<p>Not when we’re looking at the student employment survey. I find it different for some “dream school” questions. One’s employment, one’s wishful. But I think we’re ranging off topic.</p>
<p>@lookingforward
I don’t get your point.
I mentioned, in response to a comment about the rise in tech as a reason for increased interest in Stanford, that it can also be due to a decline in interest in Finance/Consulting - which historically has been where a lot of Harvard people go.</p>
<p>For the purposes of this thread, which began with a statistic on selectivity resulting from increased application numbers, It doesn’t matter one whit what the Princeton Review survey respondents know or don’t know about elite universities. The survey reflects the status of Stanford in the public’s opinion. The opinion of the public has always been a mixed bag of stupidity and intelligence. When Harvard was #1 in the survey results in previous years, the public was just as ignorant or more so. That’s beside the point. The point is that Stanford has replaced Harvard as number one in the public’s esteem. If Stanford is unworthy of that place due to the possible ignorance of the respondents and applicants, then Harvard was also unworthy for the very same reason. Prestige is subjective in nature; it can’t be proved or disproved.</p>
<p>Stanford . . . Where the odds are never in your favor.</p>
<p>"When Harvard was #1 in the survey results in previous years, the public was just as ignorant or more so. That’s beside the point. The point is that Stanford has replaced Harvard as number one in the public’s esteem. If Stanford is unworthy of that place due to the possible ignorance of the respondents and applicants, then Harvard was also unworthy for the very same reason. "</p>
<p>Of course. Harvard isn’t great because “a lot of high school students think it would be cool to go to.” Its greatness has to do with quality of student body and access to opportunities, which may or may not be relevant to Joe Schmoe who “hears” that Harvard is the best college, the Mona Lisa is the best painting, Mercedes is the best car and Rolex the best watch. </p>
<p>You’re sure defensive about Stanford, though. It seems really important to you that others acknowledge its greatness and that it’s bested Harvard. Why is that? What would it mean if Stanford was great and no one knew it? </p>
<p>"The point is that Stanford has replaced Harvard as number one in the public’s esteem. "</p>
<p>Given that both schools are outstanding, why would it matter in the least which one is on top among the general (unknowledgeable) public? Why isn’t your own self satisfaction enough - why does your ego need Joe Q Public to agree? If I go buy a quality Patek Philippe watch, I don’t need to fret that the general public rates Rolex higher. </p>
<p>Yes, an unusual defensiveness. S is a great school. H is a great school. In the end, what matters is more about where a kid is empowered. Not what the world (many of them not so savvy) thinks. If you want a school name evvvvveryone recognizes, follow Big Sports. We adults need to be smarter about all this.</p>
<p>Ask Princeton Review why it matters. They commissioned the survey. Ask all the blog writers and newspapers who reported on the survey why they thought the results would be interesting to readers. Ask the founders of CC why they created a site on which to report news and statistics like this about colleges. Ask all the other posters besides me why they care about Stanford enough to post their opinions. Ask yourself why, when you have a superciliously low view of the intelligence of the masses, you bother posting among the ignorant, provincial, and today’s flavor, egotistical masses on this forum. Our minds are far too darkened for any of your illumination to penetrate. You need to give up now.</p>
<p>I put my money where my mouth is. My D attends a top 10 LAC which is excellent AND whose name merits a “huh?” among Joe Q Public. Would you have been comfortable making the same choice? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think for most people who post here, personal self-satisfaction is enough, but I am starting to form the opinion that it is you who has an ego issue with Rolexes and Ivies, based on the constant, repetitive drumbeat of your posts. What is that old line…“the lady doth protest too much…”</p>
<p>Princeton Review doesn’t do it as a public service. It’s money in their pockets. Attention to their brand. And deals with lowest common denominator. They aren’t asking for peer reviews of faculty research or for folks to qualify “why” this school or that is so important to them. </p>
<p>We shouldn’t be treating these schools as status symbols like an expensive watch (which is supposed to convey some superiority in the individual?) We should be looking behind the superficials. But you see, so many people don’t. S is a great school, H is a great school. One may be better at some programs than the other, a better fit for some sorts or lead in different directions. We’ve barely glanced at the factors that matter more than JQPublic. See? </p>
<p>And theGFG, the opinions of people <em>who are knowledgeable about colleges</em> are important to me. Note the stars. You, on the other hand, care about the opinion of the guy at the snack stand who “thinks H is uppity” or the woman at the PTA who opines that Rutgers is just as good and why waste your money. </p>
<p>It is extremely arrogant to presume that thousands of students who applied to Stanford are uninformed status-seekers. Several of you post as though you believe you are the only ones smart enough to understand students must “look beyond the superficials.” Studies that do consider faculty research and other important academic measures also place Stanford at or near the top of their rankings for many fields. See up-thread for some links. Students who have done research into details will decide to apply to Stanford. </p>
