.</p>
<p>This article claims otherwise. There were only 1050 accepted RD.</p>