<p>Yeah, I think Dan O'Neill IS too young to do admissions. He rejected me, so yes, I am bitter. However, Yale hasn't accepted anyone from my school (west side) in the past 6 years, whereas they accept at a 30-40% acceptance rate from the local EAST side schools. I know connections are everything...but they arent. I hope the new admissions director from Yale looks for which students are BEST FOR THE SCHOOL. Not which high school they come from.</p>
<p>As someone I know cracked, Shaw is getting a "promotion." </p>
<p>Yale has seen a drastic reduction in their admit rate (and this year especially, their matriculation rate) over the past few years to where the admit rate is below Harvard's. Yale <em>may</em> have peaked. Stanford, I believe, is primed to see a large rise in the number of applications and a subsequent decrease in the admit rate over the next few years. </p>
<p>CUgrad, are you a Cal guy or something?</p>
<p>The Yale admit rate is NOT "below Harvard's" as you state.</p>
<p>Stanford can, in fact, increase the number of applications by the simple expedient of moving to the common app and online applications.</p>
<p>Similar moves upped the app numbers by more than 15% when made by Yale, Princeton and Cornell recently.</p>
<p>What Stanford has failed to do - and why, in consequence - its USNews standing has stalled - is to take steps to nationalize its recruiting. The West Coast applicants fall in their lap like fruit off the lowest limbs, without their half trying. In consquence, the recruiters have become lazy.</p>
<p>Harvard has led the way - with Yale and Princeton now following - in recruiting <em>nationally</em> with intense efforts in all corners of the United States. Stanford does not yet do this: in consequence, its yield rate is misleading, since its applicants come disproportionately from Califoirnia and the West, and its yield rate in other parts of the country are fairly modest.</p>
<p>If Shaw can wake up the self-satisfied, excessively regional Stanford admissions operation, he will be accomplishing something.</p>
<p>My mistake Byerly. I was looking at 2004 numbers. 9.1%<9.7%</p>
<p>As for Stanford, they already have an online application--I used it to apply. The thing I believe would most increase the number of applications would be to move the deadline from Dec. 15 to Jan. 1 in line with other top schools--with the earlier date, they can't pick up the thousands of EA/ED deferreds that apply to schools at the last minute during winter break (I did this with a couple of schools.)</p>
<p>I'm not sure about the effect of the common app on number of applications. It will add applicants, but how many?</p>
<p>In reply to your edit, Byerly, you are somewhat right about Stanford's regional operations. However, there is a subtlety--Stanford competes nationally for math and science types (I met several East Coasters picking Stanford over MIT at Admit Weekend), but for social science and humanities types, it doesn't recruit as heavily on the "other coast," although Stanford's departments are as strong as HYP's departments. </p>
<p>The thing to speculate about is that Stanford's number of applications and admit rate are in line with YPM right now, and once Shaw gets the ball rolling on competing equally with those schools on the East Coast, the appeal of California sunshine might move Stanford's admit and matriculation far and away to Harvard levels.</p>
<p>In regards to the yield rate outside of the Left Coast, the revealed preference rankings show a drop-off that is perhaps less than you state.</p>
<p>My point is that the Stanford app numbers and yield rate are both somewhat distorted in that they reflect a strong regional appeal in California, Washington, etc., and a distinctly "average" appeal in the rest of the country.</p>
<p>Increasing recruiting efforts outside the backyard can backfire - statistically at least - since if the admits are balanced to a greater extent, the yield rate may decline.</p>
<p>Princeton has had a similar experience in the last two years when it has abandoned, to some degree, its reliance on the "Princeton type", and has gone head to head with Harvard, Yale (and Stanford) for the top academic candidates. As a result, the Princeton SAT median may rise, but its yield rate has plummeted.</p>
<p>I'm not sure why anyone would say that Shaw "bailed" on Yale as if somehow that reflected negatively on Yale. He is going to a school with a higher admit rate and lower yield. Yale will presumably replace him with James Nondorf or Robert Jackson, both of whom are awesome guys and much younger.</p>
<p>I'd love to see Mr. Jackson get the job.</p>
<p>yeah...I'm a Cal guy (though CU is for Cornell)...but still have grudging respect for the Cardinal.</p>
<p>cheers,
CUgrad</p>
<p>how about chris murphy? he's an assoc. director and he's been there for quite a while. </p>
<p>that said, i would say something "smug" about shaw's leaving, but i'm sure some other ill-meaning losers on a different college admissions board would find it and spend countless hours trying to unlock the secrets of my psyche.</p>
<p>Good to know, CUgrad. I very much like the rivalry to be intense, but also respectful.</p>
<p>yeah go chris murphy!</p>
<p>chris murphy didn't accept me :) but that's ok, a different residential college did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, I think Dan O'Neill IS too young to do admissions. He rejected me, so yes, I am bitter. However, Yale hasn't accepted anyone from my school (west side) in the past 6 years, whereas they accept at a 30-40% acceptance rate from the local EAST side schools. I know connections are everything...but they arent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! My school's name and 'connections' don't belong in the same sentence. We've never had someone go to Yale. So you're right - connections really aren't everything.</p>
<p>Hey Andrew - its nice to 'see' you again</p>