<p>You still evade my question as to how this ranking should be a factor or how its important to college applicants. I can save you the time by answering for you. Its not. </p>
<p>And isn't yale more selective this year? Or maybe its harvard? I don't know, and I don't care and nor should you because its an unimportant stat in terms of deciding what's the best college for you.</p>
<p>It's a billion dollar industry. Good luck trying to convince Guidance Counselors and College Reps to stop buying the stuff.</p>
<p>There are different ways to measure selectivity. The simple (mindless) method is to divide slots into number of apps. But fortunately the Princeton Review realized that it made no sense to reward popular schools who did alot of marketing, as well as those who received many unqualified apps, so it created a formula to eliminate the "garbage". Hence the criteria for "the Toughest Schools to Get Into" ranking. Also, the same reason why you will not be able to pry the PR material from the GCs and admission reps, let alone the millions of buyers.</p>
<p>In my view it is the most well researched formula out there. It has withstood the test of time. See below:</p>
<p>Admissions Selectivity Rating
This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students.</p>
<p>Pcessly, why are you exaggerating a one-point difference between Yale and Princeton in the US News rankings into something much larger? A ONE POINT DIFFERENCE ON ONE YEAR'S STATISTICS.</p>
<p>What's more, you can hardly use rankings like this to justify which school is "better" - we're talking about two of the top three members of the Ivy League here - you can't get much more trivial. It all boils down to personal preference/"fit," something that US News et al. will not help at all with.</p>
<p>I do not believe in total reliance on any one ranking. That is why I have always attempted to refer to multiple, credible, undergraduate, national rankings by established researchers and publishers who have been around a while. </p>
<p>Rankings are but one source to consider when evaluating a college. Sometimes the rankings/surveys however, can be a valuable tool or red flag, particularly in those instances where, despite using different criteria, they all agree on the same point.</p>
<p>I respect an individual's right to an opinion, but it's difficult to accord it the same weight as a well researched national publication. We all have bias. The national, established publications however tend to tell it like it is.</p>
<p>The only reason Princeton's selectivity was ever rated above that of H or Y is because they engaged in strategic admissions-ie they wouldnt admit people RD whom they thought would get into H or Y. The ED program is still a vestage of this. </p>
<p>Other than that, the "rankings" that pcessly cites have no bearing on the quality of the undergraduate experience at either P or Y. The Princeton Review (and Atlantic Monthly) are based on surveys. Only US news is based on concrete fact and, as I said before, it can be manipulated. But even so-is there enough of a difference in that ranking to justify saying that Yale is an inferior school? I think not. Nor would I say that Yale is a better school than Princeton. I chose Yale over P because I prefer its atmosphere.</p>
<p>Prepster, Thank you. You just lent credibility to my last post.<br>
A person has a right to an opinion I guess, even when it is based on nothing but **.<br>
You are either sharper than the 5 national publications I mentioned earlier or you are obviously uninformed on all fronts. My bet is with the national guys. The criteria for the Princeton Review's "Toughest Schools To Get Into" ranking is not based on surveys but the following:</p>
<p>"Admissions Selectivity Rating
This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students."</p>
<p>Pcessly, as a future Princeton student, I think I can speak on behalf of many, if not all, of the Princetonians here, in saying that such small differences in something like selectivity don't matter. All it shows is that the top few schools (MIT, Princeton, Yale) have student bodies of comparable quality, and such a small selectivity advantage to Princeton shouldn't factor into anybody's decision. Rankings like the "happiness" ranking that show large discrepancies between student happiness at the schools might be of use, but even then only when put in context. As I said before, I think you're doing the school a disservice by putting much of an emphasis on its rank: there are so many reasons to pick Princeton, many of which have been discussed on this post and especially on the Princeton board, and its rank isn't one of them. Are you even a senior? I'm prety sure you're not, because you haven't appeared anywhere on the acceptance threads, and you sound like an overeager high school freshman. Personally, I'd like to see how your tune would change if you ended up getting rejected by Princeton and accepted by Yale (assuming you'd be so lucky). That being said, I do think that some of the Yale posters, as well, (not you, vivaldi--you're great) have been a little unrealistic and unfair in their claims, which I guess is what has made pcessly so defensive. It's unnecessary to put down one school to promote the other.</p>
<p>As for prepster, the rumor about schools not accepting the "highest quality students" in order to preserve their yield has circulated about every school, even Yale. Especially now, with dean Rapelye, this statement seems untrue with Princeton, which is fiercely competing for the top applicants. Plus, if that rumor were true, it would not only lower their admit rate, but also their admitted students' quality statistics, which would negatively affect their standing on the rankings (something that hasn't happened. in fact, the student quality has managed to overcome princeton's slightly higher admit rate, thus boosting princeton above yale and harvard for the selectivity rank). Of course, such small differences in the rank do not matter, but it is unfair to claim that Princeton, at least the Princeton of the last 10 or so years, admits less qualified students, because that is simply not true. Also, Princeton has no reason to stay with ED to keep up its rankings, since yield is no longer a factor in US News.</p>
<p>Wow. Perhaps you didnt understand.</p>
<p>1-Princeton skews the numbers used by the Princeton Review (the onese that arent survey based) and USN&WR by using yield boosting tactics like the ED program and strategic admissions (there is an NBER study about it, forgot the link). Under Rapelye, they have, thank goodness, started doing away with this practice.
