<p>I agree with the thoughtprocess. Duke is much more selective than Michigan and more selective than NU.</p>
<p>well where do u draw the line between name brand and selectivity</p>
<p>i turned down Rice, which is arguable one of the most selective schools in the country</p>
<p>if u look at SAT data for the past 10 years, u will see that Rice had higher SAT scores than Duke for the last 10 yrs up until this past yr, b/c Rice's scores have always been high and have stagnated, b/c they really cannot increase anymore. Unlike Duke, Rice seems to be accurate with their data. I mean, idk what to think but I do not exactly trust Duke's admissions office or their data for that matter. They keep saying that Duke takes away more than 75 percent of the kids w. cross admits w. Chicago, Northwestern, Cornell ,Gtown, and Wash U. Meanwhile, the two cross-admit studies, even the one by the impartial NY Times totally debunked that. Not only is Duke NOT taking 75 percent, it is actually losing cross-admits with Cornell.</p>
<p>Just like the thoughprocess says take the facts for what they are, why don't u take the facts for what they are. Duke loses when it competes head to head w. Cornell. You can spit back your SAT and selectivity measures until you are blue in the head, but it is Duke's word against the New York Times. </p>
<p>Therefore, if Duke is dishonest about this, I wouldn't be surprised if they were lying about other things as well.</p>
<p>It is apparent that some schools are more reliable than others in reporting their data. Cornell is one such school that seems incredibly reliable with their data. Not only do they report their data as a whole school, but they do it for colleges within Cornell. They report "enrolled" stats unlike Duke which posts admitted stats, which are not always accurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Meanwhile, the two cross-admit studies, even the one by the impartial NY Times totally debunked that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Two cross-admit studies? I hope you're not referring to the Revealed Preference Study and the NYT article, seeing as they used the same set of data. Of course the results would be the same.</p>
<p>And there are multiple reasons why Duke's self-reported cross-admit numbers come out better than those culled from the RP data. Lying isn't one of them.</p>
<p>Simba, you obviously missed the extense debates over what the NYT and RP mean (they are the same thing) - those two are hypothetical predictors using data from a survey of a set group of students. Probably a DEFINETE east-coast bias in the survey. Its funny though, considering Duke ranks 7th for sending students to top 15 professional schools which are mostly Northeastern, whereas NU and Cornell are outside the top 15 - that East Coast bias in the WSJ survey obviously does not hurt Duke since its based on real results. </p>
<p>Anyways, the Fact that you are saying it is the word of the NYT versus the word of Duke means a) you know nothing about the RP/NYT study done and b) the word of Duke is probably better (jk!). Please read up on the literature you are discussing before citing them. Thanks.</p>
<p>What Dean Guttentag of Duke provides is real numbers. Actual numbers are, usually, better than hypotheticals.They have NOT CONTRADICTED by Cornell or any school for that matter. Also, I guess if you think Duke is lying about how good it is, I guess other places are lying too. For example...US News. Wall Street Journal (which placed Duke top 10 for feeder rankings...where is NU?). National Merit Scholarship Competition (Duke has the 6th most National Merit Scholars in the country - with around 120, more than any school besides HYPSM). CollegeBoard.com. The Times Higher Education Supplement, which took a survey of dozens of major intenrational corporations asking them which undergrads they liked the best.</p>
<p>So Simba, I guess its easy to pretend like everything that contradicts your view as "lying."</p>
<p>I don't understand what is so far fetched about any of the above. Sure, I expect you'll spit out some story about how you know some Duke grad who scored a 1130 on his SATs and has rich parents. But so many institutions have done actual research (like above - NMSC, THES, US News, WSJ) which shows how great Duke really is. You, obviously, aren't planning on changing your opinions since you go to Northwestern (like me with Duke - except what I say is usually actually backed up by real things instead of anecdotes - ie "I know 3 dozen kids who went to NU who had 2.0 GPA's!" )</p>
<p>I mostly post on CC because CC'ers usually short change Duke, because for some reason the forum has a tad of bias that apparently does not favor non-California and non-Northeastern schools.</p>
<p>Simba I actually read a Cornell admissions office study (I wish I kept it) saying they lost 75% of cross admits to Duke.</p>
<p>Thoughtprocess,
"Duke is, in almost every way, on par with Brown Columbia Penn Dartmouth and a notch below HYPSM. Of course, in some ways it is worse and in some ways it is better, but in terms of academics and student strength it is an EQUAL to these schools, and thus is/should be recruited at as much." So does this mean Caltech is recruited/should be recruited more than Duke? I don't know how many Caltech grads are on Wall Street, but I would venture to guess not too many. Also, how does NYU Stern compare with Duke on Wall Street? I don't know if going to Duke would be an advantage. Thoughts?</p>
<p>Well, since like 95 percent of Cal Tech majors in engineering, its really up to the grads themselves to decide. IBanking and engineering are pretty different. The composition of students majoring in social sciences/econ/humanities is nearly identical for Columbia Brown Penn Duke and Dartmouth - Cal Tech is significantly different though. </p>
