<p>On page 7, it shows that Princeton practices ‘strategic admission’ process.
Princeton intentionally rejects top students because very very few top students choose Princeton over other schools.
As a result, Princeton’s yield (55%) is higher than it should be but the quality of entering class is far lower than other schools.</p>
<p>^ At the time of the study (i.e., ten years ago), Princeton (a) selected the largest portion of its entering class ED among all peer schools, and (b) had a strong reputation for doing just what the study suggested it did. So, yes, it was probably practicing yield protection.</p>
<p>Ah, I see we are once again to be honored by a visit from our new ‘old’ poster (Pokiman1234) who, counting this newest incarnation, has now appeared under more than half a dozen different aliases over the last couple of years. That poster’s comments do not deserve a response, but JHS often makes thoughtful observations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JHS is correct that the data on which that study was based are now well over a decade old and that the authors had not taken early decision programs fully into account. There are, however, even more devastating critiques that bring into question the entire notion of yield protection as an explanation for what they observed.</p>
<p>In that study, the authors showed via graphs that MIT had an almost perfect correlation between SAT scores and likelihood of admission. It was a smoothly upward sloping curve. Harvard’s curve flattened in the SAT ranges from the 93rd to the 98th percentiles and then moved upward from the 98th to the 100th percentiles. Yale (which the authors also suggested practiced some “yield protection”) showed a dip in the SAT ranges from the 93rd to the 98th percentiles and then a steep upward slope into the highest ranges. Princeton (which the authors suggested practiced more yield protection than Yale) showed a slightly deeper trough in the SAT ranges from the 93rd to the 98th percentiles and then, like both Harvard and Yale, a steep rise from the 98th to the 100th percentiles.</p>
<p>The theory proposed by the authors was that the dip for Yale and Princeton in this SAT range from the 93rd to the 98th percentiles was the result of a conscious policy of avoiding accepting the students who were less likely to matriculate. The theory was that these students (i.e. those in the 93rd to the 98th percentiles) were more likely to matriculate at Harvard and by accepting fewer of them, yield would be protected.</p>
<p>On the face of it this never made much sense since it never really explained why all of the schools would show a very large increase in the probability of admission in the 98th and 99th percentiles. If the authors’ theory was correct, wouldn’t these students have been even more desired and thus even less likely to matriculate than those in the 93rd to 98th percentiles? The authors gave a not-too-convincing explanation that the schools accepted these highest range students because not to do so would make their devious admissions strategies even more obvious.</p>
<p>This is just poor social science.</p>
<p>The most devastating critique has come from others (I’m sorry that I can’t find the articles to link now) who pointed out that this interpretation of the data left MIT’s curve totally unexplained. Was MIT less concerned about its yield and why was Harvard’s curve flat in the 93rd to 98th percentile SAT ranges unlike MIT’s that showed no such thing? Was Harvard practicing ‘yield protection’ against MIT?</p>
<p>What these critics have pointed out (and in the course of doing so have completely undermined the study) is that the authors failed to take two other related and critically important elements into account. Specifically, Hoxby and the others failed to consider the effect of overall student body size and the percentage of each student population made up of varsity athletes.</p>
<p>A higher percentage of varsity athletes in the student population will cause more of a dip in this ‘high’ but not ‘highest’ range of SAT scores. MIT has by far the lowest percentage of varsity athletes, and there is an unbroken upward sloping relationship between SAT scores and the probability of admission. Harvard, Princeton and Yale, all committed to the same range of athletic programs, each have approximately the same total number of varsity athletes and far more of them than MIT. However, the same total number of athletes at Harvard will constitute a lower percentage of the total student body than will be the case at the significantly smaller Yale and a far lower percentage than at Princeton where, especially at that time, the student population was dramatically smaller than at the other two schools.</p>
<p>The effect of these differences should have been clear.</p>
<p>Though all three schools admit varsity athletes who are strong students, many of whom have the highest SAT scores, it is a fact that, on average, the varsity student admits have an SAT range much closer to the 90th than to the 98th percentile range. If a higher percentage of the student body consists of this group, then there must necessarily be correspondingly fewer offers of admission just above this group. Each of these schools, if forced to choose, will be more likely to accept the California all-state quarterback with a 4.0 GPA and an SAT score in the 90th percentile range, than a very good student without significant extracurricular accomplishments who has an SAT score in the 90th to 98th percentile range. There are far more applicants in that latter group and very few of the star quarterbacks. In the very highest ranges of the SAT, all three schools showed increases in the probability of admission in part because these students, like the star athletes, are a much rarer breed and, like those athletes, highly recruited.</p>
<p>This is not my theory, but one detailed by critics of the Hoxby study. I suspect that their criticisms are well-founded as the authors of that study have been unsuccessful in getting the original paper accepted by leading scholarly journals. Given how old it is now, it’s probably a moot point. I would also guess that if similar curves were drawn for small LACs we would see even more pronounced ‘dips’ in the relationship of SAT ranges to probability of admission. At these smallest schools, varsity athletes tend to constitute even larger percentages of the student body. Williams and Amherst, in particular, are in this situation. They have some of the brightest students in the country with astronomical SAT scores but I would predict that the likelihood of admission for the high (but not ‘highest’) SAT scorer who is ‘unhooked’ dips considerably.</p>
<p>The other part of their study dealt with the likely preferences of students. As the authors themselves noted, their study did not lead to the creation of any kind of reliable ranking, or league table, but instead, suggested a method for creating such a table if more data (and more reliable data) were available. Not being a mathematician, Ill take no stand on the accuracy of their model in predicting these outcomes. I would, however, question some of their conclusions resulting from the model. In fact, the outcomes they suggest in their model seem improbable. They predicted, for instance, that students interested in engineering, math, computer science and the physical sciences were more likely to matriculate at Yale than at M.I.T. when given the choice. This may be true, but it runs counter to general wisdom and to what is regularly reported by students here on CC.</p>
<p>What has changed at Princeton (and is about to change at Yale with the expansion of the undergraduate student body) is a significant increase in class size and a concomitant decrease in the percentage of varsity athletes in the overall student population. Were the same curves to be drawn today for Princeton and Yale, they would almost certainly look more like Harvard’s.</p>
<p>If Yale expands, more students will choose to attend Yale over Princeton.
