<p>"In his exhaustive study of college life entitled What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited, Alexander Astin writes that size has an impact on students mainly in the affective-psychological realm of student. Smaller schools tend to have slightly higher rates of retention and student satisfaction with the faculty, but the overall effects are small. You are also more likely to want to be a college professor if you attend a small, private college. You are likely to make slightly more money if you went to a large university. It also matters if the university is research-oriented or student-oriented. Students in research-oriented universities have lower rates of satisfaction and lower self esteem. On the other hand, they tend to have higher scores.</p>
<p>The most powerful variable in the study, however, is that of peer group socioeconomic status. Astin writes: "Perhaps the most compelling generalization...is the pervasive effect of the peer group on the individual student's development. Every aspect of the student's development--cognitive and affective, psychological and behavioral--is affected in some way by peer group characteristics, and usually by several characteristics. Generally, students tend to change their values, behavior, and academic plans in the direction of the dominant orientation of the peer group... The values, attitudes, self-concept, and socioeconomic status of the peer group are much more important determinants of how the individual student will develop than are the peer group's abilities, religious orientation, or racial composition."</p>
<p>Astin ends with the observation that, "Somewhat surprisingly, the form of an institution's education curriculum has little direct impact on student development.""</p>
<p>"mini: can you post all the results? Seems that COFHE is member only site."</p>
<p>Sigh - it would be nice. The results are only released if the schools themselves release them. I give Harvard much credit in giving them to the Crimson. They understand they have a problem, and I think they figured that one way to begin to address it would be to put their sagging academic quality out in the open.</p>
<p>Harvard is still a GREAT school; academically, and for undergraduates, however, just not in the top 25. Or so the surveys sponsored by the schools themselves seem to say.</p>
<p>The "reports" don't "say" any such thing. There is no comparative element to these surveys whatsoever.</p>
<p>They are similar, in this respect, to the silly Princeton Review rankings, where, for example, the BYU library is dubbed the best college library in the United States of America, while the Yale Library isn't even top 20.</p>
<p>Why? Because, apparently, a few BYU students say the library is great - assuming they have any opinion at all, while an equally small subset of Yale students may grouse that the library is inadequate because it isn't open 24/7, not a demand likely to stir demonstrations in Provo.</p>
<p>Without sharing every assumption, your analysis squares with what I have been saying for years: anybody telling you to that there is no advantage to applying early should be sued for educational malpfractice. </p>
<p>I'm not sure whether the emergence of SCEA as a somewhat fraudulant "reform" has changed the picture much.</p>
<p>My only question is whether EA/ED deferreds are actually telephoned to "unofficially" take their temperature, so as to ensure a 100% yield from this sub group. I know it is true for waitlistees, but I'm not sure about EA/ED deferees, where there are not dozens of decisions to be made, but hundreds, or even thousands. </p>
<p>In any event, Adcomms can rightly assume that the deferreds are a "motivated" sub-group.</p>
<p>The surveys are conducted by COFHE every other year, do provide comparative outcomes, and subscores. In this case, among 33 private schools self-selected as the best in the country. And if you believe the Harvard administrators interviewed by the Crimson, they take the surveys very, VERY seriously.</p>
<p>The other things the COHFE surveys do, besides allowing for comparative ranking, especially on the subscores as above, is allow the each college to track changes over a period of years. </p>
<p>Sorry it makes you uncomfortable. It makes Harvard administrators uncomfortable as well.</p>
<p>Whether Harvard administrators take the surveys seriously is one thing - of COURSE they do... EVERY college does.</p>
<p>But there is - I must empasize - absolutely NO "comparative" element involved whatsoever. ZERO. NADA. The surveys are entirely subjective, based on the views of unrelated groups whose objectives and expectations may be entirely different.</p>
<p>This is why subjective information of this type is virtually useless for cross-group comparisons, although it may have some value for tracking the reaction to "in-house" changes, and why USNews sees no way to incorporate the "findings" in their rankings.</p>
<p>I think you should go talk to the Harvard administrators, who disagree with you. The survey scale was constructed precisely for the purpose of doing comparisons, both with comparable schools, and over time.</p>
<p>But no sense arguing. Harvard is still a great school. Just not top 25. Or so the COHFE survey finds.</p>
<p>The survey reports results - and the Harvard administrators did the comparisons. Of course THEY probably aren't good scientists, or judges. But they administer the survey precisely for the purpose of doing comparisons, both over time and among institutions.</p>
<p>Thanks for the COFHE stats Mini, but they are the wrong stats. We are still waiting for the supporting references for the finaid stats you claimed about Harvard earlier in the thread:</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>(mini): The yield rate for the ED half the Harvard class (90-95% of whom don't receive financial aid) is 100%. </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>(Hanna): Mini, your misstatement about the "ED" half of the Harvard class and its yield has already been corrected, but where are you getting the statistic that "90-95%" of EA admits don't receive financial aid?<<</p>
<p>Byerly, could you expand a bit more on what you mean by "comparative". I see what you mean about the library example you just gave, ie. the meaning of "great" library is different for different populations of students, but I'm not sure how you would suggest a study become more comparative.<br>
One thing I do notice (having one child a graduate of Brown, another going to Harvard)...Brown consistently has very high student satisfaction ratings, across varying types of surveys. And these students would have much in common, I think, with students at Harvard.</p>