<p>My basic assumption is that corporations want the most talented students to work for them, so they would recruit at schools with the most talented students. Though Stern is much closer to Wall Street, Duke students are stronger. However, Stern is also one of the top business schools in the world so I don't really know. Going to Duke definetely isn't a disadvantage though...</p>
<p>The point I think almost always gets lost in these debates is that most of the top 15-20 schools are highly comparable. Most offer educations that are equal in nature. People on CC love to play up small differences in stats as huge differences, but when it comes down to it, a good GPA from Duke is not worth that much more than a good GPA from Northwestern. Again, the only real way to tell if Duke is “better” at getting people into grad schools than Northwestern is to see a group of students with the SAME stats (gpa, test scores, etc). Thus, if Duke is inherently better at getting its grads into good grad schools, then all else being equal, Duke should have higher rates of admittance. The only thing the data tells us now is that higher proportions of Duke graduates are in these schools than Northwestern graduates- they say nothing about each schools power at getting their students admitted in the first place.</p>
<p>TheThoughtProcess, only 40% of Caltech students are Engineers. The remainder are Econ, Bio, Chem, Math, Computer Science, and Physics majors.</p>
<p>I'd imagine Caltech students who actually want to go into i-banking do quite well regardless of major, seeing as its calibre of students is up there with HYPSM.</p>
<p>A lot of investment banking recruitment though is based on alumni/other connections and CalTech students are less likely to have this type of advantage in comparison to the other top five schools or even a Dartmouth/Brown/Duke/Williams/Amherst level of school. Many times, it isn't the highest caliber of students getting these jobs, but instead smart ones that interview the best.</p>
<p>Hey Alexandre, only around 5% of Cal Tech majors in social sciences - however, you can really major in anything and go on to Ibanking. However, Ibanking requires like social skills and leadership and that sort of thing - do you think Cal Tech grads get to do a lot besides studying? I mean, I'm guessing the extracurriculars they have time for are more limited. Just an assumption, might be flawed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What Dean Guttentag of Duke provides is real numbers. Actual numbers are, usually, better than hypotheticals.They have NOT CONTRADICTED by Cornell or any school for that matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Duke data isn't contradicted. What the RP/NYT study modeled are those students who never even applied to Duke in the first place, and hence would never be counted in the Duke cross-admit data.</p>
<p>Look, all school cross-admit data is incomplete because by definition it never includes anybody who doesn't even apply. What the RP/NYT study did is attempt to include that variable. You can argue about the methodology (although I and many others have detected no flaws in it), but I think the RP/NYT data provides a more complete picture because it includes this 'hidden' data.</p>
<p>Sakky - so students who actually get into Cornell but also get into Duke choose Duke typically, but students who didn't apply to Duke at all are more likely to apply to Cornell? This makes sense.</p>
<p>However, Duke doesn't need those students to apply anyways judging from comparisons of student bodies at each of the school</p>
<p>simbajune, do you understand why you are wrong now?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky - so students who actually get into Cornell but also get into Duke choose Duke typically, but students who didn't apply to Duke at all are more likely to apply to Cornell? This makes sense.
[/quote]
To me it makes perfect sense. I don't see why you haven't understood the implications of that study. </p>
<p>Also to consider is that the RP is several years old and the figures might have changed. I've also read somewhere that Cornell lists Duke, among other schools, as having a 40-60% cross admit rate. So it is not clear who has the correct data. </p>
<p>Colleges don't fully know their cross-admit data because those who enroll or turn down don't always tell the school where else they have been accepted. Colleges can also research the data through the FAFSA but not everyone applies sends in a FAFSA and the college might not voluntarily do extra research in order to use a more bias method to skew the reporting. Therefore, due to the lack of controlled data, I wouldn't be surprised if that ridiculously high number Duke gives out is incorrect due to bias in how they collect the data.</p>
<p>But for the interpretation using the data that is available, what sakky wrote is perfectly correct.</p>
<p>While it is an interesting theoretical study, I don't see why people care so much about revealed preferences and cross admit data. Just because 75% of Duke/Cornell cross admits pick Duke, doesn't mean I should pick Duke.</p>
<p>Aurelius - I wasn't being sarcastic when I said sakky made sense, I usually agree with sakky after a bit of persuading... so take everything you just said back.</p>
<p>Dean Guttentag, of Duke, said the past two years it got 75% of cross admits with Cornell (classes of 09 and 10)</p>
<p>Of course Duke isn't better than Cornell for everyone .</p>
<p>lol ok. Sorry about that.</p>
<p>Still, I'd like to emphasize that exact cross-admit rates are difficult to determine becuase schools are reliant mainly on voluntarily submitted data.</p>
<p>"Of course Duke isn't better than Cornell for everyone."</p>
<p>More like: "of course School X isn't better than School Y for everyone." Where X and Y are ANY different school, of course...... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>W&L turns out more Ibankers each year per capita than any other school. it also claims the most CEOs per capita after princeton. i met with the president of the NYSE this summer. he was a W&L alum.</p>