<p>According to NFlplayers.com Harvard and Princeton each have three alumni who have played in the NFL and are on a team's current roster, while Columbia has one. I don't know how many alumni from the Ivies are currently in an NFL training camp. Given the recent success of the Columbia football program, it would not seem to be the best route to the NFL for an Ivy player. In truth, the Ivy is not really a good route for any player who aspires to the pros.</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."</p>
<p>Not really. You see this canard a lot but the numbers don't work out. While the CB is strangely reluctant to release the exact number of students at each cumulative score (can anyone find this?), a 1550 seems to be at the low end of the "99+" percentile range, suggesting that a little less than half of one percent of all test-takers do that well. That works out to around 7,000 people. But the total first year enrollment at HYPSM is slightly higher than that figure, and this obviously doesn't take into account the 1550+ kids who go to Caltech, SWAP and the other Ivies, not to mention (gasp!) less prestigious schools. So while the top schools certainly could care more about SATs than they do now, it's not like they're drowning in a sea of perfect scores right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the weasel word in your sentence is "objectively," because surely you believe that some colleges are better than some other colleges (whether "objectively" or not), or else why not spend as much time in the forum for East Swampgas State College as you spend in the forum for Princeton? </p>
<p>For me, it's certainly evidence worth considering that students who are admitted to more than college with an admission rate below 50 percent, students who in most cases have SAT scores above the 90th percentile nationally, still discern differences meaningful to themselves among all the colleges that admitted them. Not all of those students agree--I know of a local example of a cross-admit between Harvard and Notre Dame who chose Notre Dame--but all students in that happy position think about which school to choose when they have to reply to multiple selective schools by the national reply date. It's silly to say that those students don't invest time to gather information and thought about what is really important in a college education before making decisions about where to matriculate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That's a good point, made by a careful look at the numbers.</p>
<p>I'l; admit I haven't read this entire thread, just the first post. I've been to busy to spend hours on cc reading about MY FAVORITE SCHOOL EVER!! i just wanted to go WHOO HOO PRINCETON becauze i loove the school and i cannot wait to [hopefully] become a student.</p>
<p>In 2005 there were 30,479 students who scored above 750 on the Verbal section of the SAT and 33,841 who scored above 750 on the math section. I'm guessing that the number of students scoring 1550 is higher than 7,000, although it would have been more prudent for me to have said that the elite schools can fill their enrollments with students with scores of 1500+.
As for Columbia players, only Marcellus Wiley among those listed has actually played in an NFL game.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many people guess as you guess, but that doesn't take into account how lopsided most SAT I test-takers are. Few are able to clear 700 on both the math section and the verbal section. </p>
<p>In the most recent year for which there are published figures I can link to here </p>
<p>there was a running total of 5,030 students who had combined (single-sitting) scores of 1550 or higher (939 having scores of 1600) and a running total of 15,016 with combined (single-sitting) scores of 1500 or higher. </p>
<p>Most (all?) of the Ivy League schools give applicants the benefit of their best combination of section scores, even if that didn't come from a single sitting of the SAT I, so there are a few more 1500+ scorers by the Ivy League admissions methodology. But some of those high school students had no intention of applying to any Ivy (they applied to colleges nearer to their home towns, especially colleges with attractive merit aid programs) and some were otherwise unlikely to be admitted by an Ivy (because they had good test scores but crummy high school academic preparation and a lack of elite college prerequisites or SAT II scores). So the pool of Ivy-willing, Ivy-ready, high-SAT college applicants is barely large enough to fill each year's entering classes in the eight Ivy League colleges.</p>
<p>I have to say it's been quite amusing seeing Byerly single-handedly destroying the CC Princeton populations's attempts at defending their school. I'm quite concerned though that so much emphasis has been placed on these league tables - the fact that Princeton ranks number one merely confirms my long-standing belief that league tables are a pile of utter ****e. :)</p>
<p>Princeton is a fine school, Ace. Certainly top 10. It hardly needs defending.</p>
<p>Ace--I don't see how Byerly has "destroyed" anything in this thread. He has made numerous posts about his one big point--the cross-admit preferences--repeating the same old tired argument that he makes hundreds of times a year (and quoting the same articles over and over again). He has never addressed anything relating to the actual undergraduate experience at Princeton (which I believe is exceptional), prefering to thrown in negative comments about ED and Hargadon, rather than debating the issues. </p>
<p>Bottom line is that Princeton, like Harvard, is one of the best schools in the country and neither one of them is necessarily better than the other. If you want to make your decision based on 20 point SAT score differentials, be my guest. Like so many others on these threads, I advise potential applicants to visit schools and get a feel for them and then make your decision.</p>
<p>I agree that applicants should, whenever possible, visit any school which has admitted them and which they are considering attending. </p>
<p>Studies show that for most applicants to elite schools, the setting is almost as important a factor as the perceived quality of the education. After all, you will presumably be living there for 4 years.</p>
<p>I don't think that Harvard needs, or even wants, the defensive arguments it's getting in this forum. Everyone KNOWS that Harvard's tops in terms of reputation (both for students and for recruiters, et al.). It has been for as long anyone I know can remember. Yale and Princeton, or even Stanford, might be the flavours of the year, but Harvard's always a cut above the rest. Nice to take a moment to lend Princeton a little well-deserved recognition, but I don't think anyone really doubts Harvard's lead.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Princeton is a fine school, Ace. Certainly top 10. It hardly needs defending
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How nice of our friend Byerly to include the world's best university for undergraduate studies in his "Top Ten List":)</p>
<p>In the minds of the top academic applicants, Princeton probably comes in about 5th, which is not bad at all. You should be proud!</p>
<p>still smarting over the OP? if it's any comfort (as they tell losers) "there's always next year."</p>
<p>Of course your Alma Mater will have the greatest name recognition to HS seniors and push cart vendors in Yemen, but perhaps the opinion of current students and the unmatched giving by alumni might trump that.</p>
<p>BTW.....</p>
<p>the opening edition of the Prince might contain a cartoon that I guarantee you won't use in any of your future posts.</p>
<p>"Unmatched giving by alumni"? How much did they contribute?</p>
<p>61%, to harvard's 44%. that's "unmatched."</p>
<p>Um, this is the Princeton board so how is he the troll? Gee whiz. I guess then you are the Big Billy Goat Gruff?</p>