<p>and one interesting case study, one of the most famous law firms in the nation. You can look at where each lawyer went for his/her undergrad work, by simply making a search. You will notice that Penn has more people there.</p>
<p>and to be honest, I do not know why I am even defending such a position. I have no connection to Penn. The only thing I am trying to do is illustrate my point against a point I think is fallible. Perhaps, my view is compromised by the fact that I come from an area where it is virtually impossible to get into Penn RD and any person in the north-east will agree with me on that. Penn took this year under 11 percent RD (total acceptance rate was under 16 percent). Duke's acceptance rate including its aggressive use of the w.list will surely be above 21 or 22 percent (pre-w.list it was around 20 percent).</p>
<p>NUGrad, good point. Yes, Penn has more at Harvard Law, but Duke has a higher proportion at the following 5 combined: Chicago; Columbia; Harvard; Michigan; and Yale. Duke also does better in med school feeder rates then Penn. Again, I'm not arguing that Duke is better than Penn - just that they are equal. </p>
<p>NuGrad, perhaps I am skewed by my own personal biases. I began posting on this forum (in 04) when deciding between several schools. I was rejected from Huntsman (Wharton/CAS joint degree program) but accepted to Penn CAS. I was also accepted to other Ivies (Columbia and Dartmouth), Duke, Williams, and PSU Scheyers. I live about two hours from Penn, and 10 out of 20 people in my school district got in. </p>
<p>I extensively researched all schools before making my choice - I was in the happy position of deciding between 5 different amazing schools (three Ivies, Duke, and Williams). If I honestly had thought Penn was "superior" - as you have claimed, I would have chosen it. However, my personal research and experience illustrated to me that Penn, Columbia, and Dartmouth are on the same level as Duke. This ought to explain why I argue so much regarding this subject.</p>
<p>You can probably tell which college I chose. I don't think Duke is better than Penn academically, or vice versa, same with Columbia or Dartmouth, but I believe that they are all equal in academic caliber. I made my decision based on social factors (I love greek life, partying, don't have a good fake ID) because the schools were so similar and excellent academically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah and they did it wrong. It didn;t work, progbably fot the reason I gave above.</p>
<p>Here's the proof:</p>
<p>21 BYU
23 Northwestern
28 U Chicago</p>
<p>What's better? Anything; an opinion poll. This thing is trash.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I think you should freely admit that you never actually read the paper before you complained about its methodology.</p>
<p>Now that I hope that you have read it, we can talk about it. I am no more 'exercised' about the anomaly that you pointed out, than I am about the anomalies in USNews or any other ranking. Like I've always been saying, the RP study is far from perfect, but is still better than the other rankings out there, as at least it has a theoretical basis and does use a generally accepted modeling methodology. The other rankings don't even bother to do that. So of the RP paper is "trash", then what does that say about the other rankings? </p>
<p>I think all the other RP detractors should stand up and point to the ranking that they think is better and why. If they don't have an answer, then my central point stands - that the RP system, while undeniably imperfect, is the best of what is available out there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That study was not meant to be used in this way. The authors were setting out to show their colleagues how revealed preference methodology (a conceptual framework that has been used in other areas), might be applied to college choice behavior. The authors grabbed a small sample, enough to show how such a methodology might be used. They did not intend to produce a usable ranking from their paper, so they didn't worry about sample size or representativeness. Why should they--it wasn't the point of their paper. They did show how things shook out in their sample, but that's all it was--an example, just an illustration. Who knows what they'd find if they used a larger sample? </p>
<p>The problem comes because people have been posting excerpts, and it's very tempting (and perhaps understandable) to see the results and start talking about them like they are a research finding. They're not. The study authors have paved the way for other authors to produce such a finding using other data, if they want, but the authors' point was to try out the methodology and walk other interested scholars through that process.</p>
