<p>I am a Penn and Stanford alum (Penn College for undergrad, Stanford for grad), and I'd just like to offer my two cents about the two schools (Stanford more so, since everyone here seems to be an expert on Penn). First of all, it's difficult to compare how much "better" a school's student body is. There are so many bright and hooked applicants that all the top however many schools have an extremely talented and well-rounded class. And zephyr brings up a valid point in that Stanford, Penn, and the rest of the elite universities compete on a national level for applicants. The Ivies don't necessarily get the best East coasters and Stanford doesn't necessarily get the best West coasters. The East coast may have more elite schools, but there are arguably more elite students from the east coast as well. Keep in mind that the top boarding schools and top publics are on the east. Also, don't underestimate the lure of the UC's, which are very good at attracting many of the top CA students with generous financial aid offers. And about athletic scholarships, yes, Stanford does give them out, but don't think that it lowers academic standards any more than the Ivies do. If a recruited athlete doesn't meet certain academic requirements, they will not be admitted, no matter how badly a coach wants him/her. Finally, about the prestige of the two schools, Penn has had a rapid improvement over the past few years. It finally seems to be getting to the level of a top-5 school, although it has a long way to go before it's publicly regarded as such. Stanford's prestige, though, is also impressive in that it's a very young school (founded in 1891) and has had a meteoric rise to fame over the past half century.</p>
<p>Jerry... what's that you say? BOTH schools are elite? ZOMG!!! How can it be??!!</p>
<p>Noooooooooooooooooooo!</p>
<p>All major universities compete at a national level with one another to some extent, but you can't argue that virtually every college doesn't have a regional bent to it. It may be true that there are more elite high school students on the East Coast, but I imagine that would be quite difficult to quantify (how would you eve begin to define such students? surely not simply by where they go to school).</p>
<p>With regard to the cross-admit numbers that keep getting referenced, geography again skews them in favor of Stanford. Top students on the East Coast are not nearly as likely to apply to Stanford on a whim as they are to the ivies and other top schools. A student may apply to Stanford because he/she really wants to go there, but then also apply to Georgetown, Penn, and Duke (just for example) because they are closer to home and offer similar ranges of programs. California is FAR from the east, and it would be foolish to ignore the commitment to a school that it takes to apply to a program so far away.</p>
<p>Stanford is the #1 choice for a lot (if not most) Californians, meaning they would choose the school over HYPMC+Ivies, etc. I can't give you the exact numbers, but the admit/matriculate rate in-state is pretty insane. You really can't say the same for Penn, even though obviously there are certain exceptions, its definately not the norm.</p>
<p>IMO, Penn admits too many dare-i-say-under-qualifed-in-state-candidates esp from Phili. That's one of the reasons we have such a bad rep about being a state school. Limit the in-state admits and give some funding to the engineering school and I think we'll be set =)</p>
<p>ok first of all, ad hominem isn't making fun of or insulting your opponent. ad hominem is saying your opponent is wrong because of a character trait vis. which you can speak negatively. for example, saying "listen, idiot, you didn't take into account the fact that penn is forced to admit many underqualified students from philadelphia proper (and to see just how unqualified they are, simply look at the other schools they (don't) get into)" is not ad hominem. saying "you're wrong because you're an idiot" is ad hominem. thank you and good day.</p>
<p>also, if you are from california and you don't apply anywhere else ed, you apply to stanford. it's just what everyone does. everyone. living in los angeles and going to stanford is completely different than living in nyc and going to, say, boston or ithaca. parents prefer their children to go to stanford than some blue blooded aristocratic school in new england where their children might eventually live. this is a significant part of stanford's draw and if i recall (just do a search for it) someone did a numerical analysis and proved that stanford's attraction to non-californians was (significantly) less than penn's attraction to non-pennsylvanians. </p>
<p>Further, judging from the people I know admitted to stanford: stanford does tend to admit more nerds than penn! sorry!</p>
<p>And viz. penngineering: Penn engineering will give you an unparalleled lib. arts education. I've also heard that it focuses more on the theoretical. People from penn engineering go more quickly to top jobs -- or so i've heard. Regardless, there are a few lists (do a forum search) for amazing (top 10 etc.) departments within the college. I've said it before -- if you take the same student and put him in stanford instead of penn, his life will follow a similar if not identical trajectory.</p>
