More on Harvard/Princeton cross-admit story

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
121

<p>
[quote]
The old-boy network isn't much good in an economy like this; it's competence that counts." (aparent5)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I disagree to some extent: I agree to the extent that incompetent people will not get much of an advantage from "networking". However, by definition, a rigorous selection process (here more rigorous than there, but still) will create an alumni population that is not unlikely to be competent - or, what's more: influential - in one respect or another.</p>

<p>In bad times (superior) brand name and networks count a lot. It is rather "competence" that becomes a commodity if there is an oversupply of it. Guess who has the edge, all else being equal?</p>

122

<p>
[quote]
According to research from the University of Pennsylvania, the percentage of top executives at Fortune 100 companies who were Ivy league undergrads dropped from 14 percent to 10 percent from 1980 to 2001. (aparent5)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are Princeton or Harvard right for everyone? Certainly not. </p>

<p>Can one make a decent career without Ivy League (or Harvard) "mystique"? Certainly.</p>

<p>Is the proportion of CEOs of a highly select group (Fortune 100) who are alumni of certain schools a good indicator for the question whether graduates of those schools (colleges, specifically) find it easier to get "a" job, BECAUSE of the reputation of their alma mater?
Probably not.</p>

123

<p>"It is dishonest to quote only that part of a story that supports your partisan thesis and to intentionally omit the rest."</p>

<p>We agree on something! Now why don't you stop that kind of quoting? ;)</p>

124

<p>
[quote]
so do u want gucci, the name-stopping brand, or hermes birkin, the quality (shrek)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Astute perception. The more recent brand positioning of Gucci indeeed has more to do with what the masses consider fashion than what the haute volee prefers as fashion.</p>

<p>I wonder if Katz played on that ironically or simply did not know better.</p>

125

<p>With the Class of 2008, Princeton suffered perhaps its greatest proportional loss of cross-admits ever, replacing Yale as the elite with the worst cross-admit record against Harvard. As Professor Katz of the Woodrow Wilson school confessed; "We just get our socks beat off in those cases."</p>

<p>This event coincided with a huge drop in the RD yield rate at Princeton compared to recent years; barely 50% of RD admits chose Princeton - far below the RD yield rate at Harvard, Stanford and Yale.</p>

<p>Why did this occur? Presumably because the new administration in the admissions office - to its credit - rejected the Hargadon approach and decided to go head-to-head with its rivals for the top students. </p>

<p>"The Early Admissions Game" and the "Revealed Preference" study detail the penchant for "strategic admissions" during the Hargadon regime, which sought to enhance yield at Princeton by avoiding admitting candidates who it felt would be more likely to enroll elsewhere. This was known as the search for the "Princeton type".</p>

<p>The RD yield rate remained relatively low for the Class of 2009 at Princeton, even as app numbers predictably rose with the switch to the common app and online applications. </p>

<p>Presumably Princeton's share of common admits vs Harvard and its other elite rivals will also remain near historic lows. </p>

<p>But this is not necessarily bad in the long run, since it signals Princeton's determination, under Rapelye, to contend for many top students who it previously allowed to pass by default to Harvard, Stanford, Yale and MIT.</p>

126

<p>You don't need to know about Gucci's recent brand position to be speaking ironically in comparing a university's appeal to that of Gucci. It is hard to imagine any scholar meaning that as a straightforward compliment. Katz is someone who takes the societal and philosophical goals of university education very seriously and who has dedicated much of his career to exploring related questions and to challenging assumptions about what education should be. In the context of his work, comparing a university to a loafer is clearly not a positive.</p>

127

<p>Byerly,</p>

<p>thank you for some more details which were mostly known to me. Given the interesting suggestion by Stanley Katz that Harvard's superior brand name would consistently attract the brightest out of cross-admit pools of comparable schools and the subsequent discussion that Harvard therefore had a <em>better</em> student body, I was wondering what percentage of the Princeton RD admit pool (some 1100?) actually went to Harvard. </p>

<p>Do you have any idea about the absolute numbers? (for Yale? Leland SJ?)</p>

<p>I guess it is reasonable to assume that not all those 50% turning down P (from the RD admit pool) went to H, what do you think?</p>

