<p>Well I guess I am wrong. I just thought that the standards for Yale, for example, would be the same for Harvard and Princeton. Meaning, they are all more or less equally difficult to get into. Though that's not saying if you get into one you can get into all...</p>
<p>If the "standards were equal", they'd all have the same admit rate, yield rate, median SAT score, average GPA, breakdown by gender, strength in EC's - including sports, economic status, fraction of URMs and Asians, fraction of Internationals, etc etc.</p>
<p>They don't.</p>
<p>Schools vary in terms of how many students they can accept, and this is what people usually mean when they say selectivity. I think filmxoxo17 is saying that admissions committees are basically looking for the same thing in applicants; they differ only in selectivity, as defined by this percentage of acceptances.</p>
<p>I'd say that the actual criteria vary at all selective universities. A few students will get in everywhere, but, even at the most prestigious school (Harvard), most of the students will not have been accepted at any particular close rival (see my post above). Further, schools have different priorities/perceptions which leads to differing acceptances. Everyone loves the hs valedictorian with 800's who will write for the student newspaper while starting at quarterback. Harvard will accept the same kid who will get rejected by Princeton, however, for any of a number of reasons (the kid's from Boston; is the only applicant from some remote country; is a Harvard legacy; fills a need in the orchestra; is weird in a good way to the readers at H and weird in a negative way to the readers in NJ; or just because of the statistics when many schools get 15,000+ applications for fewer than 2000 spots). Schools also vary significantly in terms of how lopsided they want their students. The tech schools are the obvious examples, but even the general universities vary significantly in terms of how much they want the passionate oddball and how much they want the well-rounded student body president.</p>
<p><<even at="" the="" most="" prestigious="" school="" (harvard),="" of="" students="" will="" not="" have="" been="" accepted="" any="" particular="" close="" rival="">></even></p>
<p>.... again, I don't think you have any basis for this claim, and ask that you provide us with a link that supports it. I don't believe it is true - certainly in the case of students who <em>applied</em> to that "particular close rival."</p>
<p>I was just stating something that I thought to be true. I assumed that I was correct, but I may not be. I didn't mean to start a fact war. I have no basis for any of my claims other than anecdotal examples. Nevermind.</p>
<p>I don't quite understand your reasoning Byerly. Although this year Harvard came out on top in the US News selectivity ranking, that has not been the case every year. The Princeton Review and Atlantic Monthly ratings, I believe, also place Harvard behind a couple of other "peer" schools in selectivity.</p>
<p>I think you make two mistakes: One, in assuming that the pool of "Harvard caliber" applicants is more limited than it is, and two in exaggerating the importance of small differences between schools. </p>
<p>On the first score, Harvard adcoms themselves claim that they could replace their entire freshman class with a second, equally qualified pool of waitlisted and rejected students. Maybe you believe that, maybe you don't, but the point is that the 1600 members of any given class are not, even in the eyes of those who admitted them, clearly the 1600 best applicants in the bunch. This doesn't even take into account that not every top student applies to Harvard at all. No one can speculate as to how many students accepted early to Princeton and Yale ( I'll stick to the historic "big three" to avoid controversy) would have been accepted by Harvard as well, but I can tell you that it is the rare applicant who applies early to one of those schools, or who applies to them regular but does not apply to Harvard, because they think that there is a significant difference in the selectiviy. Conversely, I think there are very few, if any, students at P and Y who would have been clear rejects in the H pool So there are quite a few "Harvard caliber" applicants who won't be accepted, won't apply, or won't choose Harvard. The vast majority of the students of the schools, then, are equal in quality.</p>
<p>As far as the distinctions you mentioned go, they are similarly hard to quantify. A 30-50 point difference in SAT range is pretty meaningless; while an increased score increases the desirability of an applicant since the number is so highly reported, it doesn't always signify a better student. Had I earned a 770 rather than a 740 in math, I would still be taking "Stars for Stoners" as my lone required math course at Princeton, had I recieved a 780 rather than an 800 in verbal, it might reflect a small lapse in my vocabulary, but would say nothing about my skill at critical analysis in an English class. Average GPA is pretty hard to calculate - at 12/360 in my high school, my GPA was a 4.44, my roommate had a 4.3 as valdictorian of her 600 person school, and my suitmate doesn't even know how a 4- point scale works. Demographic differences may suggest different student bodies, but I don't see how it affects the difficulty of admissions, which is what, I believe, filmoxo was originally referring to.</p>
<p>Whew!</p>
<p>No time (or present inclination) to deal with all of that, but I will mention one point: while it is arguably true that 50 SAT points don't mean a helluva lot between two individuals, an <em>average</em> 50-point differential between an entire group of 1,650 and another entire group of 1,200 is a far more significant statistic.</p>
<p>"Selectivity" is one of those words that can be defined differently. My favorite measure (assuming matriculant groups of roughly equal statistical quality) is "RD yield." This filters out the distortions and game-playing introduced by such yield-boosting devices as Early Decision etc.</p>
<p>Of course the "Revealed Preference" rankings would be even better were they calculated regularly by a commercial outfit like USNews with the resources to do so.</p>
<p>The school with the highest yield needs to make the fewest compromises in assembling its class. And I believe it is safe to assume that the superstars who gain admission to 2, 3 or 4 top elites are the best of the best - whether it is their academic achievements, excellence in extra-curricular areas, or their personal qualities.</p>
<p>Yes, the perceived differences between the schools may be small, but it is clear that those differences often result in an enormous shift in direction among those superstar multiple admits. In some cases, between some schools, it is a virtual stampede. It is the presence in great numbers of these superstars - the "best of the best" - which can make such a big difference in the atmosphere of a campus.</p>
<p>I think it is impossible to argue that this "winner-take-all" tendency doesn't result in very real differences in quality (ie, "selectivity") between the "winning" school and the "losing" school in these faceoffs. Without knowing WHY this happens, or whether one thinks it SHOULD happen, the fact is that it DOES happen.</p>
<p>These patterns are slow to change. Today's cross-admit numbers have persisted for at least a generation. For historical evidence, I commend to you the last third of the recent book "The Chosen", by James Karabel, discussing admissions practices at Harvard, Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>See also this story about cross-admit stats at Princeton exactly 20 years ago. Insofar as the numbers are concerned, eerily, it could have been written yesterday!</p>