<p>Hey, there's real discussion going on here. :)</p>
<p>Anzanar,</p>
<p>All the "examples" you quoted were from other boards, NOT here. You also took them out of the context. Two of them were part of my response to others who were resonating my view after many exchanges. One was directed to this lady called soccermom who was going around saying Penn was better just because the ranking said so. Again, you let your emotion get the best of you. Speaking of bias, you are certainly not free of it when dealing with me. I'd bet you wouldn't be so opinionated against me if you didn't sniffed around and searched some of my posts on other boards instead of just focusing on what I wrote on Penn board.</p>
<p>With regard to the earlier post about Penn admitting too many "underqualified" philly students; this is something all Ivies and major universities do within their home areas, it's seen as a way of giving back to the community of which they are a part (as I recall, there is a small town in New Hampshire that Dartmouth gaurantees admission to applicants who live there, for example), and in fact has been something Penn has historically been accused of doing LESS than other Ivies. As far as them being underqualified, Penn takes it's Philly students primarily from two very competitive public magnet schools (Masterman, where I went, and Central), which, while still hole-in-the-wall philly public schools to a large extent, offer a decent public education and send students to top schools all over the country every year (we had at least 1 student admitted to every ivy, plus stanford, MIT, and a few top LAC's in my graduating class of 100, 15 went to Penn). Furthermore, I was one of 18 freshman asked to be part of the University Scholars program, so I personally don't think of myself as being underqualified. Were there people who were admitted who certainly wouldn't have gotten in if they didn't live in philly? Of course, but they're doing perfectly well now that they're there.</p>
<p>Maybe if we did something about that 33% admission rate to engineering it'd do a lot to improve the school's image...</p>
<p>
[quote]
And about athletic scholarships, yes, Stanford does give them out, but don't think that it lowers academic standards any more than the Ivies do. If a recruited athlete doesn't meet certain academic requirements, they will not be admitted, no matter how badly a coach wants him/her.
[/quote]
That is not true. For Stanford recruiting, filling out the app isnt even a requirement. The cut off for the mandated SAT is 980. At Yale its a 1150, at Princeton its a 1170 (and recruited athletes may still be rejected). Stanford's athletic recruitment is much more like Columbia where they can completely skip the application process and sign directly, while at other ivies (HYP), athletes can still be rejected (princeton has rejected many recruited athletes). I have never heard of a case when a Stanford director wants you and you end up not getting in. Its a guarantee.</p>
<p>RealSquishy,</p>
<p>The quote you put was also taken out of context. I put that AFTER people were playing games/attacking me instead of debating my posts.</p>
<p>As for Stanford athletics, the following may make you think of it more positively: <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/1998/09/21/story4.html?page=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/1998/09/21/story4.html?page=1</a> </p>
<p>Anzanar,</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's obvious what his opinion on Penn is, and how his mind won't change no matter what "constructive" arguments we have.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem is I didn't see any constructive arguments from you. So how do you know? You are just making a baseless assumption. After quite a few non-constructive comments that aimed to insult me, someone named bern700 finally gave reasons why Penn was better. One of the points he made was Penn had better job placement. I can't really confirmed that but I thought that was interesting because it's something I didn't think of before. </p>
<p>
[quote]
..you're a low-life troll..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Life would be boring and much simpler if you can judge a person by his/her few posts on the net.</p>
<p>shrek2004,</p>
<p>The following links contradict what you said:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1999/julaug/articles/searscup.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1999/julaug/articles/searscup.html</a>
<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/1998/09/21/story4.html?page=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/1998/09/21/story4.html?page=1</a></p>
<p>I also read an article on SF Chronicle about a prized football recruit who was denied admission because of academic reason. His SAT was like 1060 and his GPA was around 3.60. The person decided to go to Cal.</p>
<p>philly, you're just making stuff up. penn does it far more than the other IVYs and they do it because the city of philadelphia gives a ****load of money to penn. and once again, to see the quality of those admitted students just look at the other schools they apply to and are(n't) admitted to!
