<p>Cornell actually published a paper two years ago regarding "revealed preference." I wish I had it. Anyway I believe they admitted they were below the rest of the Ivies, on par with Northwestern, and far above WUSTL, Chicago, JHU.</p>
<p>Slipper-
If you can find the link to that article, I'd like to read it.</p>
<p>I wish I had it...someone posted it once on CC...</p>
<p>Slipper,</p>
<p>the things I do for you:) Cornell addresses the issue you mention in their enrollment trends. I hope this helps </p>
<p>2004 enrollment trend</p>
<p>Link to the past enrollment trends. (This report analyzes undergraduate enrollment trends with a primary focus on the first-time freshman cohort).</p>
<p><a href="http://dpb.cornell.edu/irp/enroll_trend.htm%5B/url%5D">http://dpb.cornell.edu/irp/enroll_trend.htm</a></p>
<p>Discussion thread about revealed preference ranking</p>
<p>Here are the top 25 colleges and universities (as determined by a study examining which schools students are most likely to attend if admitted to multiple schools):</p>
<p>1 Harvard
2 Yale
3 Stanford
4 Cal Tech
5 MIT
6 Princeton
7 Brown
8 Columbia
9 Amherst
10 Dartmouth
11 Wellesley
12 U Penn
13 U Notre Dame
14 Swarthmore
15 Cornell
16 Georgetown
17 Rice
18 Williams
19 Duke
20 U Virginia
21 Northwestern
22 Pomona
23 Berkeley
24 Georgia Tech
25 Middlebury</p>
<p>I think people still haven't got what my point is (sorry if I wasn't clear). My point is "win-ratio" matters in selectivity; I don't dispute that but it's already embedded in the SAT scores/class rank/admit rates you see on published guides. Of course, I am not talking about specialty schools and I realize some schools are more numbers driven (public). But for the most part, the top, say 25 privates are pretty similar in their admission process. Anyway, let's look at Harvard vs Stanford. Harvard has better "win-ratio" than Stanford and the two have similar # of applicants and class size. The end result is Harvard has lower admit rate and a bit higher SAT score. It automatically takes care of that part. On the other hand, school A can be less preferred than school B but still can be more selective. How so? Well, it happens, for example, if school A has a large number of applicants relative to its class size (e.g. WashU). You look at the admit rate, class rank, and its score and see that WashU is slightly more selective these days. The "win-ratio" is also implicitly factored in. Supposed if WashU had the same "win-ratio" as Cornell, it would make it further more selective than Cornell and rival probably schools like Stanford! When class rank, admit rate, and scores are similar for school A and school B, their selectivity is similar. You don't need to go back to find out if A has better "win-ratio" than B because doing so is double counting.</p>
<p>collegehelp,</p>
<p>Just think of a better way to explain this to you. Projected yield (driven by "win-ratio"), # applicants, and class size determine the admit rates. "win-ratio" is just one of the 3 components for admit rate. That's why you look at admit rate, NOT "win-ratio" to figure out overall selectivity. Admit rate, however, is itself only half of the equation for selectivity. The quality of the applicant pool is another half. These two together define the quality (class rank and test score..etc) of the admits.</p>
<p>if i write my essay about win-loss ratios, will they take me?? :)</p>
<p>interesting stuff</p>
<p>sam lee, u are like 5-6 years removed from college...i think its about time u stop arguing about how selevtive ur alma matter is. It is great that Northwestern is selective and is a top schools, but no one is disputing that. In every one of your posts, u are like it is just selective as cornell...but no one cares. I know literally 5 kids in my immediate hall that consists of 15 kids that got into Northwestern, one who got waitlisted here and was enrolled there and then got off, and is here. That is why the win ratio thing matter. When I asked every person why they chose to come here, b.c I kinda wish I went to NW, they said Cornell has a better name...</p>
<p>and i even ran into someone from Ohio today, the heart of the midwest, where u think NW would have a big name, she said no one really cares about it. You have to accept the fact that some schools carry a bigger brand name than others. That is why a Duke is more preferable to a Rice, both equally as good but Duke clearly is more prestigious.</p>
<p>bball87,</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think its about time u stop arguing about how selevtive ur alma matter is...That is why the win ratio thing matter
[/quote]
I would really appreciate it if you stop twisting what I was saying. What are you talking about? I used WashU as an example too. I was explaining to collegehelp how to interpret selectivity and how it was a mistake to use "win-ratio" to define it. Did I ever say "win-ratio" doesn't matter? Read what I wrote earlier again:
[quote]
My point is "win-ratio" matters in selectivity; I don't dispute that but it's already embedded in the SAT scores/class rank/admit rates you see on published guides...
[/quote]
<br>
Is that clear?
[quote]
It is great that Northwestern is selective and is a top schools, but no one is disputing that.
[/quote]
The whole conversation started when someone said WashU/Northwestern/Rice were safety while Cornell was a reach. Someone was disputing that. Please read previous posts before you jumped on me.<br>
[quote]
i even ran into someone from Ohio today, the heart of the midwest, where u think NW would have a big name, she said no one really cares about it. You have to accept the fact that some schools carry a bigger brand name than others.
[/quote]
Where is this coming from? I didn't even mention prestige, let alone not "accepting the fact that some schools carry a bigger brane name.." According to the US News, Cornell has reputation score of 4.6 and Northwestern has 4.4. I do know and FULLY accept that Cornell has better prestige just so you know since you brought it up! But 4.6 and 4.4 don't differ by miles by the way and 4.4 certainly doesn't mean "no one cares". Who is she anyway? Just because someone from Ohio says so doesn't mean that's a fact. If what she said is true, I don't know how Northwestern has almost 70% admits scoring above 30 on ACT (taken mostly by midwest students). Are you sure you want to transfer to a school "NO ONE cares"?<br>
By the way, it would be great if you can read posts by other CC members carefully and follow the exchange before you criticize them and accuse them saying things they didn't, and then give them a lecture that they already know and don't need.</p>
<p>i am not criticizng you at all....but after reading countless of ur posts, u are like NW is as selective as Cornell, better programs than Brown....like alrite, no one really cares. BTW, i dont care about prestige anymore, I was just adding to the point that some ppl go by that in picking schools. I think I actually would be better off at a place like NW right now, and btw, I also got into Rice in February under Interim Decision, and I regret not ever consiering it.</p>
<p>The OP was asking about reaches and matches. collegehelp said WashU/NU/Rice were safety and i explained to him/her they were not so that the OP wouldn't be overconfident. That was the discussion. No one force you to participate if you don't care. But good luck on your transfer!</p>
<p>bball87,</p>
<p>I have a good news for you (since you are applying to Northwestern as transfer). You can forget about what that Ohio girl said to you. </p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...ad.php?t=108904%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...ad.php?t=108904</a>
Northwestern is among a handful of schools recruited by top consulting firms. :)</p>