<p>Yep, hawkette, you always go back to that old Ivy song and dance when you have nothing better to say (I notice you didn’t respond to the fact that you misinterpreted the article and that people doubt that the cross-admit data is or even could be legitimate).</p>
<p>As I have said frequently, there are many many wonderful schools out there and the overall quality of the schools in our system is very strong. Trying to parse out small differences to decide that one school is “better” doesn’t make a lot of sense. My issue with many of your posts hawkette is not just that they are repetitive, but that you continually try and rejigger the data to come to conclusions based on your own biases, which are that schools with strong sports scenes and good weather are the best schools. You put down most of the Ivy League schools (particularly the non-HYP schools) for reasons ranging from their sports schedules to their PA scores and you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about them. Finally, your continued bashing of academics bothers me since I have some in my own family who have enormous integrity. </p>
<p>Frankly, I think that most of my posts have been extremely helpful to the CC community (and I get many private messages to that effect). And I think that you’re stepping a little over the line here with your bully comment.</p>
<p>There you go again. Thank you for your charge of bias against Ivy colleges. LOL. Practically the only times you post in threads that I have created is to lob in false charges like this. You did something similar in post # 2 of this thread. And there are plenty of other examples in your posting history of your false charge/pestering behaviour (which I have rightly identified as bullying). </p>
<p>Re your allegation of anti-Ivy, look at the opening post in this thread and please explain to everyone how this is a biased thread and that the Ivies are disadvantaged by this. Six of the first eight privates listed are Ivies. Heck, I’ve created hundreds of threads that are just a straight recitation of data from various sources. In the vast majority of threads where the Ivies are even included in the topic, the Ivy colleges have compared very, very well in my presentations. Your claim of anti-Ivy bias is silly…and false. </p>
<p>As for the matter of comparing schools that have great academics/great social lives/ great athletic lives, I will gladly admit to my belief that the Ivies are not as good at this as many other schools around the USA. Sorry, but that’s my opinion and I regularly back it up with lots of supporting commentary/evidence. I guess you just aren’t used to someone actually expressing a viewpoint that doesn’t automatically accept the Ivies as superior destinations. </p>
<p>We have a difference of opinion. If you don’t like my opinion, then debate it rather than resorting to weak and false claims of bias. There are plenty of smart folks all over the USA who don’t agree with you. And they have integrity too. </p>
<p>As for repetition of thread topics, there are two reasons for this. First, there are always new readers on CC. Do you not want others to discuss these college-related topics or are you scared that the discussions and some of the arguments might lead readers away from the received truth of the academic elite? </p>
<p>Second, there is always new data being released by the colleges (like the data that is in this thread) and news being printed in various publications. Do you not want people to see the new data/news and think about it and not ask how things may have changed over time? If you do want people to see the information, are you making any effort to collect the data or news stories and presenting it to the CC community? Or do you just object to my presentation of the data/news? Well, if you think that my data/news presentation is somehow skewed, then please be my guest to gather it and present as you see fit. I look forward to reading the next thread that you create.</p>
<p>A yield list for public universities is not very useful. Flagship universities in states with other great public universities (e.g. California) will obviously have lower yields than flagship publics with little competition (e.g. Texas).</p>
<p>“Youll have to decide whether you want to accept standardized test scores as an appropriate proxy for measuring student body strength. You will also have to decide if having a stronger class is of value to you. I personally accept standardized test scores as a reasonable proxy and I definitely prefer the strongest class of peers.”</p>
<p>Yep. That’s why a prospective student should choose Harvey Mudd over Duke.</p>
<p>I think you are right about the states with good private alternatives. It is also interesting to look at the data for publics and break it down by IS and OOS students. One could then compare this with the private universe and see how the publics compare to the privates. However, I only have the breakdown for a few of the publics, not for the whole list.</p>
<p>Dstark,
You’re off topic. I think you meant to post in another thread from which you copied that comment.</p>
<p>“For the measurement of yield, Duke is not in the top 30 colleges. Not sure why you feel that this is something that I care that much about. Plenty of good schools have yields of 40% or below. In Duke’s case, they get a lot of good applicants. And even with a 40% yield, they enroll a lot of good students. After all, it’s who you end up enrolling that matters.”</p>
<p>And even with a 40% yield, Duke enrolls a lot of good students. I guess the students that enroll at Duke just aren’t good enough.</p>
<p>“You’ll have to decide whether you want to accept standardized test scores as an appropriate proxy for measuring student body strength. You will also have to decide if having a stronger class is of value to you. I personally accept standardized test scores as a reasonable proxy and I definitely prefer the strongest class of peers.”</p>