<p>It's possible to get a counterintuitive result when you're using a small sample. It would be an interesting thing if they were trying to produce a real ranking--or a condemnation of their methodology, if they were making claims about what they've "found." But since they used just a small sample to demonstrate the methodology, it shouldn't be too surprising that some of the results are odd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, nobody disputes the point that the paper is incomplete, that the paper was never meant to be used as a complete study of overall revealed preferences, and that certainly some idiosyncracies exist in the results they found.</p>
<p>But again, the key issue is - * what about the other rankings? *. Those rankings are also each lacking in their own way. Each of them has a arbitrary methodology with no theoretical foundation, or in the case of Gourman, doesn't even bother to provide a methodology at all. Each of them has strange anomalies in the ranking (i.e. why exactly is WU ranked so highly in USNews?). Hence, for all of the flaws of the RP ranking, and even given that the RP ranking is not a truly complete ranking, I would argue that * it is still better than the other rankings *. If you disagree, fine, but I think you should state why you think one of the other rankings is better. </p>
<p>Look, you have to work with you got. Is the RP paper perfect? Of course not - far from it. But neither are any of the other rankings. The question on the table is, * what's better? *.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am one who points out flaws in the RP data input, but not sure it rises to the level of 'complaining," and it is certainly not "incessant" which I would define as a certain supporter of RP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I am incessant, it's only because I am defending RP from the incessant and unfair whining that it attracts, relative to the other rankings. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why? If they don't appy to Duke and Penn, to use two examples, they don't apply to Duke and Penn.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you mean 'why'? We are not measuring the preferences of just those particular people who apply to Duke and Penn. We are measuring the preferences of the sample population * as a whole *. Like I have said, and others have pointed out (although bizarrely as a supposed 'weakness' of the RP study, when in fact it's a strength of the study, which only "reveals" that some people don't even bother to read a paper before they complain about it), a lot of preferences are revealed by the simple act of not even applying to a particular school. Hence, we still have to somehow capture the preferences of these people for those 2 schools.</p>
<p>Let's talk about an extreme example. The vast majority of people will never apply to, say, Fresno State. The vast majority of people will never apply to Harvard. And clearly, the number of people who apply to both Harvard and Fresno State is vanishingly small. Yet I think we can all agree that, if given the hypothetical choice between Harvard or Fresno State, the overwhelming majority of people, including those who applied to neither school, will choose Harvard. A revealed preference study will attempt to model such a preference even though most people didn't apply to either school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
hoedown: my guess is in the other areas where this methodology has been more appropriately utilized, each "contest" data point could be more reasonably characterized as a random sample drawn from the underlying population, not a biased sample.</p>
<p>I don't believe this methodology can achieve completely reliable results even if larger sample sizes are utilized, because each cross-admit sample is a biased sample of the underlying population, not a random sample.</p>
<p>In my hypotherical above, as long as Mormons truly prefer BYU to Harvard et al, and relatively few people other than mormons will apply to BYU so their preferences will not be adequately "revealed", the same general ranking will be "revealed" even when a large sample is used.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allright, I take back the previous post that I just wrote where I hoped that you had now actually read the study. Apparently I was wrong, you * still * haven't actually read the study. Once again, * the RP model is not predicated just on applications *. Rather, it is based on a model to attempt to ascertain what people WOULD do if actually given a hypothetical choice. Now, we can argue about whether the model successful deduces this information, but that is what the model attempts to do.</p>
<p>And, oddly enough, RP really dictates nothing about school quality. If a person had a choice between reading <em>Tuesdays with Morrie</em> or <em>Remembrance of Things Past</em>, the overwhelming preference would be Tuesdays with Morrie, even though the book may not be an, um, classic.</p>
<p>It also should be no surprise that BYU is so high in RP-- for the Mormons I know, regardless of their ability to get in elsewhere, it's THEIR school. It also should be no surprise that Chicago is ranked low on RP, given its association with lots of work and little in the way of brownie points or student life-- and I'm saying that as one of its biggest cheerleaders!</p>