<p>"For nearly three decades COFHE has collected and analyzed data from its member institutions. It was started for studying financial aid, but has broadened a bit in its interests, said Gregg. </p>
<p>The group focuses on undergraduates. It creates and administers surveys for specific groups involved in college life, including enrolled students, parents, and alumni. Institutions select the other members with which they would like to be compared. Amherst usually chooses Williams, Swarthmore, and maybe Carleton or Wesleyan, said Gregg. </p>
<p>Broh does not expect the upcoming change of the Colleges president to have a great effect on the Colleges participation in COFHE. Most schools are clamoring to get into this consortium ... Amherst played a large role in starting COFHE 29 years ago, said Broh. I think its important to get benchwork information like this right before a new president comes in to [be able to accurately measure] changes in the future. </p>
<p>By the way, response rates to COFHE at all the schools that have posted them is well over 50%.</p>
<p>I stand corrected - though. Harvard was 26th, not 28th (two fewer schools in the most recent survey.)</p>
<p>OK. So B believes that the COFHE information is not comparative because, </p>
<p>"The surveys are entirely subjective, based on the views of unrelated groups whose objectives and expectations may be entirely different." </p>
<p>Well, here's the market research perspective. 1) All preference studies are subjective. That's the point. You are actually measuring if your sample is happier i.e does prefer your product, not whether your product is better measured against some different set of criteria. 2) B's second point I interpret as meaning that the sample of students at Harvard and students at other comparable universities are not comparable samples, that they are "unrelated groups". So then the question is to what extent the Harvard, Yale, Princeton, JHU etc kids are or not equivalent samples. My sense is that each university has about a 99% overlap in student samples with the next most selective university. That's an approximate quantitative way of stating what the adcoms say when they talk about the 5 classes they could have filled from their pool, their acceptance rates, etc. Therefore, in market research terms, the preference measurement of students at Yale is a pretty good proxy for the preferences of students at Harvard, i.e. we can assume with reasonable confidence that if we moved the student body of Yale to Harvard and vice versa that the statistics reported would not change in any significant way.</p>
<p>Which means the COFHE studies are relevant. </p>
<p>What we have not yet discussed is the degree to which the students are changed by their entry into Harvard, and the possibility that once they get there the culture just supports more reporting of distress than at other universities...We would need to test their "complaint factor" for how they respond to other issues:).</p>
<p>"What we have not yet discussed is the degree to which the students are changed by their entry into Harvard, and the possibility that once they get there the culture just supports more reporting of distress than at other universities..."
A possible psychological reason for Harvard students being more willing to report criticism of their school : perhaps because they are comfortable and secure in the seemingly untouchable reputation of their school, they feel they have nothing to lose by being brutally honest. Students from slightly less prestigious schools may feel they have something to prove about how great their place is, in order to promote its reputation. Another hypothesis is that because Harvard is held up as the ultimate in higher education, many students may come there with unrealistic expectations. The let down factor may thus be greater at Harvard than at other institutions.</p>
<p>So then the question is to what extent the Harvard, Yale, Princeton, JHU etc kids are or not equivalent samples. </p>
<br>
<p>Here's the issue -- even if there were 99% overlap among the student bodies, there isn't among the PORTION of the student bodies that CHOOSE to take the survey.</p>
<p>School A publicizes the survey in the campus newspaper, sends numerous e-mails to the class requesting that every graduating senior participate, makes announcements at senior events that it's important to give back to School A by filling out the survey, and rewards each senior who completes the survey with a School A T-shirt.</p>
<p>School B sends one e-mail to the seniors notifying them that there's an optional survey they can take.</p>
<p>Do you think that this can result in a reliable comparison between School A's results and School B's results? Of course not. School A is going to end up with a sample that's a decent cross-section of the senior class. School B is going to end up with a sample with great overrepresentation of (A) kids with nothing better to do during Senior Week, (b) the kind of anal kid who does whatever he is told, and (c) kids who are disappointed in the university for whatever reason and have an axe to grind.</p>
<p>For comparisons WITHIN the school, either year-to-year, or department-to-department, this doesn't matter, because the sample bias is constant between the compared groups. For cross-school comparisons, though, it's a fatal flaw.</p>
<p>^ Not true. If stastically the sample size is correct, then it makes no difference whether 100% of the students participated or 15% of the students participated.</p>
<p>simba, not if the 15% of students who participate do so because of some particular attribute/attitude they have in common. It would only be as you say if the selection of participants were truly random.</p>
<p>If stastically the sample size is correct, then it makes no difference whether 100% of the students participated or 15% of the students participated.</p>
<br>
<p>It doesn't matter whether 100% or 15% participate IF THE 15% ARE A RANDOM CROSS SECTION OF THE 100%. That's not the case here.</p>
<p>It's not about sample SIZE. It's about sample bias. Do you agree that if one school only surveyed its D students, then the results would not be comparable to a school that surveyed a cross-section of everyone? That's sample bias.</p>
<p>All of the statistical problems that have been pointed out by other posters are among the reasons why this particular survey effort is not yet ready for prime time.</p>
<p>As someone else pointed out (and as I did myself, I believe) the surveys nevertheless have some internal value over time, assuming any sampling flaws are constant.</p>