<p>Below is a list of the "College Plans" of the 141 students selected nationally as Presidential Scholars (from 2600 nominees) in 2005.</p>
<p>The top "College Plans":
Harvard: 25
Yale: 16
Princeton: 9
MIT: 7
Stanford: 6
Cal-T: 2</p>
<p>Interesting? Yes? No? Predictable?</p>
<p>That's probably not a representative sample.</p>
<p>And if so, it doesn't really say much other than Harvard's superior branding.</p>
<p>one from my hs last year got rejected from stanford...</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>And if so, it doesn't really say much other than Harvard's superior branding<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Another thing it says is that, just like always, Harvard will have a lot of really terrific kids enrolled - many of the top scholars in the country.</p>
<p>It also speaks to class size:
Harvard: 1,600 (?)
Yale: 1,320
Princeton: 1,220 (approx)</p>
<p>1.6% of freshmen at H =pres. scholar
1.2% at Yale
.75% at Princeton</p>
<p>And Stanford = 1650 freshmen --> 0.36% Pres. Scholars.</p>
<p>Harvard similarly dominates every year, head to head, with respect to students chosen for the USA Today Academic First Team, in National Merit Scholars, and in National Achievement Scholars (for minorities).</p>
<p>Higher (rather than merely "high") test scores really indicate little about the student or the school.</p>
<p>For the school, however, it does show a an unwarrantedly heavy reliance on test scores to evaluate candidates.</p>
<p>Its not "unwarranted reliance" if the applicant pool just happens to be exteremly qualified. Harvard could fill its class twice over with 800-scorers, and twice over with valedictorians, if it chose to do so. It does not do so because it strives for a diverse class. </p>
<p>In fact, Harvard recruits more athletes than Stanford does - although holding them to a higher academic standard - since it needs to fill 41 Division I varsity teams - more than any other college or university in the United States of America.</p>
<p>Even so, the SAT median is, every year, substantially higher than it is at Stanford.</p>
<p>Here's Leon's analysis of NMS winners at top tier schools:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=137999%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=137999</a></p>
<p>2002-2005 National Merit Scholar matriculation data</p>
<p>School: 2002 2003 2004 2005 (20042005 change) estimated 2005 percentage of class </p>
<p>Harvard: 396 378 312 287 (-25) 17.5%</p>
<p>Yale: 180 228 224 232 (+8) 17.5%</p>
<p>Princeton: 149 165 192 180 (-12) 14.7%</p>
<p>MIT: 139 151 134 131 (-3) 12.2%</p>
<p>Stanford: 223 217 217 194 (-23) 11.9%</p>
<p>Duke: 98 103 90 117 (+27) 7.0%</p>
<p>Dartmouth: 50 45 47 64 (+17) 6.0%</p>
<p>Columbia: 50 47 41 71 (+30) 5.3%</p>
<p>Brown: 65 47 57 62 (+5) 4.3%</p>
<p>Penn: 87 101 91 101 (+10) 4.1%</p>
<p>Cornell: 42 38 42 35 (-7) 1.1%</p>
<p>The SAT median being higher has nothing to do with the quality of the student body. Admitting a student with 1590 compared with 1530 does not make that student measurably superior. </p>
<p>Both Harvard and Stanford have shown a downward trend in NMS students while Yale's and Princeton's have risen. That data is hardly relevant, because schools like Rice, UT and Berkeley probably have an impressively high percentage.</p>
<p>Harvard recruits substandrd, unqualified athletes to fill FORTY-ONE sports teams? It's hard to brag, as you do, about having that many teams filled with less-qualified athletes. That's quite a feat. Must be a real drag on that vaunted SAT profile, assuming it's fairly reported. </p>
<p>Stanford makes a point of having a larger emphasis on essays, while Harvard seems to care much more about the SAT (which has been proven to have zero bearing on college success), hence their higher profile.</p>
<p>The SAT profile says nothing about the students applied or admitted, but only about the admissions policies of the schools.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that Harvard is untruthful in reporting the median SAT scores of its matriculating students? Is this true also of Yale, to which you applied but were rejected? What is the source of your knowledge?</p>
<p>Were you aware that Harvard also relies heavily on personal interviews - as does Yale (to which you applied but were rejected) whereas Stanford does not, because it does not have the national alumni network to administer them?</p>
<p>Does this not mean that Stanford - as opposed to Harvard (or Yale, to which you applied but were rejected) takes a more holistic approach, relying less on "paper" credentials?</p>
<p>Just asking.</p>
<p>ouchhhhhh byerly is owning zephyer on all these threads. although, the zdawg does go out of his/her way to attack hvd...</p>
<p>To be fair, Byerly also does go out of his way to insult, albeit with more deft, the other Ivies. I've always found it peeving how users go on other schools' forums for the purpose of bolstering their own. It's fine to defend your own school when trolls like zephyr come along, but I really don't understand the need to be on the offensive.</p>
<p>Where, exactly, have I "gone out of (my) way to insult the other Ivies?"</p>
<p>They are all outstanding schools for which I have tremendous respect. </p>
<p>I may, at times, have noted Yale's futility on the football field, but I am not aware of this "going out of (my) way to insult" activity to which you so disapprovingly refer.</p>
<p>"Where, exactly, have I 'gone out of (my) way to insult the other Ivies?"</p>
<p>Oh give me a break, I can't believe that you're trying to play innocent here.</p>
<p>This board is littered with your comments about how "3 out of 4 people who actually had a choice chose Harvard." In addition, you apparently enjoy taunting college students by researching their backgrounds and insulting them by saying "sorry that you didn't have a choice to attend X college (i.e. 'let me remind you that you were rejected there and are attending your 2nd choice')."</p>
<p>News flash: it is insulting to insinuate to others that students at their college are there because they didn't get into the Big H. And don't bother responding with your bogus "I'm simply stating the facts" line.</p>
<p>Why is saying 3 out of 4 choose Harvard "insulting" the other school?</p>
<p>Is it "insulting" Carolina to say the Patriots beat them in the Super Bowl? </p>
<p>Carolina was a fine team to even make it that far.</p>
<p>"ouchhhhhh byerly is owning zephyer on all these threads. although, the zdawg does go out of his/her way to attack hvd..."</p>
<p>Besides the nonsensical spelling, nothing could be farther from the truth. </p>
<p>"It's fine to defend your own school when trolls like zephyr come along"
The insinuation that I am a troll is a complete and utter fallacy. I'm trying to bring a sense of reason and truth to the aura lunacy and demagoguery that follows Byerly wherever he goes. </p>
<p>Byerly's "tactics," (it's a stretch to even call them that) can be boiled down to this:
1. Insult people if they did not get into their first choice and/or Harvard.
2. Harvard wins the cross-matriculation battle 75% of the time.
3. Harvard is, of course, better than all other schools solely because of that fact.
4. Post some meaningless surveys done by Harvard researchers to support his "points." </p>
<p>And that's it.</p>
<p>k.. Let us squash this beef. it's not important - stanford and hvd are both solid.</p>
<p>p.s. i spelz swett</p>
<p>Presidential scholars is a crock.</p>
<p>(or... I liked the idea until they turned me down)</p>