[quote]
At Yale its a 1150, at Princeton its a 1170 (and recruited athletes may still be rejected).
[/quote]
wrong. there is no SAT cuttoff for IVYs. there is an academic index they work out for you and you have to be within a set number of standard deviations from the mean student attending the school.</p>
<p>And viz. job placement, penn's is definitely one of the best (if not the best -- even if you don't consider all the networking and connections you make at penn) in the country.</p>
<p>ASalientOne: Some Ivys work with SAT cutoffs and some work with the AI index for athletes. I was a recruited athlete (soccer) at 3 ivies (princeton, cornell, & penn)...and some of the schools even told me I didn't even have to complete the application & i could just sign directly. Unfortunately, I suffered a really bad injury right before senior year (I tore my ACL, MCL & meniscus) and lost all my offers as they didn't want a recruit who'd be dealing with this kind of injury for the rest of his career. So I had to go through the regular admissions process but i still got in as my stats were on par with the regular applicants.</p>
<p>but yeah some used SAT cutoffs (princeton & penn)...</p>
<p>"The problem is I didn't see any constructive arguments from you. So how do you know? You are just making a baseless assumption. "</p>
<p>I'm not joining in on your "constructive arguments" because they are anything but. You aren't going to change your mind on the topic of Penn being #4 and Stanford #5, and thus any "arguments" we have will just further your goal of riling things up on the board. It isn't "baseless", as by looking at your previous posts it is quite obvious that you strongly believe Penn shouldn't be ranked that high. Now, if you came to the board and your intentions were truely just to find out why Penn was rated higher than Stanford, why didn't you just ask "Why do you think Penn is rated #4 when compared to these stats from Stanford?" Quite simple. Your intentions were not out of curiosity, but malice. Instead of a question, you came to this board with an accusation, saying "Penn shouldn't be rated #4 because of X and Y." By stating "Just because they rank it #4 doesn't mean it's really #4" as a fact, rather than a question, it's obvious that you aren't looking for a "healthy debate". You just want to p*ss some people off.</p>
<p>"Life would be boring and much simpler if you can judge a person by his/her few posts on the net."</p>
<p>I'm not judging "you" as you see yourself in real life, as you imply I am. I'm judging the online persona you have brought to this board, which is a low-life (by internet standards) troll.</p>
<p>Well, as someone who's been reading the inquirer for just a few more years than you, I can tell you with assurance that penn has time and again been accused of insufficiently admitting students from philly when compared to its peer schools. Half the reason why it's easier to get in from philly is because many students who are admitted choose not to attend and go to what are oftentimes seen as 'lesser' schools because they want to leave the city. I also think it's safe to say that I know quite a few more philly Penn students than you, and am well aware of the other schools to which they applied and WERE admitted to. As for the city giving money to Penn, don't make me laugh, Philadelphia has been in the red for more years than I can remember, and Penn is i believe the single largest employer within the city, so in fact it is Penn who gives the money to the city. Sure, Penn gets breaks in taxes, property aquisions and whatnot, but that's because of its economic significance, not because they choose to admit students from the area (are you starting to realize how ridiculous you sound).</p>
<p>Going back to the quality of admitted students, let's just use me as an example:
admitted to: Penn (college), Brown, Tufts, Carnegie Mellon, JHU, and a few other safties like URochester
waitlisted, then rejected: Harvard</p>
<p>Furthermore, take a look at the new Philadelphia magazine that lists the top 100 private and public schools in philly and 7 nearby counties, 2 of the the top 10 publics (#'s 1 and 9) are those schools i mentioned earlier, which make up the bulk of philly Penn students.</p>
<p>But hey, my 19 years of living in this city and knowing what goes on outside the Penn bubble obviously amounts to making stuff up, but your narrow and unfounded views are clearly unrivaled truth.</p>
<p>This is what happens with a 33% admission rate...</p>
<p>phillySASer08: 100% right on.</p>
