<p>Consider for example, a government policy which is extremely efficient. The cost-benefit ratio is favorable. For argument sake, let's say that the the program only receives $1000 funding, so despite being cheap, it does not make much difference in the vast scope of things. On the other hand, a second government initiative costs a lot for each "unit" of good it does. It is pervasive however, and because it is well-funded, it has a greatER "net-benefit" than the former policy. </p>
<p>Determining which one is better is a matter of opinion. In the case of admissions, it seems that a more rigorous consideration of the candidates in each situation is needed to find an answer to the question, as neither the acceptance rate OR volume of applications inherently indicates competition more than the other.</p>
<p>I agree that since we are comparing different applicants of different caliber, it is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion. However, the admit rate and total amount of applicants does lend credence to the claim that the freshman pool is more competitive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
pulling the "oh but it's Harvard card" doesn't work in this case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes it does. Since it is Harvard, it is almost assured that the majority of applicants will be stellar.</p>
<p>I think in each applicant pool, one is likely to find that the majority of the students are qualified. As I have never reviewed applications from either pool, I cannot make a definitive pronouncement as to which is more competative. On the one hand, 20,000+ apply out of high school. On the other hand, they take only 50 or so transfer students. It seems lucid that both pools are extremely competative (9% and 5.5ish% respectively), and that trying to determine which one has more competative admissions criteria by looking at vague aggragates is trivial. It's borderline splitting hairs if you ask me.</p>
<p>exactly calipharius, we can't just point at the number of freshmen applicant and go "see!" They also admit more proportionally and the percentages are similar enough. Likewise, transfers may be less, but they pack in a more impressive portfolio of life experiences too, so despite numbers, they are fighting a different kind of competition. </p>
<p>In both processes, they admit about 6-9 applicants per 100 applications. Both are tough in different ways, but probably equally tough in the long run.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They also admit more proportionally and the percentages are similar enough. Likewise, transfers may be less, but they pack in a more impressive portfolio of life experiences too, so despite numbers, they are fighting a different kind of competition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not think calipharius is drawing that implication; he just argues that, with the information available (or lack therof), there is no purpose in arguing about which pool is tougher.</p>
<p>maybe calipharius is not arguing this statement, but I am agreeing with a twist of my own as a footnote to his/her comment. The math tells the story...the % tells the general story...pretty much equal difficulty</p>
<p>
[quote]
The math tells the story...the % tells the general story...pretty much equal difficulty
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is your opinion, you have yet to corroborate this conclusion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but probably equally tough in the long run.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a very weak induction; there is a lacuna of information, which prevents us from making this conclusion. My argument is that, prima facie, the freshman pool is more difficult; the numbers work in my favor, but it could be an entirely different story under the surface.</p>
<p>wow, i am tired of all thes comments, "induction", and formal " yet to corroborate your conclusion". We are going in circles here, and like I said, lets just call the whole thing off...none of us know the truth and know the facts. </p>
<p>Frankly, if I had the stats in front of me, I have nor the time or interest to discuss this anymore...they are both tough, both are prob equally tough and the recipients are equally deserving!</p>
<p>I'll never understand how the numbers work in your favour, since the % for transfer applicants is actually lower and if you throw out "but it's 22,000 + freshmen applicants!!!" again I'll go nuts. One number is nothing when it comes to applicants if there is nothing to compare it to. These numbers need to be judged relative to how many accepted!</p>
<p>So nspeds, I won't indulge in this conversation anymore. I have said my point and there is no need to play on..unless Harvard sends us all their admiss stats.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lets just call the whole thing off...none of us know the truth and know the facts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then stop fueling this debate with unsubstantiated claims.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll never understand how the numbers work in your favour, since the % for transfer applicants is actually lower and if you throw out "but it's 22,000 + freshmen applicants!!!" again I'll go nuts. One number is nothing when it comes to applicants if there is nothing to compare it to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are numbers with which to compare it; though they are not officially published in collegeboard.com, you can find it on this forum using the search mechanism. If I recall correctly, the number of applicants were less than 1,000. My apologies, I thought you knew all of this; I assumed you knew the numbers before making your claims, but evidently, you just throw them out.</p>
<p>Edit: Here are the statistics for Harvard Transfer:</p>
<p>Harvard: 1010/55/55</p>
<p>I was slightly off in my estimation, but the numbers still work in my favor. With the applicants for freshman admissions being approximately 22 times more than transfer... well... I do not think much more need be mentioned:D</p>
<p>I still disagree about there being a definitive resolution. If you assume the pools to be of equal talent and credentials, the fact that more people are vying for each spot in the transfer pools seems to indicate that it is more competitive. Also, these numbers are two-years old, as 75 not 55 transfer students were admitted last year. At the time of this posting, thecrimson.com is experiencing technical difficulties, but I am pretty sure this information can be corroborated at:</p>
<p>As for the total number of applicants last year, I cannot exactly recall. I think it was around 1100, which would translate to a 6.8% rate. </p>
<p>Again, I don't think any dogma about the competitiveness of either pool is going to be created here by looking at percentages or numbers and arguing about them. The true indicator seems to be the number of qualified students applying for each seat, and this knowledge seems inaccessible to us as non-Harvard adcoms.</p>
<p>I still don't get it, how does more people apply make it more selective? I believe there are more than 20000 people apply to UCLA each year, and its admission rate last year is 9 percent, does it make it more diffcult than harvard?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still don't get it, how does more people apply make it more selective?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that it is more selective; I argued that there are more individuals vying for disproportionately less slots, which makes it tougher. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe there are more than 20000 people apply to UCLA each year, and its admission rate last year is 9 percent, does it make it more diffcult than harvard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are not considering several factors:
1) The average applicant to Harvard possesses better stats.
2) It is most apparent that UCLA plays the admissions game, so even if there were a significant amount of higher-caliber applicants, they would probably not be considered on the basis of a higher probability of them being accepted at a higher-ranked institution.</p>
<p>please give me a quote. I must have a memory so bad that I don't recall writing down such comment.</p>
<p>additionally, please quote from an AUTHORATIVW source. If this is a reality, most likely you will see a number of lawsuits, and those lawsuits are public infomation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
additionally, please quote from an AUTHORATIVW source. If this is a reality, most likely you will see a number of lawsuits, and those lawsuits are public infomation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no legal basis for filing suit against colleges for such an action.</p>