is it bad to refuse UPenn for Columbia?

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of Pennsylvania
21

<p>Muerte - the only problem is, sometimes, being a top ten school doesn’t strongly sway yield all that much. When the study was done, Duke University enjoyed a period of remarkably high rank - for all of the 1990s, Duke was in the top 10 in US News, and was, in 1998 (probably around when the study was conducted), as high as #3 in the nation. Brown, on the other hand, was ranked significantly lower than Duke in the USN rankings, and sometimes the disparity was striking. In 1993, Brown was ranked 18th, and Duke was ranked 7th.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, despite this consistent disparity in rank between these two schools, according to the revealed preferences study, Brown took 80% (80%!) of the cross-admits from Duke. Every other factor points to - at best - these schools being peers. From financial resources to selectivity to options after graduation, there seems to be no great disparity between Duke and Brown. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of applicants that got into these two seemingly similar schools picked Brown.</p>

<p>What does this indicate? That factors beyond prestige or rank heavily weigh into an accepted student’s final decision. In the 90s, Brown continued to enjoy its reputation as the most laid back, celebrity-infused elite school in the land. Duke, with its southern location and perhaps more pre-professional feel on campus, probably lost out to Brown more because of “soft” factors, rather than any perceived superiority present in Providence, RI. Indeed, if you go by the rankings, Duke is consistently ranked 6-10 spots higher than Brown for the entire decade. </p>

<p>What does this show? Well, most likely, this means that Penn’s decade of higher rank - up from as low as #16 in 94 to #4 now - may not sway a student’s preferences all that much. Now, Penn is at #4 and Brown is consistently ranked around #15 or #16. Nevertheless, Brown continues to maintain its alluring reputation, so I wouldn’t be surprise if, just as when the study was conducted, 65%+ of cross admits choose Brown over Penn. </p>

<p>Again, this by no means indicates that Brown is more prestigious or deserving of a higher rank than UPenn. Rather, it just shows that in terms of all the soft factors - like location or culture or whatever - that become important when a student chooses between two similarly situated schools, Brown may still have the edge over many of its rivals. </p>

<p>To bring this back around, I’d imagine that the same holds true for Columbia. While Philadelphia has improved and UPenn has bold plans for West Philly, nothing seems to match the pull of NYC, so just bc Penn is 4-5 spots higher than Columbia in the rankings does not mean that 60% of cross-admits arent still picking Columbia over Penn. </p>

<p>Again, if rankings and perceived prestige influenced yield more, you’d think Duke would do better against Brown, or that Princeton wouldn’t lose 65% of the cross admits to Yale (for most of the 90s, Princeton was ranked higher than Yale). Again, all of this data merely shows that yield is not a particularly good indicator of prestige, but rather, we simply don’t know enough about the factors that drive these decisions for applicants.</p>

<hr>

<p>To look at USN rankings through the years, go here:</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/[/url]”>http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

22

<p>Cue7, I can’t deny your examples - but might they simply be exceptions to the trend? For example, Duke loses 80% of cross admits to Brown (and 66% to Penn, actually, based on that same study - Duke and Columbia shirts are by far the most-worn on campus behind Penn), but perhaps that’s just because of the Ivy brand name. Duke is also <em>slightly</em> less selective than those schools (although quickly catching up, I must admit - this year it might actually break even). But between schools of comparable selectivity AND rank, they truly split down the middle: my chief example would be Dartmouth and Columbia, but Stanford and Yale (or was it Princeton? I’m not looking at the chart right now) also come to mind. Brown (and Harvard, of course, which stoops to no one) are the only real outliers of the trend. At any rate, I would argue that a 60/40 split is almost comparable - a school only has to lose 5% of its cross-admits to even it out to 50/50, if you think about it.</p>

<p>Furthermore, rankings have definitely shown tangible benefits to some schools: WashU is the most obvious success story of the past 20 years, but UChicago is undeniably benefiting from its top 10 ranking right now. Its applications have literally exploded over the last 4 years.</p>