2-If thinking that you are a member of a slightly more select group makes you feel better (however factual your claim to being in a more select group may be), go ahead and enroll based on that alone. I should hope that most people dont do that.</p>
<p>here here, christopher!! as a sidenote, turning down princeton was like ripping of an arm. i have loved it since the first time i set foot on campus at age 4.</p>
<p>Maybe you should submit your conspiracy theory to the national publishers!</p>
<p>So many of the above posts are about all 3 schools... not the titled P vs Y.....I can't speak for P, but I can provide a comment or two, not documented statistics, but opinions and reactions. </p>
<p>One of the deans at Yale had an interesting observation btwn Yale and Harvard (where the dean had spent 10+ yrs prior to coming to Yale) and the view was that many of the kids at H are always on edge, worried that they are about to be exposed for knowing nothing. That is not the atmosphere at Yale. Kids at Yale like to learn to learn, not to craft the best resume. </p>
<p>I will also say that the area around Yale is much more college kid friendly and visitor friendly than the area around Cambridge. The difference is in the size and scope of Boston vs New Haven. New Haven is really all you need as a college student with both New York City 1 hr away and Boston less than 2 hrs away. If you need a big time concert or whatever, it is easy to get to it. However, between school work and ec's at college, you don't need to be roaming a city like Boston or NY every day. The Residential College at Yale is perhaps the #1 advantage to chose it. All the advantages of a frat/sorority with none of the disadvantages. Boston is fun to visit, it is very wearing day in and day out. </p>
<p>Here is what my husband did... 4 yrs Yale undergraduate, 3 yrs Harvard Law School, 5 yrs working in NYC before returning to Maine. I think that is the perfect combination of locations so you can enjoy, savor and maximize each experience at the appropriate age. </p>
<p>You are splitting hairs when it comes to prestige......pick the school that best speaks to YOU.</p>
<p>pcessly-conspiracy theory, or documented by NBER? Hmmm. Here is the link to the paper (you might have to buy it, but i have a copy for free for some reason). Read to your heart's content: <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/W10803%5B/url%5D">http://www.nber.org/papers/W10803</a></p>
<p>Here is an excerpt from page 8 about "strategic admissions" there is a nice graph to go with it.</p>
<p>"We have not arbitrarily selected Princeton for our example. It is by no means alone in
appearing to practice somewhat strategic admissions (for other examples, see "Glass Floor:
How Colleges Reject the Top Applicants and Boost Their Status," 2001), but it makes for a
particularly clear example in our data. Consider Figure 1, which shows admissions at 3
Harvard, MIT, and Princeton. If a college is not practicing strategic admissions, then the
probability that a student is admitted ought to rise monotonically in his or her merit. In
contrast, a college that is strategic will have non-monotonic admissions probabilities. A
student's probability of admission will first rise in his or her merit and then fall as his or her
merit moves into the range in which the strategic college faces stiff competition. In other words, the college will avoid admitting students in the range in which it is likely to lose in a
matriculation tournament."</p>
<p>Since NBER ranks Princeton's "desirablility" 6th (meaning that if admitted to one of the five above P on the list, students will most likely not choose princeton), Princeton competes in US news and other rankings by admitting less qualified students who probably wont get in to H or Y. </p>
<p>So who will you go with? The National Bureau of Economic Research or pcessly?</p>
<p>No, I would prefer to phrase it this way. Who do you believe:</p>
<p>Nber OR The Atlantic Monthly, The Princeton Review, The largest nat'l College Survey Guide, The Fiske Guide, etc., etc.</p>
<p>Like I said, you should take your conspiracy theory to those national publishers. Maybe they will all drop Princeton below Yale in their rankings. </p>
<p>And if they don't would that mean they are part of the conspiracy also?</p>
<p>Prepster, that's funny, because I always loved Yale. My discovery of what Princeton had to offer to undergrads came relatively recently, but I definitely want to be a tiger/bulldog (to go to Yale grad school).</p>
<p>I think that most people here are facing the same dilemma (a love for both schools), so, as has been repeated many times, it would be wise to go with your gut, and at least build a comprehensive knowledge of what each school has to offer you in terms of your interests. Also, personally, although CC is interesting and can be valuable at times, I wouldn't buy into anything that CC posters say, especially about other schools. For me, the biggest surprise in my visit to Princeton was that it was nothing like what everyone had said (people were walking around in sweatpants, not polos and khakis, and we met a lot of incredibly helpful students and faculty members.) So, to anyone who is facing this dilemma, don't be afraid to directly contact each school, and please, visit!</p>