Princeton’s yield will plummet further and admit rate will increase.
Princeton will be ‘easier’ school to get into.</p>
<p>PtonGrad2000 - thank you for the thoughtful and thorough analysis. I applaud your patience.</p>
<p>pokiman1234 aka jomjom or germancar - thank you for once again demonstrating your analytical abilities so clearly. I was tempted to refute your earlier claim, but it seems you’ve beat me to it.</p>
<p>It is difficult to hold my tongue when I read jomjomesque references to the revealed preference study that typically end with “all students prefer H to P” type idiocy.</p>
<p>Consider the example of my DS: dream applicant; val, natl and state AP scholar, top scores, national EC awards, plus highly recruited athlete from an underrepresented mountain time zone State. He (we) knew next to nothing about elite schools. HYP and the rest were just names. When we realized the breadth of his options we undertook a thorough investigation of his choices. Very thorough, obsessively thorough. Trust me, a well-informed whirlwind tour of America’s most elite colleges complete with the red carpet is eye-opening, to say the least.</p>
<p>DS chose Princeton and has never looked back.</p>
<p>Sorry jomjom, say what you will, but some applicants actually think Princeton is best, just as others prefer Stanford, Brown, Yale, Rice, or BYU.</p>
<p>Good luck with acceptance to the college of your choice.</p>
<p>Well, my feeling about Princeton changed from a top college with excellent FA of 2 years ago to a preppy student atmosphere and perhaps too conservative leaning, this year. Two years ago my S would have chosen Pton over Yale, but today my S2 will choose Yale over Pton in a heartbeat. Of course my S1 did not apply to Yale but was rejected by Pton that he had no choice. My S2 decided to apply to Pton only at the last minute, but he liked Yale from early on. Will he be accepted by yale and/or princeton? idk. But if he does get accepted by both Y and P, he will clearly choose Y because he really likes the social atmosphere at Y and really dislikes the ‘poor’ eating clubs at P. However, if he is accepted by both, the final decision will come down to FA and his understanding of where he can finish premed better, in addition to the campus culture.</p>
<p>^Certainly your son should attend the school that he sees as the best fit, but I’m not sure what you mean by “too conservative” and “too preppy”. My son is as liberal as they come and very down to earth (read…not preppy). He has had no trouble finding a great group of friends to hang out with. Certainly there are many different types of students on campus. The diversity is really incredible. I see this as a positive thing. So does my son.</p>
<p>Also, the eating clubs are the most misunderstood aspect of Princeton. You should try to understand them a bit before belittling them.</p>
<p>Hopingdad, I’m sorry that your son was not accepted to Princeton. I understand that he is at Cornell so he must be a terrific student and it’s probably Princeton’s loss. Had he been accepted to Princeton and matriculated it might also have given both you and your son a chance to dispel those false stereotypes. I wish him the best of luck in his planned career in medicine.</p>
<p>soomoo, thanks for the input. somewhere i read ( slightly right) Pton - harvard - (center) - yale (slightly left) in terms of political inclination which seemed to agree with the perception i had. i can be certainly wrong.</p>
<p>monster, you may be extreme right ?? lol</p>
<p>PtonGrad2000, no intention to argue with a pton grad here. my s had an excellent FA (no loan – which is a given in pton, harvard, …; but not at cornell) along with a scholarship money that he can use in his work. he is both content (in terms of work) and slighly unhappy (in temrs of social atmosphere) there. but he is extremely happy with food there. my somewhat derogatory remark of ‘poor’ eating club was made in view of what i hear about this club inducing unnecessary ‘social tension’ (for lack of right word) and cornell’s generous and tasty food. sorry, i meant no offense to the school, particularly its alums. my friend’s both children graduated from pton, another colleague’s son graduated from pton, many years ago, all coming from the same highschool as my sons. in the recent several years, however, yale accepted 1 or 2 students every year, but pton never accepted any. so, i had a slightly negative feeling to pton from this alone (lack of acceptance). this fact, along with my S1’s rejection, almost kept my S2 from applying this year. what i said in my previous post though is my true feeling which is slightely ‘eased’ now by soomoo’s post.</p>
<p>Whether Princeton’s admission rate was 5% or 50%, it just doesn’t matter. Princeton is pretty much the best place ever, at least I’ve had the perfect experience here so far. So ■■■■■■, let’s just drop it, okay? Okay…</p>
<p>hopingdad, Princeton is at least slightly left.</p>
<p>In the last presidential election, 79.3% of students said they supported Obama, while only 15.6% supported McCain. Furthermore, 96.7% of faculty and staff donations during the last election cycle were made in support of Democrats.</p>
<p>Princeton is indeed easier to get into than Harvard or Yale (although all are difficult), unless one has a legacy connection at the other two- also, I suspect that more cross-admits will attend H or Y over Princeton (that said, I have a slightly pro-P bias given the emphasis on undergraduate education which is the crowning strength of the elite LAC’s, and the town has it all over New Haven).</p>