23

<p>Muerte - I’m just not sure. Before beginning my response, I’m just curious - what do you think this revealed preferences study shows? You state above that “between schools of comparable selectivity AND rank, [these schools] truly split down the middle.” My question is, how are you determining what schools have comparable selectivity at rank? </p>

<p>I bring this up because of the following context: </p>

<p>Keep in mind that this study was done in the late 90s when a school like Duke should have been at the height of its popularity: it enjoyed strong nationwide recognition because of its superb basketball teams, it had been ranked in the top ten for a solid decade and even as high as #3 in the country, and it had financial resources to match the offerings at places like Penn and Columbia. Moreover, as I’m sure you remember, in the late 90s, Penn was just beginning to come out of its struggles, as was Columbia, At that point in history, I’d argue that Duke’s rank exceeded both Penn’s and Columbia’s, and Duke’s selectivity was probably AT LEAST in line with Penn’s at that time. Remember, in the late 90s, Penn hadn’t yet fully begun the huge changes of the Rodin plan that pushed the school so far forward.</p>

<p>Despite these facts, Duke OVERWHELMINGLY lost the cross-admit with these supposedly peer schools. Duke lost 75% of the cross-admits with Columbia, 80% of the cross-admits with Brown, and 66% of the cross-admits with Penn. Yes, the Ivy brand is persuasive, but for most of the 90s, Duke was ranked significantly ahead of all these other schools, and Duke in the 90s really had great brand recognition, honestly, it was at least comparable to Penn’s reputation for most of that decade, if not moreso. I could see some applicants being swayed by the ivy label, but you’d think other 18 year olds would rather have the cache of going to a “top 5” school that gets huge coverage for basketball every year. </p>

<p>Moreover, “ivy brand” can’t explain the significant disparities in cross-admits between ivy league schools. I think you’ve read Karabel’s “the chosen,” but to refresh your memory, the author painstakingly recounts just how sensitive schools are about yield. I don’t think Princeton would see Yale taking 65% of the cross-admits as “basically breaking even.” Moreover, I don’t think Penn officials would see Columbia taking 62% of the cross-admits as basically breaking even. As Karabel describes, Harvard kept meticulous records of the schools that took more than TEN STUDENTS from its pool of acceptees. </p>

<p>Finally, another ivy school that fares quite badly is Cornell. Cornell loses HANDILY to ALL of its ivy peers. Remember, again, that in the late 90s, Cornell had a pretty good reputation - a rep that was probably stronger then that it is today. Cornell had been ranked as high as #6 in the late 90s, and finished in the top ten a few other times in the 90s. (Now, Cornell is consistently ranked in the teens.) Cornell’s also always had a good academic reputation, and it’s not that much more isolated than a place like Dartmouth. Despite all of this, Cornell lost about 70% (70%!) of cross-admits with schools that you think would be its peers - Columbia, Penn, etc. </p>

<p>I’m curious how you would explain all of these discrepancies. I don’t think “being an ivy” is quite enough to explain the overwhelmingly disparate outcomes in cross-admits between a Duke and a Brown. Moreover, there are some near 50/50 splits in the study - namely between Dartmouth and Columbia or Brown and Columbia. Besides that, once you get to the 60/40 range, I think most admissions counselors would argue that there’s something behind these numbers (its more than just “roughly breaking even.”). </p>

<p>So I don’t know if this is a situation where Brown is just an outlier, and all the other schools just neatly fall in line. Cornell does puzzlingly badly, Yale for some reason takes a great number of the cross-admits with Princeton, Penn loses handily to Brown and Columbia, etc. </p>

<p>So, besides showing the dominance of Harvard, I don’t know exactly what these rankings show. Reminding ourselves that this data was collected in the late 90s only makes matters more confusing. In the late 90s, Penn and Columbia were not NEARLY as selective as they are now, Duke was at the height of its popularity, and Cornell actually had some higher rankings and a better academic rep than it does now. </p>

<p>Just in general, I’m always curious about what yield can indicate - so I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this. I just don’t know if the “ivy brand name” is enough to explain Penn, Columbia’s, and Brown’s dominance over Duke, and I certainly don’t know how ivy brand name can explain the puzzling disparities in cross-admits between ivy league schools. </p>