<p>Prepster, as for the NBER rankings, first of all they are based on data from the Hargadon era, while now the admissions office has clearly and plainly stated that it is going for the best of the best proactively. Secondly, as discussed earlier, ED schools like princeton are at a high disadvantage for NBER, since all the absolute princeton-lovers are snatched up ED, while the Yale-lovers have a chance to continue their apps at other schools and ultimately probably end up sticking with their original first choice, Yale, thus arbitrarily raising up EA schools like Yale and lowering ED schools like princeton. Finally, I've personally looked at the survey, and the "dip" that is mentioned seems like it is largely attributable to Princeton's larger proportion of recruited athletes (because of its smaller size). As we can all agree, the typical non-athlete, non-minority usually does not get in with under a 1450, and that point is about where the dip occurs. So, the dip seems to be a dividing point between students who are admitted because they were recruited and students admitted under regular circumstances. While Y and H's data doesn't dip quite as much as princeton (they are larger schools with a smaller % of athletes), there is a noticeable change in the acceleration of the graph around the same point (a flatness, rather than a dip) on the graph at all 3 schools, mostly because in this SAT region the scores aren't helping students very much, since the scores aren't that superb, and the raise on the lower side occurs because the recruited athletes have a lower average. It does not indicate strategic admission.</p>
<p>I dont think NBER researches conspiracy theories. Whats more, manipulating college rankings is far from a conspiracy theory-its the name of the game. Why do you think colleges invest so much in having higher yields and lower accpetance rates. Princeton does it, for sure, and it is DOCUMENTED BY NBER! You cant write it off. No matter how vehemently you may try to cover your ears. Go ahead. Buy the study. Read it. I can even email it to you if you want. The point is, the economists that researched and wrote the paper know a heck of a lot more about it than you do.</p>
<p>I am very familiar with it. It is a one time report put together by 2 Harvard employees. It is one of the reasons I favor unbiased, national publications that have developed credibility over the years. The report you refer to is used by no one at the high school or college level. The materials I refer to are commonly used at those levels.</p>
<p>Be honest, have you ever heard of a High School Guidance Officer or College Admissions Officer using or even mentioning the report? There is a reason for that and there is a reason why their book also flopped. Think about it. The report has no credibility with those in the admissions process. How can you possibly put that alongside the publications I mentioned above. Do you really believe the national publications, with all their researchers, are that uninformed?</p>
<p>Actually, two of them are from Harvard, one is from BU, and one is from Penn. They are all economists of high repute. They work for...you guessed it...NBER!! Which has a pretty strong reputation for sturdy scholarship. I would trust the scholars before I would trust the commerical masses. Do you know that colleges hire consulting companies to help them look better in the rankings? Its not USnews' fault-when taken generally, their results are fairly accurate-princeton is indeed an extremely selective school. There isnt much USnews can do to totally offset that, seeing as its all based on numbers the colleges publish. However if an in depth study is done (like this NBER one), it shows that schools can and do do things to manipulate the rankings. Popularity does not gaurantee complete accurracy. And anyway, why does it really matter? We are talking about 10ths of a percent in differences in "selectivity".</p>
<p>And i dont think college guidance counselors really care if USnews says princeton is slightly more selective than Yale or harvard. It has very little bearing on the school itself or even where an individual student is more likely to get in.</p>
<p>Don't kid yourself, the rankings do matter. Many top 25 colleges promote their ranking on their web site. Others, including Yale, discuss their rankings at length in their newspapers. It is a reality. They are read by many millions of people.</p>
<p>Pcessly, feel free to dupe yourself into thinking that your institution is better. Feel free to maintain that NBER is a farce and that all of those renowned economists dont know what they are doing. I find it entertaining. Just ask yourself this:</p>
<p>Why has princeton's yield gone down so much since Rapelye took over the admissions office? She knows what she is doing, and it is laudable.</p>