<p>Perhaps I would if you posted something substantative instead of making vague allusions to "people with an agenda manufacturing 'truths' to suit their biases". If I'm so wrong, where is your factual and theoretical evidence? What do you base your theory of optimal college choice on?</p>
<p>Its simple, really; perhaps too simple for a man of your great erudition to understand:</p>
<ol>
<li>I share the view of the person who compiled the Laissez Faire rankings a few years ago:</li>
</ol>
<p>"The Laissez-Faire Ranking identifies quality with selectivity. It takes
the historical and etymological view that a college is a "chosen company"
and attempts to rank colleges by the membership they attract. It lets the
best applicants point to the best colleges. Bright kids pay attention to
selectivity when they look at colleges because they want to go where their
peers are going. With their matriculation, they help compose a superior
community, thereby confirming received opinion."</p>
<p>And further:</p>
<p>"In the introductory matter to U.S. News's America's Best Colleges 2000,
the editors remind rankings-conscious admissions departments that efforts to
improve yield "simply to move up a rank or two would be silly; yield
accounts for a mere 1.5 percent of the overall ranking." It ought to count
for more: yield is a telling statistic and Laissez-Faire pays more attention
to it than does U.S. News."</p>
<ol>
<li>Finally, I call your attention to the excellent Revealed Preference paper - which you might treat more respectfully than you do me since the primary author was a well-respected economist!</li>
</ol>
<p>That argument presupposes that a college can be objectively superior to another college, without providing a defense of that view. It also assumes that applicants are universally interested in going to the college with the highest quality student body. You must either assume or prove both before the argument will stand.</p>
<p>I invite you to do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, I call your attention to the excellent Revealed Preference paper - which you might treat more respectfully than you do me since the primary author was a well-respected economist!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Revealed Preferences study shows how elite applicants as a group view the desirability of undergraduate institutions.</p>
<p>It does not show the desirability or quality of undergraduate institutions as they are evaluated by a specific candidate.</p>
<p>Don't be absurd. </p>
<p>I don't have to prove that applicants are "universally interested" in anything. </p>
<p>I have suggested what I believe to be the best approach to college selection (at least for academically talented and ambitious applicants), and further suggested that according to the evidence available, the top students - more often than not - follow it.</p>
<p>There is nothing particularly startling about this approach, whether or not it offends your tender sensibilities.</p>
<p>(And I think your understanding of the methodology and findings of the RP study is a little fuzzy.)</p>
<p>I see that you refuse to discuss the underlying validity of your approach. Nothing I can do about that, but it certainly reduces the strength of your (alogical?) argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have suggested what I believe to be the best approach to college selection (at least for academically talented and ambitious applicants), and further suggested that according to the evidence available, the top students - more often than not - follow it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have indeed suggested such a system -- and I would agree that elite applicants "more often than not" follow it. What your have not done is established the universal, objective validity of your approach. You've simply created a tautology: students who prefer to select a college by evaluating the quality of its student body will do so.</p>
<p>Gr8 link f.scottie:)</p>
<p><a href="And%20I%20think%20your%20understanding%20of%20the%20methodology%20and%20findings%20of%20the%20RP%20study%20are%20a%20little%20fuzzy.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please do enlighten me.</p>
<p>Mr. Elton, my man, I have trouble with almost everything Byerly posts--he's biased--but in this case I have two comments: one, I agree with Byerly, and two, you're way out of your weightclass.</p>
<p>First, Byerly's right because it's impossible to get a meaningful sense of a school based on reading brochures, talking to alums, taking a pro forma tour, and on the things you happen to see, or not see, on the random day you happen to be on campus. Most kids have a blast wherever they go to school. Assuming you can afford it, the quality of the education offered should be the prime determinant. </p>
<p>Second, no bright person is convinced by unnecessary wordiness. The reader is not brought around to your position when his reaction to your post is "great, a guy with a thesaurus who thinks the mere presence of multi-syllable words is persuasive."</p>
<p>And that's especially true when some of those words don't mean what you think they do.</p>
<p>Byerly may be the Tony Snow of Harvard, but he's extremely bright. You might want to back away from attack mode.</p>
<p>"The Tony Snow of Harvard"???</p>
<p>"George Bush didn't say what he said, didn't mean what he meant, and if he did, which he didn't, you've twisted the meaning." -- Tony Snow</p>
<p>You do the same kind of thing for Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, Byerly's right because it's impossible to get a meaningful sense of a school based on reading brochures, talking to alums, taking a pro forma tour, and on the things you happen to see, or not see, on the random day you happen to be on campus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Would you mind pointing out where I wrote that it was?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And that's especially true when some of those words don't mean what you think they do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm very precise with my language. Please do point out where I said something that "[doesn't mean what I think it does]".</p>
<p>JBH....I believe our friend Byerly might take that as a complement (as he should)</p>
<p>Tony Snow is a helluva guy!