<p>Finally, you bring up the issue of Chicago’s changing status based on its consistent (and recent) top ten rank. As a Chicago alum, this is of course something I follow with interest. In researching the issue and to be frank, however, sure, the top ten rank helps, but the jump in apps came more because of the switch to the common app and the hiring of a new “big numbers” admissions director. Moreover, Chicago’s yield has changed very little over the past decade. When I left Chicago, yield was around 35%, and this past year, yield was about 36%. </p>

<p>I think in terms of yield, Chicago loses VERY handily to all the ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT, etc., but I think it also loses quite consistently to schools that traditionally don’t carry as much cache: Northwestern, Wash U, Emory, etc. Especially now, if you look at financial resources, academic clout, and (after this year) selectivity, Chicago (with a projected 18-19% accept rate for this year) would at least be vaguely in the same ball park as Brown, Penn, Dartmouth, Duke, etc. I would assume, however, that Chicago is still losing about 75% of the cross-admits with all of these schools & is still losing 60%+ of cross admits with Northwestern, Georgetown, etc. </p>

<p>What does all this evidence show me? I really think it hints at the “emotion work” that goes behind making a decision between two very similar schools. Schools that have certain reputations - be it the laid back, celebrity-infused culture at Brown, the location of NYC for Columbia, the elite but animal-house laden stereotype of Dartmouth, etc. benefit tremendously in the battles with similarly situated schools. </p>

<p>Put another way, in the late 90s and beyond, I think places like Chicago and Cornell suffer greatly (and at times, rightly) for their intense, grind-it-out reputations. Cornell has a rep for suicides, Chicago has a rep for overly bookish egg headed types, and these factors work against the schools. Going up the ladder, I think Yale benefited from its generally more welcoming, communal student-life rep than Princeton, which had a stratified air that may actually turn off some 18 year olds. </p>

<p>So, ultimately, I don’t see yield and revealed preference as doing a good job of showing pecking order. Rather, I see this study as showing that certain schools have certain very alluring qualities, but, without further study, it’s hard to figure out just what those qualities are. </p>

<hr>

<p>One final addendum: Chicago’s yield may rise to about 40% this year, partially because of a newfound interest in taking more early applicants, but I think, while a good ranking certainly can’t hurt, Chicago’s strident and methodical investment in improving student life on campus is beginning to pay dividends. Chicago’s really trying to shed its “where fun comes to die” reputation, and is investing in shiny new dorms, an expensive new arts center, fancier athletics facilities, more grade inflation, etc. I think the top ten rank helps, but word of mouth that Chicago is changing helps even more, just as Rodin’s plan for Penn didn’t really alter the ranking that much (Penn’s been in the top ten since 97 or so), but did really change the vibe on campus. </p>

<p>(Final note - this makes Penn’s dominance over Duke, Cornell, etc. in the 90s even more puzzling. I was choosing between Penn and Chicago when I made my undergrad decision, and let me tell you, in the mid-90s, Penn was a very, very, VERY different place. On the other hand, I always thought Cornell was gorgeous, and given that it was ranked higher than Penn for a lot of the 90s, I’m curious as to why it lost 70% of the cross-admits with Penn.)</p>

24

<p>One other puzzling cross-admit outcome: the result between Duke and Georgetown in the late 90s. In the late 90s, while Duke was usually ranked in the top 5, Georgetown was usually ranked around #23 or so. Moreover, Duke had considerably better financial resources, better academic departments (especially in the sciences), placed probably just as well (if not better, especially in the financial industry), had a vastly better, nationally recognized basketball program, was just as selective, etc. etc. </p>

<p>Despite all this, what happens in the cross-admit battle? Duke (barely) LOSES the cross-admit battle with Georgetown. Duke only gets 49% of the cross-admits. Despite being ranked maybe TWENTY slots higher, having a hugely better endowment, having a better academic reputation, having significantly better departments in certain popular undergrad majors (economics, biology, etc.), Duke has no edge in the cross-admit battle with Gtown.</p>

<p>Pretty much any study you could do would place Duke (probably significantly) above Georgetown in the late 90s - yet, according to the revealed preferences study, there would be no discernible difference between these schools. In this case, ivy brand is of course not a factor.</p>

