Is it a bigger achievement to be accepted into Columbia as undergrad or as grad?

[objobs]

<p>

@confidentialcoll

I never said Columbia’s athletes are comparable to stanford’s, my point was that you can’t take athletes out of the sat equation for stanford and not for columbia, because removing athletes from columbia’s sat calculation would also increase sat scores considerably.

</p>

<p>The higher the quality of athlete, the smaller the recruiting pool of high scorers. Since (unlike the Ivies) Stanford is not bound by the AI, some Stanford athletes (especially in the revenue sports such as football and men’s basketball) have a disproportionate impact on average SAT scores. This implies that if we took Stanford athletes out of the equation, Stanford’s average SAT scores would rise (considerably) more than Columbia’s average SAT scores would if we took Columbia athletes out of the equation.</p>

<p>

@confidentialcoll

Quote:
Stanford has a 72% yield without relying on the crutch of Early Decision. You don’t think Stanford could admit and enroll higher SAT scorers if that were its intent? Columbia could probably try to enroll higher scorers too; but then its yield would have trouble remaining above 50%. </p>

<p>actually I’m not sure Stanford could sustain a yeild anywhere near 72% if they took kids with better scores

</p>

<p>My point is that Stanford would still have a more than respectable yield if it only went after the highest scorers; for Columbia, not so much especially because the tip-toppy scorers are probably less likely to commit themselves to any particular school by Early Decision. They’d probably prefer to be “free agents” because they have their pick of schools. </p>

<p>

@confidentialcoll

Quote:
Yes, CC polls are very “scientific.” </p>

<p>While not guaranteed to be scientific I think I’ve given ample evidence

</p>

<p>We have extremely different standards for what counts as “evidence.” The CC polpulation is a neither random nor representative sample.</p>

<p>

@confidentialcoll

Quote:
Apparently, there’s one going around that says Harvard loses cross-admits to Yale. </p>

<p>whatever the revealed preferences study revealed might not be relevant anymore, things change and Yale could very well be beating Harvard for cross-admits this year.

</p>

<p>Who needs the Revealed Preferences study to figure out that Harvard clearly beats every other school (including Yale) for cross-admits? Harvard has the highest yield among top universities, the best FA, and by far the most prestige and name recognition, etc. Not to mention, Cambridge/Boston >>> New Haven. Do you have any evidence whatsoever other than some silly CC poll that Harvard does NOT beat Yale for cross-admits?</p>