128

<p>
[quote]
comparing a university to a loafer is clearly not a positive. (aparent

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I see your point, although it does not take irony to see higher education as a market (a multi bn $ market as for that), why brand analogies would be a natural thing. To me everything Katz said makes sense, even if not taken ironically.</p>

<p>And who would seriously argue with the (international) "supremacy" of the Harvard brand. The interesting question is: how does such a # 1 brand evolve (and Byerly is right to point at the revealed preference rankings, although that does not necessarily have a significant bearing on P's class composition as he recently expolained).</p>

129

<p>I know the Harvard numbers, but not the Princeton numbers (with the exception of those vs Princeton.) Unfortunately I am not at liberty to reveal them in detail. There is no more interesting data in re the elites than cross-admit data, since it helps to explain so much else that happens, and strategic decisions that are made.</p>

<p>Yale people have always said, speaking generally, that while they lose the great majority of cross admits to Harvard, that they have essentially a 50/50 split with Princeton. I suspect - but do not know for a fact - that Yale may have taken a slight edge over Princeton last year and this, for reasons previously explained.</p>

<p>We now see this interesting situation at Princeton where a marketing firm has been retained to learn how Princeton's "image" affects the willingness of admits to enroll, and what the impact of a switch to SCEA would mean.</p>

<p>I rather gather Rapelye is anxious to make the switch, despite heavily-entrenched support for binding ED by those still devoted to Hargadon.</p>

<p>Two years of experience at HSY have now demonstrated that yield rate losses in SCEA vs ED are minimal; far fewer early admits "defect" than might have been suspected. The fall-off from nearly 100% yield to about a 90% yield is a small price to pay for doubling the size of the early pool. </p>

<p>(Schools can easily recover the "losses" by admitting a generous number of SCEA-deferreds with the RD pool. They are a motivated sub-group whose willingness to enroll raises the apparent RD yield.) </p>

<p>From what I gather, the hard-line EDers at Princeton just have to be assured that it, too, will have a high SCEA admit rate, and that it would not lose a disproportionate number of top scholars concerned about the eating clubs, or some such, if they had the option.</p>

<p>There is no doubt that other schools who have been "winners" with binding ED, such as Penn, are unlikely to switch, because they are convinced that THEIR SCEA yield would be far below 90%, and that their early pool would have a large number of "strategic" applicants looking to nail down a "safety" before defecting to whichever HSPYM school is willing to take them RD.</p>

130

<p>
[quote]
I know the Harvard numbers, but not the Princeton numbers (with the exception of those vs Princeton. Unfortunately I am not at liberty to reveal them in detail. (Byerly)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is commonly known that 75-80% of HP crossadmits choose H over P. So if you know the H numbers you should have an idea. My curiosity is less about precise numbers, but about the notion how "crippling" this H braqnd effect is for the composition of a class at P. My completely unsubstantiated gut feeling would lead me to speculate some 50 to 100 cross admits ("lost" to H)no more, although this may already be significant. </p>

<p>
[quote]
We now see this interesting situation at Princeton where a marketing firm has been retained to learn how Princeton's "image" affects the willingness of admits to enroll, and what the impact of a switch to SCEA would mean.</p>

<p>I rather gather Rapelye is anxious to make the switch... (Byerly)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Daily Princetonian published an article last year that seems to support your hypothesis:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Avery's study did not ask students why they chose Harvard over other schools, a question Rapelye seeks to address in the coming year.</p>

<pre><code>"I think it's a great question to ask and one that we should be asking," she said. (see URL below)

[/quote]

</code></pre>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/10/07/news/10999.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/10/07/news/10999.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>BTW, the article touches again on the brand magnet effect, mentioned by Katz:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Harvard's yield has increased in recent years despite its move to a non-binding Early Action program.