<p>So, with all this in mind, how would you explain this puzzling outcome in this cross-admit battle?</p>

25

<p>Cue7 - you have made excellent empirical observations which raise big questions, ones at which I can only gape and wonder. I truly have no idea. Perhaps Duke’s undergrad is vastly underrated. Georgetown, I say with some confidence, is in many ways overrated.</p>

<p>College’s cyclical popularity, the dominance of HYP, the cross-admit vagaries of Chicago and Duke - these are trends at which we can only guess. Boosting prestige and admissions is a devilishly difficult job, and more often than not colleges fall victim to chance; they do not triumph in spite of it.
Cornell’s low preference, however, is far more understandable than Duke’s or Chicago’s. Despite the fact that it has top engineering and CAS, it is saddled with state schools that belie the formers’ selectivity and consequently lower their perceived prestige. I say this as a former student. Consider this: It’s the late '90s. you are accepted to Cornell CAS and Dartmouth. Both have relatively similar acceptance rates, SAT averages, student profiles, etc. But another girl from your school was just accepted to Cornell ILR. She has much lower grades and SATs. She was rejected from Dartmouth. So which school are you going to choose? Because yes, Cornell CAS could be as selective as its peers, but accepted students aren’t going to want to share the spotlight, and be associated, with lower quality students in the state specialty schools.</p>

<p>From that standpoint, colleges like Columbia, Penn and Chicago are much easier to manipulate and guide to higher prestige. Again, though, it does not explain the differences in yield at places like Duke.</p>

26

<p>Muerte - that’s an interesting response regarding Cornell. In the late 90s, like now, Dartmouth was/is more selective than Cornell, and I suppose not being “saddled” with state schools may increase Dartmouth’s allure. </p>

<p>At the same time, if you compare Cornell’s cross-admit rates with other schools, puzzling questions arise once again. Remember, in the late 90s, Penn was vastly different (and weaker) than it is today. West Philly was seen as an iffy area, philly generally was still seen as a crime-riddled and economically depressed area, and the school wasn’t terribly selective (maybe around a 35% accept rate). Nevertheless, Penn took 64% of cross-admits from Cornell. You’d think at that point, worried helicopter parents might push that ratio to being closer to 55/45 in favor of Penn. </p>

<p>Other questions emerge for Cornell - despite the fact that Duke is ranked higher, has more national recognition, etc., Cornell still takes 55% of the cross admits from Duke. Also, despte that fact that Gtown is ranked considerably lower and not in the ivy league, Gtown takes a 50/50 split with Cornell. </p>

<p>Also, another puzzling find - Northwestern, which was inching close to the top 10 in the late 90s, was surging in popularity because of a recent rose bowl appearance in college football, and has no state schools and is in a good location, loses close to 70% of the cross admits to Cornell. You’d think these numbers would be closer to a 50/50 split as well, if what you say (that certain admits to Cornell’s state schools can dilute Cornell’s allure) holds true.</p>

<p>Yet another strange issue with Cornell - it only takes 55% of the cross admits from UVa. Now, the applicants researched were all pretty wealthy, so I don’t think merit aid counts as much here. Anyways, it seems strange that Cornell can take so much more from Northwestern or, really, Duke, than UVa, which is seen as a notch lower and, according to your metric, would lose some prestige as a public school. </p>

<p>Again, it doesn’t make sense to me that 65% of cross-admits of Northwestern and Cornell pick Cornell, and then cornell only wins 55% of the cross-admits with UVa, a school that should do even WORSE against a better endowed mostly private rival. </p>

<p>So again, all the cross-admit battles reveal to me is that something beyond a conception of prestige seems to matter. If prestige was all that mattered, Yale wouldn’t beat Princeton so handily in the cross-admit game, Penn would not lose so soundly to Brown, and Duke would not split so evenly with Georgetown. I think, given these results, that factors such as location, perceived “vibe” of the school, etc. matter for a LOT. </p>

