<p>"Aug 18, 2006 (AP) Princeton takes the top spot in the latest U.S. News & World Report college rankings, breaking a three-year tie for No. 1 with Ivy League rival Harvard."</p>
<p>"If schools move up a couple points, down a couple points, that's not really meaningful to us," said executive editor Brian Kelly. "The difference between 1 and 10 is minuscule. Whether that's minuscule or not to a reader, that's up to them." </p>
<p>"It was the seventh straight year Princeton has been at least tied for the top ranking. </p>
<p>"The university issued a statement saying the institution was "pleased that our commitment to providing the highest quality undergraduate education continues to be recognized." But, it continued, "no methodical ranking can capture an institution's individual distinctiveness." </p>
<p>Zephyr, though Princeton has certainly noted the ranking as a news item on its website, it has not (I believe) included references to these rankings in any of its application brochures. I hope all of us understand that the differences in quality of education among the top tier of schools are quite slight and the distinction of the number one ranking, while gratifying, is not thought to be important enough to make use of it in advertising as a tool for recruiting applicants. </p>
<p>Here is a link to the new 2006/2007 brochure.</p>
<p>"There isn't any doubt that brand matters and that Harvard is the prestige brand," says Stanley Katz, director of Princeton University's Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies. "It's the Gucci of higher education, the most selective place."</p>
<p>Never mind the price tag (upward of $40,000 per year for tuition, room and board), or the fact that guides such as the U.S. News & World Report ranking of colleges and universities say the differences between Harvard and other top-ranked schools are microscopically small. The gulf that separates Harvard from the rest in terms of reputation remains enormous.</p>
<p>"It used to be the case that of students who were admitted to Harvard and Princeton or Harvard and Yale, seven of 10 would choose to go to Harvard," Katz says. "It may be more now. There is a tendency for the academically best to skew even more to Harvard. We just get our socks beat off in those cases."</p>
<p>It makes the point rather well, I believe; the best students overwhelmingly prefer Harvard - if they have the choice - as they have for some time.</p>
<p>The reputation you cite is reputation in the eyes of applicants. That does not necessarily correspond to reputation on the part of recruiters, firms, or other elite "consumers" of college graduates.</p>
<p>Which one is the more important is up to the individual applicant, but in the latter the "generic" Harvard graduate enjoys no leg up over the "generic" Princeton graduate.</p>
<p>Byerly, give it a rest. Many of the best students choose Princeton ED and never even apply to Harvard. To some degree, the two schools tend to attract a different kind of very bright student. No need to get all defensive about Harvard.</p>
<p>I would weigh the opinion of those already on campus opposed to the inexperienced HS student impressed by brand names.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Student life at Harvard lags peer schools, poll finds</p>
<p>By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff | March 29, 2005</p>
<p>Student satisfaction at Harvard College ranks near the bottom of a group of 31 elite private colleges, according to an analysis of survey results that finds that Harvard students are disenchanted with the faculty and social life on campus.
<p>Believe me, I am not in the slightest "defensive"!!! </p>
<p>Harvard's ability to attract the "best and the brightest" is very likely stronger than it has ever been; certainly its share of the cross-admits vs its chief rivals is, as the Princeton professor acknowledges, higher than ever. </p>
<p>And it doesn't just happen; Harvard recognizes that it must work hard to maintain its competitive advantage - and continues to do so.</p>
<p>And one telling measure of Harvard students' "satisfaction" with their school: almost <em>no one</em> ever transfers out - Harvard again this year has the highest graduation rate of any college or university in the United States of America.</p>
<p>Graduation rate is within a percentage point at all the elite schools and really cannot accurately measure a students happiness with their courses and the social life on campus. There is an intense pressure to excel and graduate at any Ivy or elite LAC.
The argument is constantly being made that Harvard's ten point advantage in yield somehow equates to an a better four year undergraduate experience.
