<p>Folks,</p>
<p>Why don't we all stop replying to Byerly on this board?
A boycott would result in fewer posts from Byerly.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Wow, I'm not even going to try to read this thread. It seems that much debate is going on now that Princeton is considered #1? I wish people would be less conscious about where they stand on some ranking. There are minimal differences in terms of quality when it comes to the top schools. I have family members who've attended HYPS+Columbia in some form or other, and they've all related back their incredible experiences. Choose your college based on personal preferences, and where you fit in the best. Why Princeton? I was offerred a chair right away in the symphony orchestra, along with a research positon in classical composition studies with a professor.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot the incredible humanities sequence :).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have never <em>ever</em> stated that the entering quality of the student body is the <em>only</em> factor on which selection of a college should be based.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said you did. I was merely commenting on the fact that the only metric you really talk about is this one. Especially in this thread.</p>
<p>Again, I don't disagree that quality of the student body is an extremely important, even overriding, factor for many students. Note my choice of words: "can and should". I personally disagree with the emphasis many give this preference, and I think applicants should weigh other factors more prominently.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I want to emphasize that simply because many applicants weigh this factor highly in their decisions does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of college quality. It makes Harvard the best for them, as individuals. It does not speak to Harvard as being the best college period. College quality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder: applicants must decide what factors are most important to them, and what weight to accord what. The studies you link to speak only to what most prospective students find valuable, valid only in a specific and not a general sense.</p>
<p>Of COURSE Hargadon was "loved" by many students, since his shtick was to go out of his way the let them know that he, <em>personally</em>, was responsible for their admission. Only Freddie could talk to the press, and only Freddie could set policy. For a period of time he was a more powerful presence on campus than the University president. He would never have left voluntarily ... retirement rules were for lesser mortals. Only "Yalegate" could bring him down. Regardless of the fact that a number of undergrads felt personally indebted to him, as stated, there were many at Princeton who were glad to see him brought down.</p>
<p>see: "Contentious Hargadon Deanship Colors Admissions Past And Future" - <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/04/05/news/10132.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/04/05/news/10132.shtml</a></p>
<p>See also:
<a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/02/19/opinion/7350.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/02/19/opinion/7350.shtml</a></p>
<p>Father91, ignoring Byerly is to concede he's right. If you think he's wrong, you should debate him rather than ignoring him.</p>
<p>That being said, I'm going to have agree with Byerly on this one. Princeton's ED policy covers up for the fact that should they move to SCEA, they will probably be the most "screwed" by RD, in comparision to HYS. This is already apparent from their lagging RD yield rate. </p>
<p>And even then, Princeton's ED policy hurts them from getting another 2,000 applications which they might get 86% or so yield on, should they be admitted. </p>
<p>Princeton students continue to love Hargadon partially because he did admit them after all. Why wouldn't they like him? He personified the elitism of Princeton. Someone at Stanford this year joked of getting a Richard Shaw tattoo.</p>
<p>There's that chart of SAT scores v. acceptance rate at HYPM, and you will see that Princeton's declines around the 96-98th percentile; as long as Princeton does that, it can't be considered as competitive as HYSM.</p>
<p>No matter what Shaw said about ED in the beginning, he, unlike Rapelye, realized that SCEA was the most competitive option.</p>
<p>I don't want to attack Stanford or anything, but reading this thread on Princeton made me think of something: Why doesn't Stanford give interviews? Is it because their alums are too clustered within California, so they aren't accessible to the rest of the US? Is it true that most admits come from California? I know geographic diversity is weighted quite a bit, but it that the majority are from Cali. Just wondering. ( I guess this is directed at zephyr)</p>
<p>heck, the majority of princeton's class is from california. I just think california sends a lot of kids everywhere</p>
<p>all this too-scared-to-go-SCEA stuff being parroted about is just b.s. remember that yale and stanford, too, had ED until just a couple years ago. harvard, at the time of their switch, had an open EA system, and actually moved in an ANTI-student direction when it retreated concurrently to SCEA. and while yale and stanford moved in a PRO-student direction when they switched to SCEA from ED, they probably did it as much for competitive reasons as out of the goodness of their hearts, for the sake of their applicants. if the latter were their true reason, they would have gone whole hog and switched to open EA. since they didn't, there's even less reason for their adherents here to boast of some "confidence" those schools have in their own merits, relative to princeton. in fact, if all admissions offices are in fact fearful places in this competitive market, then the offices at HYS are just as scared as princeton's, since they all prevent their early applicants from applying anywhere else early, so that they enjoy four months' exclusive bargaining rights with those applicants (not surprisingly, around 90% of them end up enrolling, with a large fraction of them not even bothering to put in a regular application elsewhere). for this reason, SCEA has been rightly called a "phony reform." i would suggest that its adherents' high and mightiness on the matter is similarly "phony," and certainly groundless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