<p>Put another way, I think kids deciding between Penn and Cornell in the late 90s generally chose Penn not because of Cornell’s association with state schools, but rather because Cornell had a reputation of being a cold, isolated, grade deflated, and grind-it-out place, whereas Penn was seen as a social, enjoyable school more closely located to NYC, DC, etc. Cornell was ranked higher than Penn for most of the 90s, but Cornell still suffered mainly because of its reputation - not a perceived gap in prestige (in the late 90s, by most measures, these two schools were on par with one another). </p>

<p>Similarly, I think schools such as Duke and Northwestern suffer because of their location and reputation. The survey focused on east coast students, and many would prefer to stay closer to home than take the 13 hour drive to NU, or the 12 hr drive to Duke. This helped Cornell in its cross-admit battles with these schools, whereas UVa, which is closer, enjoys the benefit of a better location. Similarly, Georgetown’s standing as the top school in the city that is a a locus of power is tremendously appealing to applicants, and allows Gtown to do quite well in schools ranked FIFTEEN to TWENTY spots higher (such as Duke and Cornell). </p>

<p>Again, all this shows me is that the revealed preferences don’t necessarily do a great job of revealing the prestige order of the top american schools. This study really just shows me that more research needs to be done to unravel the puzzles that pop up when looking at the cross-admit battles.</p>

27

<p>Your understanding of Cornell’s cross admit losses (“Cornell had a reputation of being a cold, isolated, grade deflated, and grind-it-out place”) don’t explain why MIT fares so well (it has the same reputation, I would say) - although it being on a different playing field in terms of prestige could have that effect, and indeed it loses similar numbers of applicants to places like Yale and Harvard if memory serves.</p>

<p>I think that, more than the theories you advanced, the revealed preference data simply show that no one truly understands how applicant’s decisions are made on a vast scale. There hard hard factors such as financial aid and specialty programs, which bear great weight, and then there are things like perceived reputation (this is as easily influenced as, where did the valedictorians of your high school generally matriculate? The math geniuses? etc.). Flocks of people think similarly about cars and iPods, but not, it seems, about colleges. It seems like everyone knows that kid who turned down Harvard to attend a Columbia/Penn/Brown/Dartmouth, or even their local state school, simply because they felt like it. The world of admissions is, without any sort of extensive applicant feedback, utterly inscrutable.</p>

28

<p>you should refuse penn and go to columbia </p>

<p>Columbia is awesome for being in NY</p>

<p>also less taken up spots for me =]</p>

29

<p>what an interesting discussion on what seems to be a fundamentally flawed study. You got a non-diversified group, you missed out on a lot of decision makers (parents) and these results were never repeated. Also, how was the survey conducted? </p>

<p>“If admitted to both, would you attend Cornell or Duke?”
<em>thought: Cornell came first</em>
“Cornell!”</p>

<p>Seriously… statistics…</p>

<p>The average person has 1 testicle and 1 ovary. That same average person will pick Cornell over Duke about 70% of the time.</p>

30

<p>“The average person has 1 testicle and 1 ovary”</p>

<p>whoa, what?</p>

31

<p>blah blah blah which one is better by an arbitrary, made up statistic. </p>

<p>I don’t know where you are from, BUT NYC is like THE most amazing city if I do say so myself. I’m sure philadelphia is great too but if youre looking for more than a top ten school, Columbia would be really great bc of location, location, location! It’s far enough to not have a huge effect on the city as UPenn has on Philadelphia, yet youre in the middle of everything and Columbia’s Upper West Side location is like a college town but then you have the city at your fingertips. I’m not applying to Columbia bc I need to get out of NYC but I wish I didn’t want to get away b/c I think it’s an amazing campus/school in the best possible city. </p>

<p>congrats on your likely from Penn though! You technically don’t need to worry about this for a few months but if you get in you have to visit both and do all the overnight if you havent bc that will definitely help you decide. It’s a tough choice but consider yourself lucky if you are to to make it.</p>

32

<p>Muerte - overall, I heartily agree, and I stated as such in my previous posts - all the revealed study really shows is that we simply DON’T KNOW why students pick one college over another. I posit that all sorts of soft factors could matter, but this is really just a stab in the dark on my part.</p>