Harvard's name recognition as referenced by Stan Katz may continue to keep it's yield rate above all the rest but perhaps with this years US News rankings things will change.</p>
<p>The second assertion is silly. The overwhelming majority of those with a choice opt for Harvard over Princeton, and have done so for eons. </p>
<p>If Princeton were so sure it was "#1" it wouldn't need to rely on the binding ED crutch to artificially goose its yield rate and artificially reduce its apparent admit rate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The second assertion is silly. The overwhelming majority of those with a choice opt for Harvard over Princeton, and have done so for eons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What exactly is your point in citing this statistic?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Princeton were so sure it was "#1" it wouldn't need to rely on the binding ED crutch to artificially goose its yield rate and artificially reduce its apparent admit rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Princeton is moving toward EA as part of its shift from the policies of the Hargadon era to a new emphasis on academic achievement and intellect. ED is an artifact of the old admissions strategy of playing down Princeton's academic strength in favor of other qualities. Your argument would've been much more compelling five years ago.</p>
<p>The heavy hand of Hargadon still rest on the tiller, and will continue to do so until Princeton ceases to fill half its class via binding ED.</p>
<p>I am not sure what "moving towards" its elimination means exactly. Rapelye should have killed it last year. She not only kept it for the Class of 2010, but has locked it in place for the Class of 2011 as well.</p>
<p>If she had the guts, what she should do is leapfrog HYS and their phony SCEA "reform" and go all the way to open EA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The heavy hand of Hargadon still rest on the tiller, and will continue to do so until Princeton ceases to fill half its class via binding ED.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The tools are still the same but the motivation has changed. Hargadon's admissions philosphy is no longer driving decisions, which is the change that really matters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not sure what "moving towards" its elimination means exactly. Rapelye should have killed it last year. She not only kept it for the Class of 2010, but has locked it in place for the Class of 2011 as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Until the class size expansion is complete, Princeton really has no choice but to retain ED. Managing a massive expansion is hard enough, both in terms of class composition and cultural adjustment. Doing so while shifting admissions policies would only produce more difficulty and chaos. Not to mention, of course, that Princeton still has a perception-problem that it has to correct (which you so eagerly harp on about).</p>
<p>
[quote]
If she had the guts, what she should do is leapfrog HYS and their phony SCEA "reform" and go all the way to open EA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Open early action, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of early application.</p>
<p>Byerly, Dean Rapeleye would find your comments rather offensive, I would guess. She is very much in charge of decisions currently being made in the Admissions Office at Princeton. That being said, I am a supporter of Early Action and expect that Princeton will go back to it sometime soon. It is well documented that Hargadon switched to ED as a way of cutting down on the total number of overlapping applications among Princeton and its peers. Yale sought out Hargadon’s views on the subject and followed Princeton, switching to ED at the same time. Were Princeton to return to EA I’m quite confident that its experience would be identical to Yale’s and Brown’s when those schools reverted to EA. Early applications would increase dramatically (they went up 55% at Yale the year they switched) and the matriculation rate from the early pool would be nearly as high as it is now. </p>
<p>As to your earlier comments, I’m curious as to why you think a statistic ranking colleges by the percentage of students who graduate in four years “is of no consequence.” Why is it any more or less meaningful than a five year graduation statistic? Dismissing any evidence counter to your argument with a simple claim of “no consequence” won’t win you many cases in court.</p>
<p>Since you have cited Professor Katz’s comments dozens of times over the last year, I’ll repeat what I wrote in regard to this six months ago. </p>
<p>“I’m glad that Byerly at least gave a link to the article in USA Today so that readers can peruse it themselves. The article quotes Stan Katz, a professor at Princeton. (<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/2005-0...ard-usat_x.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.usatoday.com/money/2005-0...ard-usat_x.htm</a>) For those who won’t take the time to read the entire article, I’ll add a few of the quotes that Byerly left out. Byerly cites the article to suggest some general opinion at Princeton that Harvard is a superior institution. Nothing could be further from the truth and Stan certainly doesn’t speak for Princeton. </p>
<p>“Stan Katz is a nice guy and while I was at Princeton I had reasons to interact with him. Byerly fails to draw attention, however, to the fact that Katz is a Harvard graduate (Class of 1955) and a very loyal one at that (I know the latter from my own interactions with him.) I must say that it’s quite odd that Katz would be cited as a source for comments about Princeton admissions versus Harvard admissions. So far as I know, Prof. Katz has never had any involvement with the Office of Admissions at Princeton and would have no more detailed knowledge of cross-admit statistics than any other member of the faculty (that is to say, none). He’s a colorful guy with his traditional Harvard style bowties but he was speaking here well beyond his particular area of expertise and certainly would not have been speaking on behalf of Princeton’s Office of Admissions.</p>
<p>“Finally, the point of that article is exactly the opposite of what Byerly implies. The central theme is that Harvard is dominant in reputation but no one is quite certain on what that reputation is based. (Tellingly, only Stan Katz offers a suggestion.) If I might quote the article “academic experts scratch their heads at how this institution [i.e. Harvard] maintains its reputational dominance in an era of academic parity.”</p>