[/quote]
</p>

131

<p>I think both the H/P number and the % were higher than you estimate - at least for the Class of 2008. 2009 may, of course, be another story.</p>

<p>The counselor group that unofficially "authorizes" various EA/ED options would certainly oppose yet another unique approach, but then the only leverage they have (not insubstantial) is to throw a school off their "approved" list. </p>

<p>They failed to take this action when HYS went to the "unapproved" SCEA last year.</p>

<p>The year before, they failed to take action against Princeton and Brown when those schools failed to comply with the directive saying that kid could apply to a single ED school and unlimited EA schools, even though they'd have to go to the ED school if admitted. Princeton and Brown didn't want kids even tempted.</p>

<p>Havard reluctantly went along weith that strange ruling for one year - even though they had to stand idly by while 75-80 of their open EA admits were forced to enroll - at the point of a gun - at schools that admitted them ED.</p>

<p>This event so angered some at Harvard (including Summers, reportedly) that Harvard came close to saying that it would no longer honor ED "contracts" and would admit who they wanted to admit. This might have brought the whole binding ED scam down like a house of cards. Unfortunatrely (IMHO) cooler heads prevailed, and Harvard went along with the SCEA "compromise."</p>

132

<p>
[quote]
Unfortunatrely (IMHO) cooler heads prevailed, and Harvard went along with the SCEA "compromise."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Interesting. I had never come to understand it as a compromise, but rather as a "protective" measure (principle: he who gets admitted early to H saves the time to look for anything else under RD conditions). </p>

<p>But of course, with an overall yield of some 80% you don't have to fear anyone really and could compete with anyone also on the early level. I wonder why Summers didn't?</p>

133

<p>Various studies have observed the harsh "winner take all" effect in higher education, which is in many cases a market with inelastic demand. Small differences in perceived quality lead to huge preferences for the school perceived to be marginally "better." </p>

<p>We see this in the RP rankings, where a Yale can sweep the field vs most of its "lessers", yet lose common admits to an even greater extent to the one higher-ranking school. You can observe this phenomenon up and down the RP charts.</p>

<p>The power of this effect - the "brand name" if you want to put it down, or the well-earned "reputation" as a magnet for top students if you don't - is to a remarkable degree resistent to price. What is amazing in not that HYP lose so many admits to schools offering large "merit aid" enducements, but that they lose so few!</p>

<p>The studies also show how persistant the pecking order has been over a very long time. The expectations become self-fulfilling. The few exceptions (such as the recent rise of Penn and WUStL) essentially prove the rule.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901s.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901s.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.inequality.com/publications/working_papers/RobertFrank1.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.inequality.com/publications/working_papers/RobertFrank1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/gaterUG1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://thecenter.ufl.edu/gaterUG1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

134

<p>I think it took heavy lobbying by Levin of Yale, who was caught in the middle. Yale was committed to dropping ED (which wasn't working very well for Yale any more) but couldn't risk going all the way to open EA. Yale couldn't have brought off SCEA without help.</p>

<p>In my uncharitable view, Harvard bailed him out. But then we'll never know what bitterness might have ensued if there had been all-out war!</p>

<p>See: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=214992%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=214992&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And compare, 3 weeks later:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=243415%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=243415&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

135

<p>
[quote]
Small differences in perceived quality lead to huge preferences for the school perceived to be marginally "better."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But isn't this true for any "product" choice, the more so as "cost" differences not only don't matter (the lack of elasticity you mentioned) but also are practically absent?</p>

<p>The question then is - and this leads me back to Rapelye's <em>marketing initiative</em>: How do you influence <em>brand value</em>, or <em>reputation</em>? Note what Prof. Avery (KSG) had said about the phenomenon:</p>

<p>
[quote]
"(Avery) cautioned that "basically what that's showing is that Harvard's a popular college. It doesn't mean it's better, just that it's popular."

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/10/07/news/10999.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/10/07/news/10999.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

136

<p>Despite Avery's word of caution, most top elites (including Harvard) ARE better because the top students THINK they are, and are thus inclined both to apply and to enroll.</p>

<p>Rapelye's task is to find out what it is about Princeton's image that historically has made it less attractive to common admits with Harvard - and to a lesser extent with Stanford and MIT - particularly with what might be called "academic superstars", even as it was holding its own with Yale. </p>