heck, the majority of princeton's class is from california.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heck, college-bound young people should know the difference between a plurality and a majority.</p>
<p>I would encourage all to avoid thinking of these discussions as some kind of battle as much as Princetons detractors would like to make them so.</p>
<p>Youre right, Father91. Its difficult to avoid, however. I never engage Byerly on the Harvard board (in fact, I never post there, though I am a Harvard Law graduate) but just cant seem to resist here on the Princeton board where he posts so frequently and with such vigor! (Actually, I think its a bit flattering that he is over here working so hard so frequently.)</p>
<p>So please indulge me.</p>
<p>Byerly, foul language wont reflect well on you or your alma mater. I understand your passion but this isnt a war.</p>
<p>In response to your question (was it rhetorical by the way?) its easy to make the statements I have, because theyre the truth and Ive included the citations. </p>
<p>While its entertaining to hear your theories as to why one or another school made a certain decision in admissions, you dont seem quite humble enough to admit that it is pure speculation on your part, and, by the way, contrary to the evidence. I wish you would supply a few more citations with direct evidence (and not simply others opinions) to support these theories about other schools (not just Princetons by the way) nefarious motives.</p>
<p>It sounds as though you have a grudge against Hargadon. Well, I wont try to dissuade you but its interesting that you dont seem to want to give his successor, Dean Rapeleye, the benefit of the doubt either. Please let us know just what could Princeton do to please you?</p>
<p>Now, did you really not know about the history of Browns admission policies?</p>
<p>Finally, fear not, sister Harvard, Princeton will not melt away should it decide to switch to SCEA.</p>
<p>Oh, and getting back to the original topic of this thread, allow me to repeat what Ive said many times before. (Perhaps it will calm our friends from other boards who are upset with this ranking.) While its fun for those of us who are Princeton alumni to see our alma mater at the top of the list, none of us lives or dies by this ranking and each of us knows and acknowledges that next year we could drop! Should Harvard or Yale or Stanford or MIT or [you name the school] suddenly displace Princeton next year, you wont see me on the attack to assuage the pain.</p>
<p>So, a friendly gotcha to Harvard this year, but no need or desire to prove superiority. There are many wonderful places to study in this country. Go forth and find the one that is right for you.</p>
<p>watch out byerly you're one heckuva *****!</p>
<p>This reminds me of that one Seinfeld episode where everyone is swearing...</p>
<p>You are incorrect in your assertions with respect to Brown's moves in re EA/ED. I am quite familiar with Brown's early admit program. Your explanation is garbled, off in its timing, and mischaracterizes Brown's early program status at several points.</p>
<p>I have no "grudge" against Hargadon; I simply think of him as a rather arrogant and self-important character, who Princeton is well rid of.</p>
<p>There is every reason to think his successor, Rapelye, will do a excellent job once the ghost of Freddie has faded further.</p>
<p>My positions in re Hargadon, the evils of ED, the phony reform of SCEA and the vitues of the RD yield rate as the best measure of selectivity have never wavered over the years - no matter which school is #1 or #2 in the USNews rankings or any other rankings.</p>
<p>Your efforts at arch, put-down humor are pretty pathetic.</p>
<p>In response to Ballerina, you're right, Stanford does not do interviews. It was the view of past admissions deans that they didn't add much to the application, and were much more for the alums than the students.</p>
<p>That being said, it is likely that new admissions officer (promoted from Yale) Richard Shaw will make gradual changes in this policy over the next few years.</p>
<p>Advantage, Byerly.</p>
<p>Stanford has never had a strong national recruiting program, except for athletes, As a result, its student body has been somewhat more regional in its composition than the other top elites, and its yield rate, while very strong in the west, has been pretty ordinary in other regions.</p>
<p>This is about to change.</p>
<p>Stanford is joining Harvard, Penn and Georgetown on their long-established "national tour" - visiting hundreds of communities in the process, and raising the visibility level. There are plans, not yet formalized, to involve alumni in the recruiting effort.</p>
<p>Shaw's new marketing efforts include the "likely letter" of which Stanford sent around 160 this year in an effort to attract top students from outside California.</p>
<p>See: "Aggressive marketing efforts outlined by new Dean of Admission"
<a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/april26/admissions-042606.html%5B/url%5D">http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/april26/admissions-042606.html</a></p>
<p>Zephyr, I have rarely thought that Byerly has an advantage in almost any discussion of Harvard v. Princeton because he repeats the same tired points about cross-admit preferences, EA vs. ED and Fred Haradon over and over again (and sometimes throws in a reference to the football player who repeated his freshman year at Princeton) and rarely addresses the issue of undergraduate educational quality. I challenge him to have a real discussion of undergraduate educational quality at both institutions. As I have stated, although I obviously believe that Harvard is an excellent school, I think that Princeton, with its smaller classes, smaller student body, better faculty/administration relations (not to mention the outstanding presidency of Shirley Tilghman), happier undergraduates and greater percentages of professors teaching undergraduates, certainly has as good a claim as Harvard to be considered the equal of any other university in the country.</p>
<p>Midatlmom makes a good point. This thread is going far a field. As it seems is always the case when positive news about Princeton is announced, Byerly has attempted to hijack the thread and turn it into yet another bloviation on the theme “Princeton can’t be so good or it would do better in its cross admissions rates with Harvard.” Byerly, a simple “congratulations,” would have been appropriate.