<p>So even assuming that the model is flawless in its execution, I still think it's useless for a student looking for a school that will fit him or her.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, oddly enough, RP really dictates nothing about school quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, actually, I wouldn't say that that's odd. It's precisely a consequence of a preference study - you are looking at what people actually DO prefer, as opposed to perhaps what people should prefer. This gets into the aspect of marketing - i.e. exactly why are certain schools more preferred than others. It's an interesting question that marketing professionals are always worried about. </p>
<p>Look, it's not a 'quality' study, and nobody has ever claimed that it is. Nevertheless, the point is, it's still better than the other available rankings out there. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So even assuming that the model is flawless in its execution, I still think it's useless for a student looking for a school that will fit him or her.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about that - I wouldn't say that it's 'useless'. After all, a proper revealed preference study is exactly that - it's an aggregation of revealed preferences. There must be * some reason * why certain schools are preferred to others. It must mean that some schools provide a better fit for the aggregate population than others do. Note, that's not the same thing as saying that such schools fit * everybody perfectly *. It's a simple aggregation of preferences.</p>
<p>Hence, nobody disputes that the RP study is a perfect measure of anything. But neither are any of the other ranking systems. That's the point. We have no perfect system. All we can do is rely on the best system available, however imperfect it may be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All we can do is rely on the best system available.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps you mean the proverbial royal "we" for I have no interest in using any "system," nor do many others if one believes the limited research out there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps you mean the proverbial royal "we" for I have no interest in using any "system," nor do many others if one believes the limited research out there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's exactly the choice I am highlighting. You can choose from the various flawed rankings out there, of which the RP is arguably the best one. Or you can choose nothing at all. If you prefer nothing at all, fine, that's your decision. But for those of us who want to rely on * something *, we have to use the best of what is available.</p>
<p>I do find it quite interesting, however, that those people who have complained about the RP survey have still not stood up and identified exactly which ranking system they think is better and why. Hence, they still haven't answered the central question - on a * relative scale *, what's better?</p>
<p>Duke is absolutely, unequivocally, on par with Penn, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Brown. Duke excels at grad placement and has an incredible pedegree in business (recruiting, alums, etc). Thoughprocess, you made a great choice, don;t let anyone tell you otherwise.</p>
<p>Um, he obviously has some reservations about his choice. That is evident by the fact that he must say that he chose Duke over X, Y, Z to rationalize his choice like every so often. Duke is a great school. No one said it isn't. However, I really do not care what a few posters such as Slipper thinks, as he is not an authority on these things nor am I. We are all making educated guesses and predictions. I went to Duke for law school and honestly, I was not that impressed by the undergrads I encountered there. I really am unconcerned with Duke's average SAT. At the end of the day, that means nothing. And how it placed on one Wall Street feeder ranking--BIG Deal. At the end of the day, a 3.8 from Duke is no better off than a 3.8 at Cornell. These distinctions are meaningless. In fact, I'd say that the schools themselves want people to believe that these distinctions are enormous to draw students.</p>
<p>And if he indeed got into Columbia and Dartmouth and Penn, to me, he didn't make the best decision. To him, that could be the case. However, we are all entitled to our opinions, aren't we?</p>
<p>As numerous studies show, Duke is clearly less preferred than its counterparts, which is confirmed by its low yield.</p>
<p>Haha, all my evidence "means nothing" because they just prove you totally wrong, and of course since you have no data/information other than the irrelevant RP study you continue to use the strategy of "well the undergrads I met weren't that great."</p>
