<p>Eric,</p>
<p>This admissions system simultaneously too sophisticated and too difficult to predict to game it. Apply to the place you like the best. If you like it the best, your application will be the best, and you will have the best chance.</p>
<p>I have made my decision.
I thank everyone who contributed to this decision.</p>
<p>Frankly, I did not find Byerly's arguments very convincing at all.
If the apparently 'top' candidates choose Harvard over others due to its brand name and no other better reason, then I would almost want to avoid that and go somewhere else.</p>
<p>No matter, in the past, whenever I faced a difficult decision, I looked for the most ideal outcome/scenario that was possible.
And then I tried my utmost best to try to make that come true.
And generally, I think that approach has been successful to me.</p>
<p>In this particular case, the best scenario is for me to get accepted to several universities, including Harvard and Princeton, and then for me to visit them and make my final decision.
Then I will try my best to make that happen.</p>
<p>Please understand that this was in no way decided on its brand name and my superficial liking of prestige or recognition.
Rather, it's more of a decision based on self-belief (for once in my life) and calculated risk taking to pursue the best outcome.</p>
<p>Anyways, thanks everyone for helping out.
I appreciated it very much.</p>
<p>Kind regards
Eric</p>
<p>Sniffing that the majority choosing Harvard do so for "superficial", insubstantial or illegitimate reasons, while the minority choosing the competitor do so for noble and appropriate reasons, is ludicrous - yet we get this response over and over from those looking to rationalize the huge edge Harvard enjoys with common admits.</p>
<p>There is no need to appologize for applying to Harvard simply because it is the preferred school for so many top applicants. If you really feel that way, you should probably look elsewhere.</p>
<p>Kindest regards,</p>
<p>Byerly</p>
<p>Well Byerly, what else would explain Harvard's "huge edge," then, among cross-admits? The name, my friend, the name. </p>
<p>And your reference to graduate school placement is largely irrelevant if you're referring to the hugely biased WSJ rankings.</p>
<p>The "name" didn't fall out of a tree, Zephyr; it is reputation well-earned over time based on the achievements of graduates, the agreeableness of the surroundings, the excellence of the faculty and the superiority of the facilities.</p>
<p>I think this was a very good decision, Eric. College is a very important choice you will have to make, and seeing both schools will give you a chance to get a sense of which is a better fit for you. Good luck! :)</p>
<p>i suspect this means you'll end up in cambridge, eric. some 90% of SCEA admits do, despite the ostensible choice they have between harvard and their RD schools. after four and a half months of learning about harvard and envisioning themselves as students there, they get only a month (april) to consider their RD schools. few feel inclined, by this point, to shift their thinking elsewhere. in your case, because of your credentials, i think you'll be admitted SCEA to harvard. despite these credentials, however, there's no guarantee you'll be admitted RD to princeton, with its single-digit acceptance rate, and even lower rate for internationals. even if you are, you'll face not only the usual psychological inertia of four and a half months as a harvard pre-frosh, but the high cost of even visiting princeton to decide. good luck wherever you end up, however. it's possible it will be neither of the two, but another peer school!</p>
<p>Where am I more likely to have the next President of the US , Ambassador to Venezuela or President of Universal Studios as my roommate Harvard or Princeton? And why?</p>
<p>This is an example, Scottie, as I'm sure you recognize, of the price Princeton pays for clinging to the yield-boosting binding ED program. Rapelye can't get that consultants' report into her hands any too soon!</p>
<p>by the way what does GREEN HAIRED PEOPLE mean?</p>
<p>Presumably, "green-haired people" (a shorthand term used by the new Princeton president) means something other than the "Princeton type" so coveted by former Admissions Director Fred Hargadon. His successor, Janet Rapelye, has been importuned to import more "green-haired people" - who are not native to Princeton.</p>
<p>I gather it means the arty or rebel type although "east coast arty" - not "California arty" as described by Alumother.</p>
<p>agreed, mr. B (post #49, not #51).</p>
<p>President Tilghman said there were four academic areas she is seeking to strengthen: to ensure that students who graduate as engineers from Princeton are also trained to be leaders and to ensure that the engineering program remains cutting edge; to increase the breadth and depth of the performing arts program, which I suppose might involve some green haired persons; to increase the opportunities to study abroad or study with students from abroad and to increase the footprint of Princeton in Neuroscience. Another major initiative, and one that should be of particular interest to prospective students, is that Princeton has made a committed effort to persuade more students to declare themselves majors in a concentration outside of the big five: Economics, history, English, politics, or Woodrow Wilson. If you have a passion for say, Slavic languages or music, but you are thinking that is too esoteric to put down as an intended major, you might want to rethink your decision. What you put down is not binding anyway.</p>
<p>Kathy Henderson, if recent history is any guide your roommate who is the next President of the U.S. is more likely to be at Yale. Yep, in New Haven you could be rooming with one of the next great intellects to inhabit the White House. Is this seriously the way you are choosing your college?</p>
<p>As for the "name" of Harvard, d has two friends there now. Both openly admit they chose it because "it's Harvard." Both describe their experience there as "okay," and say they wish they had better social lives. D thinks Princeton sounds like a much more well-rounded experience.</p>
<p>I had breakfast this weekend with, as it happened, three women who attended Harvard graduating between 1983 and 1989. It was odd, they none of them liked it, and all referred to it as a cold place. One woman called her experience, "swimming with the sharks." They all agreed that having visited Princeton while students at Harvard, that it seemed warmer. </p>
<p>I believe this characteristic is an enduring part of the Harvard culture, 20 years later. Just like Princeton will probably be forever more "social", and Yale more "arty". So be it.</p>
<p>I know some people want to swim with sharks. They should have that opportunity. And those who don't, they should have the opportunity too.</p>
<p>BTW, the CEO trio I get a kick out of is Meg Whitman (eBAY), Eric Schmidt (Google), and Jeff Bezos, Amazon. Yup, Princetonians all three. I'm sure Harvard and Yale must have their CEOs out there too. But Princeton has generally been prone to sending people into business over the years - probably in part because of that "social" thing.</p>
<p>Alumother, I thought Stanford claimed all these companies.</p>
<p>I terms of the tech-boom CEOs, no one beats Stanford. I think it is probabbly more inovative than HYP and on level with MIT.</p>
<p>But then again, that doesn't necessarily makes a school better.</p>
<p>Stanford claims the tecchie founders of Google and Yahoo. Not the people eventually called in as professional managers....The tech-boom CEOs are very different from the long term successful tech company CEOs. Thank goodness.</p>
<p>Actually the CEO of Yahoo went to some place like Long Island State:).</p>
<p>Did they all graduate?</p>
<p>jeff bezos '86 doesn't just run amazon.com, he founded it.</p>
<p>That's right, Bezos is the rare founder/CEO of a more mature company, i.e. Gates, Ellison, Jobs.</p>