<p>With regards to MIT, maybe it fares better than Cornell because it lacks any true peers? So, while Cornell has several peers that mirror its research, facilities, departments, etc. MIT is such a specific school, and widely regarded as the BEST (or at least one of the top 3-4) at what it does. What are the other schools that reemble MIT? There’s nothing, really. Also, location in Cambridge and cross-school learning with Harvard for all the departments MIT doesn’t really have (English, Art History, etc etc.) can’t hurt either. </p>

<p>Again, this is just speculation. All we really know is that prestige/reputation etc. are a factor in a decision, but there could be so many other factors playing into a student’s final decision about a school. </p>

<p>Overall, though, again, I agree - we simply don’t know how students make these decisions. What frustrates me, however, is that people look at this revealed preference study and assume it reveals something about prestige or pecking order. Well, is Brown so much more prestigious than Penn? Is Yale so much more prestigious than Princeton? Or what about Duke and Georgetown? Again, the revealed preferences study should more likely indicate that we simply don’t know.</p>

33

<p>Cue7, I recently read an article that you may find interesting, regarding the meteoric rise of Brown admissions in the late '60s from Ivy doormat to trendy brand-name - I believe MonyDad posted it.</p>

<p>At any rate, the director of admissions spent several years sowing strategic admits at all the prep schools - Exeter, St. Paul’s, etc. - as well as the famous Californian and New York academies - in order to boost name recognition. Then he deviously started arbitrarily rejecting some of the most sought after candidates - apparently this turned a number of heads at college counselors’ offices, and within the decade Brown was one of the leading attractions for college-bound seniors.</p>

34

<p>Muerte, that is interesting. Could you post a link to the article? Thanks!</p>

<p>Also, I’ve heard a bit about Brown’s rise. It’s interesting because in the 30s-50s, it was seen as a more backwater place, and then it really surged after that. I always thought one of the big reasons for this was the change in the curriculum that coincided nicely with the rise of the hippie movement in the 60s. Anyways, please do send that article along - I’d love to read it. (Especially because, well, Brown’s crazy popularity has always puzzled me a bit - it does not seem to have the academic standing of a Columbia or Chicago or Penn or whatever, but students LOVE IT, and readily turn down these other schools for it.)</p>

35

<p>The New York Times Magazine had an article in the mid-1970s about how Brown had strategically built its popularity by marketing itself to certain target demographics as muerteapablo has described. Perhaps that’s the article to which she is referring. If I recall correctly, Brown actually hired a Madison Avenue advertising firm to survey the target demographics (potential applicants at certain prep schools, etc.) as to what kinds of programs they wanted to see, and then Brown went about creating such programs (open curriculum with pass/fail, individualized majors, etc.). As I recall, this was all very well documented.</p>

36

<p>The Madison Avenue hire is bizarre, and also fitting considering that Brown was eventually featured in Vogue or some other fashion rag… probably not coincidental, I now realize.</p>

37

<p>Here’s a preview of the NY Times Magazine article (you have to pay to see the whole thing):</p>

<p>[THE</a> MISSING MIDDLE; ON CAMPUS Students are clamoring to go to Brown–o… - Free Preview - The New York Times](<a href=“http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C15FC3D5B177B8EDDA80894DA405B868BF1D3]THE”>http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C15FC3D5B177B8EDDA80894DA405B868BF1D3)</p>

38

<p>I’m not sure that the Madison Avenue angle is mentioned in the NY Times article (I’m too cheap to pay to find out :rolleyes:). But I do recall having read about that somewhere–I may be conflating two different articles (it HAS been a few decades :slight_smile: ).</p>

<p>I also recall reading or hearing that after its success with Brown, the same advertising firm offered its services to Penn, which declined the offer.</p>

39

<p>

</p>

<p>Spectravoid if you don’t understand that statement then you are definitely not getting into Columbia or Penn…</p>

40

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s simple–the lack of curriculum, pressure, etc appeals to the intellectual sloth in all of us. I think it’s an abomination that one can go through their entire undergraduate degree without a single course in math, or science, or English, but I can certainly see the appeal to exhausted high schoolers.</p>