<p>Although I don’t think any of this applies to the comparison between Stanford and Harvard, there are a two reasons that perception matters other than wanting to show off for the neighbors</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Depending on which field you intend on entering, plenty of potential employers will be among the collective “John Q. Public” who doesn’t have a sophisticated grasp on the ins and outs of college quality. That person is pretty likely to have heard of Harvard and Stanford. He or she is a lot less likely to have heard of Haverford or Claremont McKenna, or at least to be aware of just how good those schools are. Now, of course, as Pizzagirl often reminds us, reputation is local, and if you are planning on spending your whole life in Iowa, maybe University of Iowa is indeed more respected than most “top 20” schools. But not everyone spends their entire life in their home state, and even in Iowa, I would wager that even employers who haven’t heard of a lot of elite schools have probably heard of Harvard and Stanford and aren’t above being impressed by a “name brand.” </p></li>
<li><p>Dismiss the views of high school kids all you want, but if a whole lot of the best students share a certain preference, that does influence the actual student body quality. Admissions is so competitive that a majority of the student bodies of the top 20 universities and LACs are probably academically interchangeable. But where do the very top students most want to go? Well, all evidence suggests that they still have a fairly strong preference for a small group of super-prestigious schools. That’s worth something, especially if you’re, say, a math superstar who wants to take math 55 at Harvard.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The absurdity comes in when we start overstating the importance of these factors, which I believe have a very modest effect on student experience and outcomes. I would never suggest that someone who really likes LAC culture go to Harvard rather than Williams because of the chance that they would lose out on a job opportunity with an employer who hadn’t heard of the latter but would have been impressed by the former, and I don’t think the presence or absence of a comparatively small percentage of the most desirable students in the country is going to make or break one’s college experience as a whole. But I do think that it suggests a legitimate reason that, all things being more or less equal, one might reasonably prefer the name with a little more shine to it.</p>
<p>All Tpg did as insert the stat. Others took off on what it meant. I may think it means too many are applying. Because of the CA, kids can just add more schools to their list, maybe take a few more risks. Someone else may think it shows S’s superior desirability. The talk did turn to S’s merits, as measured by those app numbers and then the survey. So be it. </p>
<p>I do keep saying: just because the media prints something, doesn’t mean it has a value to us. It’s up to us to assign a meaning, sure. But also to vet, to stand back and ask ourselves if it is so valid it becomes any kind of proof of anything. Even worth calling attention to. I don’t think my stand is amusing, Fluffy. I think it is annoying. On CC, my fire got lit when too many were taking NYT and WSJ articles on admissions as gospel. Or this book or that by someone pushing their own sales or services. .</p>
<p>Like PG, I know exactly where my kids’ colleges stand in the common media reports. Sure. But I don’t think that proves anything. The right college for any kid depends on that kid. What the college does offer, how it does its thing, what it promotes and values. It’s personal. And very flexible.</p>
<p>D1 would have thrived at Harvard, didn’t have the stats, but would fit the intellectual climate and contribute. (And her major was very strong there.) No way she could have thrived at Stanford, a different atmosphere, valuing different attributes. That’s her. For all the kids who get on CC and are dying to go to S, I do wonder what they know about the school, it’s strengths, and what it looks for. so many don’t seem to. I am sure many do. I think it is a wonderful opportunity for many kids who “fit.” I don’t we can say the bulk of applicants took a deeper look. </p>
<p>LOL. So how does that work? Do you interview them first to figure out how much research they have done and whether you agree with their methodology? May want to send Princeton Review a note.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know that that is the case. I think it is more that when people see these numbers there is questioning about “what is going on there” which may lead to more in depth research.</p>
<p>We went through the opposite actually. Our reaction to the low numbers wasn’t “let’s apply there!”, it was more “hmmm, looks like we have to cast a wider, and more diverse net, than we originally thought”.</p>
<p>When I hear about applications going up every year, and increasing by as much as 7-10% per year at some top schools in recent years, I wonder how much of this is due to rapid growth in the number of foreign applicants. If these top schools are tightly limiting the number of foreign admits, then perhaps these overall admit numbers aren’t that relevant to US students. You could have a million foreigners applying for 200 seats at Stanford or Harvard, but that wouldn’t really affect US students as long as those schools limit foreign admissions. Do any of the top schools break out their applicant pools by US/foreign?</p>
<p>Yes and no. In theory, you will find a good number of students who were admitted at more than one school in that range, especially when students compose a realistic list of reaches, matches, and safety. But the practice is also that the students tend to enroll at the school that was the most prestigious, most selective, and highest ranked among their choices. Accordingly, the student body at the 1-2-3 LACs is quite different from the student body at 19-20 and is not as … interchangeable as one could think. To be clear does one really think that the student body at Wellesley or Amherst is similar to Smith’s or Hamilton’s? </p>
<p>Similarly, there is a large overlap in terms of admissions between Stanford and Berkeley. However, it is simply NOT true that the student body is … interchangeable as almost all cross-admits end up attending Stanford. When it comes to the graduating class at both schools, there is a lot less “interchangeablity” with the added numbers of planned transfers from JUCO at Berkeley. And if that example does not meet your approval, you could simply make a similar one between HYP and Michigan. While “some” students get admitted at both, the enrolled class at both schools is hardly one and the same. And for good reasons … the overwhelming majority of the ENROLLED students at the schools ranked 19-20 would have a minuscule change --if not a fat ZERO-- to be admitted at HYPS. The fact that each “top” school could admit a similar class one or two times over does NOT mean that the rejected students end up enrolling at much lower schools. They tend to be admitted at a peer school. Not the same difference. </p>
<p>Fair enough, xiggi, although these days I think more schools are becoming homes for the “average excellent” student who would once have had a better shot at the top 5 or 10. Most cross admits between Harvard and any other college may choose Harvard (I’m not going to use Stanford and Berkeley because the California universities have certain distinct qualities that aren’t generally applicable), but Harvard has been conceding for years that there are multiple qualified applicants for every spot. This probably isn’t actually true of a certain percentage at the top, but the average Harvard student isn’t necessarily any better or more qualified than several other students who wound up elsewhere. As admissions is getting more competitive, the “elsewhere” is expanding; it isn’t as if the kid who could reasonably have gotten into HYP but didn’t is a shoo-in at Columbia or Hopkins or Bowdoin.</p>
<p>So, there’s a top at the top few schools that the other elites don’t have, and a bottom at the next tier that would never have been candidates for admission at the more selective school. But I still think there’s a pretty big middle where the differences are pretty small, although I may have overstated the case by including all of the top 20 universities and LACs; on the LAC side, in particular, 10 would probably be a lot more accurate.</p>
<p>I agree that in the 1 to 10 colleges and 1 to 10 universities present a more homogeneous study body than a 1 to 20 listing. However, to be clear, it applies to both types of schools. </p>
<p>Good post. I don’t see a lot of well-reasoned discussion about that.