All WH press secs have to be creative with the media:)</p>
<p>How were YOU able to write "h***uva without the asterisks jumping in there?</p>
<p>I write first.....then repent later:)</p>
<p>helluva is filtered?</p>
<p>I am somewhat amazed by this quote by Byerly--</p>
<p>"Far better advice, IMHO, as a simple rule of thumb, is to just go to the best school you can get into SAT-wise."</p>
<p>This is a ridiculous statement. Most of the colleges I know would disagree that the SAT is the most important factor in college admissions and most of the people I know would disagree that SAT scores should be given much weight in deciding where to attend school (assuming that we are talking about schools that fall into the same general category, i.e. highly selective, selective etc.). I personally know kids who scored 50-100 points lower on the SATS than some of their peers, but they are enthusiastic kids who were engaged in interesting activities and they would probably be better classmates than some of the kids with perfect scores.</p>
<p>I also disagree with Byerly as he apparently believes that there are no worthwhile differences in undergraduate educational opportunities among similarly situated schools and thus the only useful measure is cross-admit preference. I would like to suggest, for any of you still reading this thread who are interested in Princeton, that you look at its undergraduate programs, its small classes and its high percentage of professors teaching classes when you make your decision. In addition, take a look at the priorities of the administration. Princeton is committed to a new arts neighborhood, is trying to attract kids interested in the arts and is in the process of developing 4-year residential colleges to go along with the eating clubs (which are a source of some controversy, although I happen to believe that they provide a great social life and given that half of them are sign-in, do not lead to particular stress or elitism on the campus).</p>
<p>I certainly give the Princeton administration ceredit for finally taking the bull by the horns and taking steps to marginalize the anachonistic "eating clubs."</p>
<p>They did so primarily due to yet another study confirming that the "eating clubs" and the image of Princeton they project - more than any other factor - turn off a significant number of prospective top applicants - particularly women - who the school would like to attract.</p>
<p>"Far better advice, IMHO, as a simple rule of thumb, is to just go to the best school you can get into SAT-wise."</p>
<p>This advice is largely meaningless for students who are choosing among the nation’s elite universities, all of which could choose their entire class if they desire from among students with SAT’s above 2300 or 1550 on the old scale. I agree that most students will fit in well whichever of the Ivies or other elite colleges that they choose. But that doesn’t mean there is not a better fit for some students at some schools. Let’s examine four hypothetical students:</p>
<p>Student A grew up in a rural community in the South and has always dreamed of living in a large city and being exposed to museums, theater, and a vibrant night life. Her vision of college is a place where she will study intensively the greater thinkers of the past.</p>
<p>Student B wants to get as far away from the maddening crowds as possible. His image of college is a bucolic, self-contained campus. He knows what he wants to study and wants to spend as little time as possible having to deal with any required courses outside of his intended major.</p>
<p>Student C is a violin prodigy. Although she has decided that she wishes to pursue a liberal arts education rather than attend a conservatory, it is critical for her that she have access to world class violin teachers and musicians so she can continue to hone her performance skills while attending college.</p>
<p>Student D is a scholar athlete. He is good enough to have been recruited by the top Division IA football factories, but decided that he wants an Ivy League education. Nevertheless, he has not completely abandoned a dream of playing professionally and wants to attend the school that has had the most success in having its students get invited to NFL training camps. </p>
<p>Putting aside Princeton for a minute, I would submit that Students A and C should consider Columbia seriously, while students B and D might want to begin their search elsewhere. If the students were chooseing between Columbia and U Conn, perhaps the "SAT rule" provides some guidance. But how Columbia’s SAT scores versus those of other Ivy League schools would be of any value to these four students is beyond me.</p>
<p>Actually you shortchange Columbia, which, I believe, leads the cloistered Ivies in NFL roster slots currently.</p>