<p>You are the only one not making educated guesses and predictions. The only reason I said that I chose Duke over the Columbia, Dartmouth, and Penn was to show that I actually had a reason for researching the schools carefully, unlike you who has done no research or anything. As a high school senior actually doing college research, I can tell you that I found very few pieces of evidence (read:none) that illustrated that Duke wasn't at least as good as the non-HYP Ivies.</p>
<p>Duke's average SAT and feeder rates into top professional schools "mean nothing"? #'s of merit scholars? Student/Faculty resources? What matters then? Probably nothing that proves your point wrong.</p>
<p>And of course, the "numerous studies show" nothing - its a study that even the creators say is incomplete, with a clear Northeast bias, which doesn't even try to measure student quality. Who cares what some sub-1200 SAT scorer from Philly wants to go to school? In reality, Duke enrolls students that are the strongest in the nation (outside of HYPSM and tied with others). And, in turn, the actual Duke office of admissions has verified data showing Duke equally splits with Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth, and Brown - again, I guess this means nothing.</p>
<p>Btw, if Duke is getting top students anyways (more national merits, stronger scores) I'm not sure why yield matters - its about the students that you enroll, not how many you lose to HYPSM. But of course - how strong the students at Duke are "means nothing" because you weren't impressed with the undergrads that you've met haha.</p>
<p>"That is evident by the fact that he must say that he chose Duke over X, Y, Z to rationalize his choice like every so often. "</p>
<p>I don't think I've ever said that in my argument, and have only posted this once in the entire thread. You are going to make a good lawyer since you're willing to skew College Confidential threads to try and seem correct.</p>
<p>In Post 123 - I stated that I actually researched the schools because I was accepted to all of them, rather than not knowing what I was talking about like you.</p>
<p>Honestly, does the quality if incoming students "mean nothing"? Or feeder rates into top professional schools (Duke top 10), or global corporate employment surveys released by the THES (Duke top 8 American U), or any measure of undergraduate resources, professor:student ratios, etc.</p>
<p>What actually doesn't "mean nothing" NUGrad? I mean, the only evidence you've actually shown is from the RP study, which doesn't measure student quality, and which has a clear Northeast bias and is stated as incomplete by those who conducted the study. And of course, out of students actually deciding between these schools (ie the top students), Duke splits evenly with the rest of the Ivies, and this is not a contested fact by any college.</p>
<p>If you are reading this thread, I encourage you to look over the posts made by both me and NUGrad, and decide who's researching facts and who says things like "man, the undergrads at Duke I met weren't that smart..." and pretends like thats evidence.</p>
<p>sakky:</p>
<p>I guess I just don't care if any ranking is relatively "better" bcos they are all so deeply flawed as to offer little value (besides us pundits debating). :) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that H will win nearly every cross admit battle, absent special factors, such as merit money, legacy, or specialized programs (CalTech, MIT, Wharton). </p>
<p>To view anothe way, Roger Clemons may make the Yankees relatively 'better', but rest of the team is so flawed its a waste of Steinbrenner's money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As numerous studies show, Duke is clearly less preferred than its counterparts, which is confirmed by its low yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are some of these numerous studies? You only quoted one ad nauseum. </p>
<p>How exactly were you able to gauge undergraduate strength while going to law school? By going to some frat parties? I am sorry but no one is able to gauge student body strength by simple social interactions because generally teenagers do not exactly talk about philosophical ideals on a day to day basis (and generally the conversations go nowhere). </p>
<p>thethoughtprocess basically showed you numerous data points that prove that Duke is on par with the rest. And I believe earlier you said Duke was seen as inferior to Columbia/Penn etc. I suggest you go to the Duke forum and take a look at the "Wall Street Institutions" thread to see how strong Duke places. </p>
<p>I find it amusing that you didn't find the undergrads impressive. Employers generally prefer Duke undergrads over their counterparts in its graduate schools (Fuqua, Law etc). One proxy you can use to identify this is in the placement of the two at the various banks. For example, Goldman is generally in the top 5 (often times #1) employer of Duke undergraduates (last year they were #6 and took 15) while the MBA program is only able to place 4. So your idea that the undergraduates at Duke are weak is baseless according to the employers of the top banks and management companies in the U.S.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And of course, the "numerous studies show" nothing - its a study that even the creators say is incomplete, with a clear Northeast bias, which doesn't even try to measure student quality