As for SCEA versus ED, the whole debate has an “Alice in Wonderland” quality to it. In a perfect world, if Princeton or any college had 1,200 slots to fill, it would receive exactly 1,200 applications, every applicant would be exactly the student the college wanted to create the perfect class, every student would be offered admission and every student would accept. If Princeton wanted to get closer to this ideal perhaps Princeton should consider announcing that it will henceforth fill 100% of its slots through ED. ED applications would probably increase to about 6,000 and Princeton would have 5 applicants for every slot, more than enough to make up the type of class it wants. Princeton would know that all of the students have made Princeton their first choice and would get a near 100% yield. Another 14,000 or so students won’t have to waste their time and money on applications and won’t have to face the sting of rejection. If Princeton somehow misses having a few critical skills represented in the ED pool it could always change its policy and allow a few second year transfers. I speak tongue in check, but really, this seems to be an awful lot of cognitive energy to use trying to figure out how Princeton might attract thousands more students to reject so that it can capture a few dozens additional stars and thus be even more Number 1 than it is at present.
In terms of cross admits, so what if Princeton doesn’t get more than Harvard? The student who has choice and comes to Princeton is self-assured enough not to have been blinded by the “Gucci” branding, is social enough to not be intimidated by the eating clubs, and is confident enough in their skills to accept the challenge of the anti-grade inflation policies and the senior thesis. Perhaps, in the cross-admits race, Princeton gets the best, and Harvard gets the rest. At least we know that those who went to Princeton appear highly satisfied with the education they received and how it prepared them for post-Princeton life.</p>
<p>Midatlmom, I wouldn’t be so hard on Byerly. We expect him on the Princeton board (especially when there is good news about Princeton) and enjoy (most of the time) jousting with him.</p>
<p>PDaddy, an interesting thought about early decision but I would actually prefer to see the move in the other direction to SCEA. (Oh no, I’m in agreement with Byerly on this one!)</p>
<p>…and Byerly, the sky is not falling.</p>
<p>You write the following: “You are incorrect in your assertions with respect to Brown's moves in re EA/ED. I am quite familiar with Brown's early admit program. Your explanation is garbled, off in its timing, and mischaracterizes Brown's early program status at several points.”</p>
<p>I honestly didn’t think that I had provided any “explanation” of Brown’s admission policies or made any “assertions” other than the obvious one that loosening restrictions on early programs results in significant increases in early applications. Surely, you must see and agree with this. It happened at Yale and at Brown. </p>
<p>Are you disagreeing with the Brown administrators quoted in the Brown newsletter in the above link? I apologize if you felt my comments were “garbled” but I’m confused about your claim that I’ve mischaracterized the program or that I’m “off in its timing.” It seems to me that I’ve not characterized it at all. I’ve simply made the reference, noted the increase and provided the verifying citation.</p>
<p>I’m glad to hear that you have no grudge against Hargadon, as it would be a little pointless now. It certainly appears you have strong opinions about him but it’s nice to see that you wish Dean Rapelye well.</p>
<p>Finally, you write that “Your efforts at arch, put-down humor are pretty pathetic.” </p>
<p>Hey, a Princeton alumnus on the Princeton board tries to respond to your ‘commentary’ in a friendly and lighthearted way and I’m labeled pathetic? </p>
<p>Be nice, Byerly.</p>
<p>You often seem fuzzy about the distinctions between EA and SCEA. Brown shared an open EA pool with Harvard before - going against the trend - it switched to binding ED in hopes of increasing its yield rate.</p>
<p>This was a Faustean bargain, since the number of applicants declined drastically, and the improved yield rate came at the expense of an early pool which was not only smaller, but lower in overall quality. As a result, Brown has never been able to goose the fraction of the class filled from the early pool to anything like the near-50% level achieved by Princton, Yale etc.</p>
<p>IMHO, Brown made the wrong move at the wrong time, primarily to boost yield by reducing the Harvard/Yale overlap. (Almost nobody getting into both Harvard and Brown chooses Brown, and this was likewise true of early admits when both schools were EA and shared an enormous overlap group.) Now Brown is stuck, since in its case SCEA might be the worst of all worlds for them, and the the previous app-boosting advantages of open EA are no longer to be had since it no longer gets first crack at the Harvard EA rejects as formerly. In the EA days, thr early pool was stronger than the RD pool. This is no longer the case.</p>
<p>While this may not be the only factor, I note that Brown's USNews standing has not benefitted to date. Whereas 10 years ago Brown was a top-10 school and outranked Columbia, Penn and Cornell, it is now the lowest-ranked Ivy with the lowest peer assessment score.</p>
<hr>
<p>PS: It might be better to stick to the merits of the issue under discussion and forego the ad hominem comments, whether or not you view them as "friendly and lighthearted."</p>