<p>Yep. That’s why a prospective student should choose Harvey Mudd over Duke.</p>
<p>I’m glad you included Rice on your personal list of best colleges. Rice should be considered one of the best colleges in the nation because at very few other colleges can you find the balance of excellent academics and excellent social life and excellent teaching as is available at Rice. Rice is a hidden gem in the top 25 college list… I am excited that I’m going to Rice at a time when it’s national reputation is gaining steam.</p>
<p>thank you ilovebagels–i always enjoy your posts and your passionate but fair-minded thoughts about Penn.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I’m not going to bother to reply to most of your silly and defensive post. Your facts however, are often inaccurate–for example, in this thread alone in post ten, here is your quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even Guttentag, the Duke Dean of Undergraduate Admissions didn’t claim that. Rather he said that in the past two years (which was in 2004 and 2005 since the article was published in 2006) between 40 and 60% of students chosen by Duke and Ivies other than HYP and Cornell select Duke. That is far different from the statement you made. </p>
<p>In addition, as to your statement that Duke wins by 85-15% over Cornell, once again, even Guttentag only said that
Once again, your statement is inaccurate. Moreover, as I and others have pointed out, Guttentag’s figure is highly speculative, because Guttentag doesn’t have sufficient information to make such a statement. In the only “objective” survey of cross-admits, an old survey done based on 2000 data, Cornell won the cross-admit battle by 54/46% against Duke. I would think it highly, highly unlikely that in a short 4 years, the Duke/Cornell cross-admit data had changed so decisively in Duke’s favor.</p>
<p>Hawkette, if you value facts and data so much, perhaps you could respond to your factual inaccuracies in this thread (or perhaps you don’t have an answer and that is why you chose not to respond).</p>
<p>Although it has been discussed in many other threads, the Revealed Preference Study has nothing to do with cross-admits.</p>
<p>It is a survey of students preferences. There were no requirements that they were ADMITTED or even APPLIED to any of the colleges they ranked. Hard to call that a cross-admit study.</p>
<p>cellardweller-
How can you speak with such confidence about the Revealed Preference study and be so completely wrong? You obviously did not look at the study. The Revealed Preference study is based on ACTUAL matriculation decisions.</p>
<p>Yields, I would think, say at least as much about application patterns as they do about absolute desirability.</p>
<p>For example, Colorado College and Macalester share many cross-apps. Colorado’s own web site has data suggesting that students admitted to both schools tend to prefer Macalester. Mac is slightly more selective than CC, with slightly higher average SAT scores. Yet Macalester has a much lower yield. Why?</p>
<p>The reason, I suspect, is because Macalester applicants more often compete in a higher league. The same phenomenon may explain why Middlebury’s yield is higher than Swarthmore’s. A Swarthmore admit perhaps is more likely than a Middlebury admit to also be a HYPS admit. If so, someone may be more likely to turn down Swat for an even more selective school. </p>
<p>So I think yields in isolation tell us very little.</p>
<p>TK- I agree but think it can be expanded to other reasons as well, like religious preference. </p>
<p>BYU 80%
Yeshiva 55%</p>
<p>Cornell 46%
Chicago 38%
Hopkins 31% </p>
<p>Although its yield would imply otherwise, BYU is not as desirable as Harvard for most people. For a different reason, Deep Springs has a yield higher than Harvard’s but does not appeal to many people.</p>
<p>
That study is a decade old and woefully out of date. In the last few years, Harvard, UVA, and Princeton have dropped early admissions, and over a dozen schools are now fully or partially loan-free. Cross-admit data has changed rapidly.</p>
<p>2000 admissions data is as useless as 2000 endowment data.</p>
<p>Hawkette, thanks for posting this, I think it is interesting, and love reading the substantiative posts regarding the data. </p>
<p>I find it hilarious though that you seem to have a couple of cyber stalkers! Considering your first post had absolutely no hint of bias, it must be that these two follow your posts around CC and fill threads with snarky and non-substantiative posts in order to irritate you.</p>
<p>All I have to say to them is “GROW UP!”</p>
<p>Keep posting Data, we appreciate it - and know that you are absolutely within your rights to post your opinions on this PUBLIC forum as well :)</p>
<p>IB - Right, take Hawkette’s list of private national universities, subtract the Ivies, and what’s left at the top? Yeshiva, Notre Dame, Georgetown (plus BYU, which out-yields even the Ivies.) All have captive audiences among good students with secular preferences.</p>
<p>Geography is another factor.
Macalester and Colorado College both are somewhat off the beaten path of selective LACs. But Mac has another, even more selective LAC in the same state (Carleton), while Colorado College has the entire Rocky Mountain west to itself.</p>
<p>Ditto for Colby, which competes against Bates and Bowdoin but really is not all that much less selective. Pick it up and move it to, let’s say, Annapolis Maryland. Suddenly it’s the premier private LAC in the Baltimore-Washington area (not counting the highly unusual St. John’s College). What happens to its yield in that case?</p>