In particular the comparison really is about the “enrolled” students, not those that applied.</p>
<p>I never have taken this statement from the colleges at face value. It seems that most colleges say some variation of this in their PR and rejection/deferral letters.</p>
<p>It is a polite way of rejecting people (better to say that you met the qualifications, but darn it, so did many others and we can only accept so many) as well as great PR (we have so many qualified people applying…so juniors you should apply next year because we aren’t as exclusive as you think…although you still need a lot of luck).</p>
<p>I don’t take it at face value either, but I don’t think it is totally false. Whatever impression you might get from reading CC, I really don’t think that every single student at the top schools, even the unhooked students, are uniquely special and talented. After you’ve taken all the easy admits, there’s still a lot of pretty equivalent applicants to choose between, at which point the factors that swing the decision may have more to do with particular institutional needs than any distinguishing characteristic. I know it isn’t precisely the same, but I’m looking at a set of graded essays at the moment. I can immediately identify the ones that I see as clearly superior, and the ones that are below the standard that I would expect at this level. But there’s a middle at which it is really hard to say which good but not outstanding paper is better than another good but not outstanding paper. Fortunately, I can give a number of papers the same grade. But if I had to choose one out of the pack to admit to a hypothetical school, the decision would wind up being fairly arbitrary.</p>
<p>^^^ I agree in general.
But I really do wonder how the process actually works.
After you take out the “easy admits” how many slots are available? And after you take out the “easy denies” and the 1/3 adcoms don’t like (or whatever number), how many applicants are left to vie for those available slots?</p>
<p>Now among them, some people are admitted and many aren’t. But there must have been something that put those admitted people over the edge - it isn’t totally random (I hope) - there must have been something that distinguished the person or undistinguished them (oh no, not another world class tuba player - we have too many).</p>
<p>As to your comment about whether each student is special and talented, my DS commented that of the classmates he has met or heard about everyone has something about them that you say “wow” about (just one data point). So I think in that middle that you mentioned, it is mainly a middle with regard to scores, class rank, etc. The people who get admitted have something that got attention and ultimately support from the committee.</p>
<p>Fluffy2017, the % of the US pop from California is greater than the % of the pop from New England. So it’s a silly comparison. The relevance is the index to the population, and all the Ivies including H over index between 200-300 to the Northeast. All elite schools over index to their home region except for Duke. Bclintonk and I pulled together the numbers for 40 schools - the top 20 unis and top 20 LACs. I’d share the spreadsheet if I could do so without identifying myself. </p>
<p>“Harvard has been conceding for years that there are multiple qualified applicants for every spot.”</p>
<p>Conceding is an odd choice of words - you concede something you don’t want, or are ashamed, to admit. A concession is something that is dragged out of you. They aren’t “conceding” anything. They’re telling you like it is - they have multiple qualified applicants for every spot. If, poof, all of their accepted students were to disappear in a blaze of smoke, they could search among their “rejects” and still find an outstanding class. Why is this so hard to believe? It’s pretty obvious. I think it’s weird to think that it’s just pablum to make people feel better, when it’s pretty clearly the truth of the matter. </p>
<p>"Fair enough, xiggi, although these days I think more schools are becoming homes for the “average excellent” student who would once have had a better shot at the top 5 or 10. "</p>
<p>This happened years ago. It’s the people who are still clinging to HYPSM as the only markers of true excellence who are the ones who are behind the times. </p>
<p>the opinions of people <em>who are knowledgeable about colleges</em> are important to me</p>
<p>LOL. So how does that work? Do you interview them first to figure out how much research they have done and whether you agree with their methodology?"</p>
<p>Well, let’s see. I can tell on CC, for example, that posters such as bclintonk, JHS, tk12169 (among others) are very knowledgeable. So their opinions might matter (and have mattered) to me when I was in the position of looking for my kids. But each of them might have come up with schools that wouldn’t ever make Joe Q Public’s list. Oh well; prominence among Joe Q Public means very little. </p>
<p>I’d guess many kids choose their college based on where they are- and where they want to be, after graduation. If you want to remain in the Northeast, why not go to college in the NE, make your contacts and friends there? Same for other regions. </p>
<p>And, despite any large proportion of NE kids who apply to HYP, there are other factors to consider. </p>