Harvard v. Yale

<p>The PR in their latest published rankings of the "Toughest Schools to Get Into" had the following results: 1. MIT 2. Princeton 3. CalTech 4. Yale 5. Harvard. In response to the PR rankings Byerly stated the following:</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>The reality (from PR itself) is as follows:</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>


I've seen partial cross-admit stats for much earlier classes, but can you supply a reliable source for the class of 2008?</p>

<p>I have seen the Harvard numbers, but am not at liberty to post them. If you want to say I'm making it up, feel free.</p>

<p>The closest thing to posted numbers for 2008 are the one-sided numbers for Stanford, which the admissions people were apparently pressured into releasing by a faculty member. Don't expect to see such data posted next year, as most schools consider it "sensitive" while highly important.</p>

<p><a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/october6/decline-106.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/october6/decline-106.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>With regard to Stanford losses then, "of the 821 students who declined admission and filled out a form that indicated where they were going instead, 28 percent said Harvard, 20 percent said Yale, 13 percent said MIT and 8 percent said Princeton."</p>

<p>That's a surprisingly good showing for Yale. Some 164 of Stanford's losses go to Yale and 230 or so to Harvard. Adjust these numbers for the relative sizes of the H and Y incoming classes, and Harvard bests Yale by not all that much.</p>

<p>The trouble with using the Stanford numbers to develop a Yale bragging posture, Leon, is that they are only 1/2 the picture. The overall yield rate at Stanford, Yale and Princeton (determining the fraction of admits turning down a school and going elsewhere) is essentially equal. The yield rate at Harvard is considerably higher. That said, I don't know the 2008 cross-admit numbers for Stanford/Yale, Princeton/Yale. MIT/Stanford, MIT/Princeton or MIT/Yale.</p>

<p>There can, of course, be differences from year to year in the sizes of cross-admit pools and the individual choices made.</p>

<p>My question is....Who CARES?</p>

<p>Admissions offices care passionately about cross-admit data. It is the most important indicator of where a school stands in the academic food chain.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it tells you whether certain marketing efforts are or are not working, and with which subsets of the applicant group.</p>

<p>If applicants turn them down, elites want to know who, what, when, where and why.</p>

<p>


Gosh, why would anyone even think such a thing? Just because you have altered published numbers (see post #29 in this thread) doesn't mean you'd make up unpublished ones... :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Frankly, I'm not sure the numbers are knowable anyway: Not every "cross-admit" bothers to tell the schools they reject where they are going.</p>

<p>See post #41. Sometimes the truth hurts.</p>

<p>Alphacdcd-If you feel the need to post anti-Byerly crap in every thread, could you at least post the one about him changing the Yale numbers? That was far more egregious than his criticisms of Princeton Review (which were more outdated than unethical).</p>

<p>And use the proper form of "you're."</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I "changed" nothing. There is a bitterness here that is beyond pathological.</p>

<p>No byerly...the question is...who cares whether Harvard or Yale is better...not who cares about cross admit data.</p>

<p>The answer is .... the cross-admit data reflects the collective judgment of the best and brightest - top students who have a choice - as to which is better!</p>

<p>are you dense? </p>

<p>The question is WHO CARES whether Harvard or Yale is better???? OMG. The question is NOT who cares about cross admit data. </p>

<p>My answer: It doesn't matter. Leave it at that. Really, I can only call a Harvard graduate who spends his time crunching cross-admit data on a message board all day to prove Harvard is the best and that you have a 10-inch **** a bona fide loser.</p>

<p>


Had</a> this been an honest mistake, Byerly need only have said so. Instead, he claimed, "The Levin quote came from another cite [sic]," even though the Y.A.M. piece was verbatim in everything except the number and he never managed to cite that other site.</p>

<p>I leave any imputations of pathology to professionals.</p>

<p>Your own pathology might be interesting. As a Yale reject, why do you still find it necessary to engage in so much Harvard bashing? Do you think your anti-Harvard fervor will help you get in off the waitlist or something?</p>

<p>How odd: I'm not a Yale reject, and I don't believe EncomiumII is either. I can't vouch for Byerly either way.</p>

<p>I'm not bashing Harvard at all. I applied there and would love to go. Nor am I a Yale reject. I would love to go there too. Where are you getting these ideas?</p>

<p>Sorry, Ivyqueen - I see you are a current Yale student or a Yale graduate. Must have confused you with another of the Yale-oriented Harvard bashers who frequent the Harvard threads.</p>

<p>Didn't mean to strip you of your prized degree!</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=408382&postcount=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=408382&postcount=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Again, thanks for the posts everyone. This has become a very interesting thread! I recently visited Yale and stayed with a freshman undergrad for a couple of days. One thing that surprised me was her general attitude (party girl, enjoys skips classes). What surprised me even more is her comment that it was the GENERAL Yale student attitude to be laid back with schoolwork and more social, especially during weekends (many parties). When I asked what she thought about Harvard, she had many negative things to say, including that it was much more boring and her friends there are not as happy as Yalies are. I liked Yale's environment, and it seems that New Haven being not as nice doesn't matter so much since most of a student's time is spent on campus.</p>