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I would * hardly * say that the RP study 'shows nothing'. Sure, the study is incomplete, as, frankly, all studies are. I'm not particularly convinced that a clear Northeast bias exists that could not be explained by the undeniable fact that the Northeast just happens to have a disproportionate number of the best schools in the country. (and if you really believe that regional bias does exist, you are free to turn to p. 46 of the study where rankings are broken down by region). </p>
<p>And yes, it is of course true that the RP study does not directly measure quality, but only does so indirectly (in that the more preferred schools tend to wind up with better students, i.e. I think there is no dispute that Harvard's students are better than the students at Colorado State). But like I said, the other rankings don't directly measure student quality either. For example, student selectivity is only a fraction of the overall weighting in USNews. THES, Jiao Tong, and other rankings don't seem to measure student quality * at all *. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Who cares what some sub-1200 SAT scorer from Philly wants to go to school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, actually, you should care. If nothing else, it points to an image and branding problem - that for whatever reason, one school doesn't have that same level of desirability that some other school does. The classic case in point would be one I used before - Caltech vs. Harvard. The truth is, most people would rather go to Harvard than to Caltech. This happens for a variety of reasons - that Caltech's curriculum is too narrow and tech-focused, that a lot of people just don't want to work that hard, that the Harvard brand name is stronger and opens more future doors, etc. Caltech actually has a * stronger * student body than Harvard does, at least in terms of pure academic criteria. Yet I think there is little dispute that Harvard is a more desired school. </p>
<p>Look, I'm not taking a stance about the quality of Duke undergrads vs. the undergrads elsewhere, as frankly, I don't know who is better. But you don't need to say that the RP means nothing. That goes too far. It means * something *. It may not mean what your detractors say that it means. But it still means * something *.</p>
<p>Sakky, I meant it means "nothing" in terms of discussing whether Penn was stronger than Duke, or vice versa. I focus more on the actual schools themselves and how strong the students who attend are, not what NE prep school students (10% of which probably apply to top 10 schools anyways) think. This is what me and NUGrad are arguing about. Also, the results have a solid goal, I'd like to see the RP updated for this decade, with a larger sample, etc. before citing its results in an argument on CC, and maybe only sample top students (such as National Merit Scholars or something) which are the ones who get into top schools in the first place.</p>
<p>THES takes into student account by using corporate recruitment surveys...and STU is a scientific research ranking and doesn't pretend to rate undergrad strength.</p>
<p>Either way, my argument with NUGrad is that facts illustrate Duke is stronger/as strong as non-HYP Ivies, but the only thing he cites is the RP...which he pretends are "numerous studies" and I am doubtful of his understanding of it. After all, top students who actually get into both Duke and Penn (and Columbia/Dartmouth/Brown) split evenly among them.</p>
<p>If you want to do a real "Revealed Preference" study, then don't look at the college selection process. Look at how employers see the graduates of these universities. </p>
<p>HYPSM are IMO the only institutions that have true national recruiting appeal. For all of the others, they would, to varying degrees, be considered no more than peers for the local competition. Among schools considered national universities, here are the schools that would likely win the Revealed Preferences among employers in each region:</p>
<p>1) in the Northeast: Ivies, MIT, Georgetown, Tufts, Boston College, Lehigh, NYU, U Rochester
2) in the Midwest: Northwestern, U Chicago, Wash U, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, U Michigan, U Wisconsin, U Illinois
3) in the Southeast: Duke, Vanderbilt, Emory, Wake Forest, U Virginia, W&M, U North Carolina, Georgia Tech
4) in the Southwest: Rice, U Texas
5) in California: Caltech, Stanford, USC, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD
6) in the Pacific Northwest: U Washington</p>
<p>In each of these regions, I believe that a “Revealed Preference” of employers would show a partiality for these local schools. The fact is that, now more than ever, there are great students and great schools all over the country.</p>