<p>The best guess is the lingering effects of a persistent, decades-old reputation as being "the South's favorite Ivy" - a haven for the socially-elite... less hospitable to jews, blacks, etc. The eating clubs - so beloved to alums, are off-putting to a fraction of the admits who Rapelye now wants to go after. (Not only academic superstars, but the "green-haired people" as President Tilghman refers to them.)</p>

<p>The "reputational" stuff can be very hard to deal with and hard to change - whether it is the impression that Ivies are expensive (they're not, for people to whom price is important), that Dartmouth is a "drinking school", that Brown is a haven for "eurotrash" and lazy students, or anything else.</p>

<p>The key, for Princeton may be the 10% expansion of the student body. This will make room for a few more high SAT scorers and green-haired people, while still keeping slots open for the large number of athletic recruits needed for all those teams.</p>

137

<p>
[quote]
"The best guess is the lingering effects of a persistent, decades-old reputation as being "the South's favorite Ivy" - a haven for the socially-elite... less hospitable to jews, blacks, etc. The eating clubs - so beloved to alums, are off-putting to a fraction of the admits who Rapelye now wants to go after. (Not only academic superstars, but the "green-haired people" as President Tilghman refers to them.)"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am no expert, but I would think that P has come a long way to change, just as HY are no longer only recruiting New England preppies (to employ another stereotype of the past). Then again, traces of all this remain - as far as they are not owed to the composition of the student body (which has become a lot more diverse) but rather to structural elements, such as institutions (interesting question, if the clubs specifically turn "green haired" people off or rather the whole affluent safe rural setting). An image campaign won't change that. An image campaign can stress, however, relative strengths, to give admits who are leaning towards P (the "princeton type") the reassurance that they made the right decision and that P is their cup of tea. </p>

<p>As for the "green-haired" (Tilghman) I am not sure they typically represent the cross admit pool we have been discussing so far. </p>

<p>But whatever the reality - and here I agree with your assessment - history coins reputation and that cannot be changed quickly, but in the long run it sure can (like eating clubs inviting women as members :D )</p>

138

<p>Byerly, what is the pecking order? Is it basically consistent with the list in the NBER study?</p>

139

<p>Any discussion of Princeton's current strategy and image should focus on Shirley Tilghman. Janet Rapelye is the Dean of Admissions but the university is now led by Dr. Tilghman. If you look at the history of great institutions, take IBM for example, culture at any given moment is always a fusion of historical tradition and current leadership. As the Chinese say, "The fish rots from the head." What that means is that each president of these universities has a true opportunity to make his or her mark. That's what great leaders do - make their mark in the context of a set of traditions.</p>

<p>Princeton is the highest-ranked institution in the country without professional schools. There is a tradition of intellectual endeavour that has traditionally balanced against the tradition of the eating clubs etc. I know. I was there. I joined an eating club. I left it. The green-haired have always been there. In a way that's what makes Princeton what it is to those who know it well - the green-haired, the black-haired, and the golden-haired all in one place at one time. That and the focus on undergraduates. Dr. Tilghman is not changing Princeton, she is just changing the balance.</p>

<p>Anyone considering applying to elite universities should make a real point of reading speeches and listening to video clips of the current president. Here we focus on admissions but once you arrive that's not what matters. It's how the place is run, what the leadership values, that will determine the environment in which you are educated.</p>

140

<p>Good post, Alumother.</p>

<p>Just as H or Y (or other institutions) P has a distinct tradition and culture which has evolved over centuries. The discussion (in fact this thread) centered around the question why an overproportionate number of cross-admits choses H over invariably any other school, whereas "objectively" the quality difference is nil or negligible.</p>

<p>I identified with quotes from a P student paper that P officials (and I really don't care too much whether Dean Rapelye or President Tilghman took the initative or whether it is a matter of strategy (substance) or tactics (reputation) how to improve the crossadmit yield. With an overall acceptance rate of some 11% we all know that all these elite schools have to turn away tons of talent). </p>

<p>Determining how Princeton will look like in the 21st century is one thing (I am now less thinking about dyed hair, but academic programs, residential concepts, the explicit mission to be the leading undergraduate institution in the WORLD (!) etc. etc.), but chosing how to advertise the contents is another one. The latter presupposes an understanding what would make P more attractive to applicants that are (highly) attractive to P.</p>