<p>
[quote]
No, Squiggle88, they don't talk to each other. Cross-admitting just means that a given student was admitted to more than one of the schools in question; no discussion amongst admissions departments need be involved.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, that is an interesting question, because if the admissions departments don't talk to each other, then how would they know where the students go. Obviously you can see that a certain admitted student did not matriculate, but then where did that student go? If the admissisons departments don't talk to each other, then how exactly would you know where he went? It's not like all of the students have to check in and say "I'm turning you do because I'm going to school X". Some will, but not all. And it's not like the schools publish their entire student directory so you can check to see where all of your admitted students ended up.</p>
<p>Cross-admit numbers are primarily based on student responses to surveys (even though not all answer) not on communication among admissions offices. It's as simple as that.</p>
<p>Besides, Squiggle88's question was:
[quote]
will harvard and mit talk to each other to see if the same person applied to both schools and then partly base their decision on that?
[/quote]
I'm willing to go out on a limb and assert that the answer to that is an unqualified no. They don't talk to each other about applicants"and then partly base their decision on that". I wouldn't care, honestly, if they compared lists of matriculants at other schools against their list of admitted students; so what, at that point? The question was whether applying to several "competing" schools would result in collusion of some sort among those admissions offices in the offer process, and I believe that's a flat "no". </p>
<p>Ben (either Ben, actually! :) ), feel free to correct me if you know otherwise; thanks!</p>
<p>At least this Ben completely concurs with mootmom.</p>
<p>I've never seen or heard anything to suggest the contrary -- communication about particular applicants during the decision process is way out there in the realm of fiction.</p>
<p>(Some schools do send out lists of their SCEA and ED applicants to peer schools so that cheating is caught if it happens, but that's an open secret and isn't too relevant to the question asked.)</p>
<p>Information is shared among top elites after the process is over to compile cross-admit data, but not prior to admission, with the exception of the ED schools sending out "no poaching" lists.</p>
<p>Say, with the Director of Admissions at Caltech. It would be interesting to know whether Caltech and MIT talk to get the cross-admit numbers that Marilee Jones refers to, or whether those are from the surveys. I'm betting he would also know the practices at other top institutions.</p>
<p>In my time on the admissions committee here at Caltech, I've never heard anything about ex post sharing of lists with other schools, which is why I don't find your claims so plausible (your failure to explain where you get your claims is another reason). But I'll check to make sure.</p>
<p>You remind me of "Joe from Caltech" - thinking that your status as a token student on the Caltech admissions committee makes you a national expert.</p>
<p>I know Joe, though we overlapped by only a little at Caltech.</p>
<p>"Token students" comprise at least 30% of the Caltech admissions committee (16 people, at least two of whom vote on every committee case.)</p>
<p>And I'll reiterate -- what admissions commitee have you served on, and why should anybody trust any of your assertions? (I predict this is a question you will not answer.)</p>
<p>Go back to the Harvard board, my friend. ;-)</p>
<p>From p. 18 of "The Tech" for January 18 - an interview with the MIT Director of Admissions:</p>
<p>"Currently Harvard and Yale are the only two schools to which MIT loses more students than it wins, with Harvard winning over two-thirds of the joint admits. MIT loses few students to other schools of technology."</p>
<p>Caltech is hardly a major player in the "cross-admit wars" - both because it is so tiny and has relatively few applicants, and secondly because its yield is so low, even though it discounts tuition substantially for top applicants in the form of so-called "merit scholarships" - which the Ivies, MIT and Stanford do not do.</p>
<p>At most of the top elites, financial aid is only awarded on the basis of need.</p>
<p>And Caltech recognizes its inability to compete, head to head, for whatever reason. From a recent in-house study:</p>
<p>"To increase the number of accepted students who choose to enter Caltech, the committee advised .... consideration of a large fund-raising campaign for non-need fellowships, reduced tuition or reduced self-help levels."</p>
<p>What? You started this whole thread with that quote. It says nothing about where she gets her data to be able to make those claims; it may be from the student-returned surveys, as BenG suggests, or it may be from "talking over coffee afterwards" as you suggest. We do not yet have an answer from someone at MIT as to which method they used to gather the data.</p>
<p>(PS: Doesn't look to me as if anyone has owned anyone here, just some snarky comments back and forth is all.)</p>