<p>sam lee - and the 3 students that were recruited from my school for football (2 did not sign however, the one that signed scored 990), 2 didnt break 1000, the other at a 1080. i have a pretty athletic school with this year 10 signed with (recruit does NOT mean signed) stanford. my swim team is among the best in the nation with many signees with stanford. if you have looked into the recruitment process and have tried to be recruited (i was looking into it but decidied not to apply/or try with stanford), you would know a lot more about this recruitment. many schools like to claim that athletes dont have a guarantee (like ucla and columbia) but virtually everyone gets in. if you know about recruitment, most schools over recruit andh ave a superfluous number of athletes at recruitment weekend (because obviously not everyone will sign with stanford). when too many people are successfully recruited they dont take everyone, so of course they cut students (and obviously they will prolly say its due to academic reasons, and not athletic). and of course there are the exceptions. stanford's recruitment process is one of the most lax and least rigorous (academically speaking).</p>
<p>dont take this as a personal attack (u stanford kids seems to take everything personally). i think stanford is an excellent school, one of the best in the nation. its just this is how the recruitment process works. i dont think stanford's recruitment process has any real effect on the quality of the school.</p>
<p>Shrek: No one can beat Brophy in swimming...lol
28 years straight state champions...this year national champions. :)</p>
<p>Only bad part of BCP swimming - Gary Hall Jr. (aka the biggest ******* in swimming) is an alum.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, Princeton rejected an ED applicant runner with a 1420 and sub 420 full mile (not 1600). that kid is a straightup nasty athlete and pretty smart as well. Stanford accepted him, but he is not going to attend. i realize this is one case, but there are many documented cases of great student-athletes being denied by HPY and getting into Stanford.</p>
<p>haha yes brophy is very good (i didnt actually go to brophy, i was referring to uss swimming and we have many brophy swimmers on that). brophy is looking to repeat that national championship this year, which i think they very well could. did you go to brophy?</p>
<p>i'm still fairly certain you're wrong. the evidence you presented is not enough to convince me i'm wrong. i'm not saying i'm right, i'm just saying you haven't shown me i'm wrong =p</p>
<p>and i've just googled some information which has further convinced me i'm right.</p>
<p>Ok, now philly, let me tell you everything wrong with your post.
Quantity does not make quality: Yale enrolls only 11 New Haven students a year. Now to actually compare which school pays more attention to its home town, we're going to have to do an analysis that we simply don't have the resources to do. Suffice to say, however, that the average philly student is a far more inferior applicant than the average New Haven student. Also, the law suit you were talking about was thrown out and widly dismissed (although you might be responding to some of the lingering criticism the law suit you're thinking of brought about).</p>
<p>I'm also amazed by your (it must have been intentional) misinterpretation of what I wrote. I was speaking of those students who do not attend penn. Also, I don't think I need to tell you that you're committing the spotlight fallacy. And to highlight more of your ridiculousness: where did you expect penn to admit the bulk (by the way, i'm going by your facts and assuming you're not completely making all of this up!) of their philly students from? The worst school? The fact that one school is better than another also doesn't necessarily speak of the quality of the applicants that go to penn when compared with, say, new haven. Further, the fact that you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it isn't true. A tax break is the same thing as a government giving money to the object of the break. I suppose the deal that gave penn some of the city's land to admit philly students wasn't about philly students either.</p>
<p>This is what happens when it's so much easier for a philadelphian to get into penn. Way too much inbred (as opposed to developed) philly pride!</p>
<p>(and, brother, I'd be very willing to bet that I was <em>very</em> far from the bottom of the 33%. and from the ridiculous arguments you've made, it sure sounds like you were quite far from me! are you actually trying to claim that the best and brightest from philadelphia go to penn and that there's no advantage to being a philadelphia? if you admit that there's an advantage and that the average philly, then that means that less qualified applicants get in. if less qualified applicants get in then they diminish the quality of the school! "but hey, logic to someone whose grown up with beliefs based on what amounts to propoganda as established by your own court system must be wrong").</p>