<p>PG, this is a thread about Stanford’s admissions rate. Your personal jibes are rude and irrelevant to the discussion.</p>
<p>"It is extremely arrogant to presume that thousands of students who applied to Stanford are uninformed status-seekers. "</p>
<p>Who SAID that? Talk about creating a straw man! The majority of students who apply to Stanford are bright, thoughtful, accomplished young people who, if chosen, would add to the campus life. Why would anyone think differently? </p>
<p>“Studies that do consider faculty research and other important academic measures also place Stanford at or near the top of their rankings for many fields. See up-thread for some links. Students who have done research into details will decide to apply to Stanford.”</p>
<p>TheGFG - we don’t NEED to have Stanford’s bona fides proven to us. We know it’s an outstanding school. There is no one on this thread who doesn’t think Stanford is excellent. </p>
<p>That has nothing to do with the notion that when you ask Joe Q Public what his “dream school” is, his answer has very little to do with actual quality and doesn’t necessarily reflect any kind of informed opinion. I bet Ohio State is a dream school for more students than Swarthmore; doesn’t mean that Ohio State is actually better than Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Stanford’s high quality is UNAFFECTED by whether it ranks #1, #2 or #30 on the list of random high schoolers’ dream schools. </p>
<p>Stanford’s prestige and popularity with Joe Q Public is not divorced from its academic quality either. </p>
<p>Face it, it’s arrogant of any of us to believe we are the only right ones out there. You can watch some on CC, over time, as they listen and learn, have a discussion, evolve their views a bit- and others as they insist what they think or what worked for them makes their perceptions better. Which has more of a problem with arrogance? Which risks spreading misinfo?</p>
<p>You can be proud of your kids, GFG. And so can we. S is a great school.<br>
My belief kids/parents don’t properly research college choices- and know why some are right choices- comes from direct experience. That’s not enough to say “all kids.” But it is enough to acknowledge a problem. I say, well, they are 17 years old. But it doesn’t change that they can’t articulate why they want X elite- in a Why Us? or on a public forum. How does anyone explain that away? </p>
<p>Stanford’s high quality is UNAFFECTED by whether it ranks #1, #2 or #30 on the list of random high schoolers’ dream schools. Or pulls in the most money or sends the most to high-tech or has some higher post-grad average starting salaries. </p>
<p>The more one takes a position based on these terms, the more I sense either defensiveness or a false way of judging kids’ opportunities, growth and empowerment. Sorry. Right now, we could use Annasdad. Eh?</p>
<p>S is a great school. H is a great school. Period. And so are many others.</p>
<p>@lookingforward </p>
<p>What is amusing is that when one of these polls comes out there are people who complain about the poll, the methodology, and of course the “by other colleges are good too”. (no one said they weren’t)</p>
<p>So rather than focus on the defensiveness, it is odd that no one asks about the agenda for these types of attacks on a poll (which is really a defensiveness about other colleges that they prefer). They should complain to Princeton Review or, better yet, create their own poll and publish the results, methodology, etc.</p>
<p>By the way, this isn’t unique to colleges. I am a car enthusiast and when the top rankings come out there is always the same BS about “but my 10 year old car just suits me fine” or “my car, ranked 30 on the list, fits my needs and is cheaper too”. Okay then, then don’t post in threads about the top cars!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And once again, no one said they weren’t.</p>
<p>There is truth in a lot in what you say, lf, but it’s odd for you to say it here and to keep saying it on every thread. The OP is about a statistic on application numbers. It is not a debate on the relative merits of any one school for any particular child, nor is it a debate on the relevance of the statistic for individual college decision-makers. I don’t understand the need to take any survey, ranking result or statistical measure and discount it based on what you think naive people will assume from it, or based on the assumption that it was the naivete of people which produced it. I also dislike the implication that those who wish to discuss the meaning of the statistic have some psychological hang-up or personal need to do so. The numbers don’t mean more than what they mean, but they aren’t worthless indicators either. There is a middle ground. </p>
<p>I always thought it was an odd premise to apply to a college in part because of its low admission rate. All that really means is that the school as many applicants for the number of new freshman admitted and the odds of getting in are much lower. Using the admission rate as a decision point only serves to further deflate the admission rate as even more people apply to that school in an often vain hope that admission will be gained.</p>
<p>Most of the ‘top’ schools are such because of a long, well-deserved reputation for academic excellence and rigorous standards. The issue for me is more one of a lack of value versus less selective schools that have similar academic achievements and cost considerably less (NCOA).</p>