<p>“I’m also misunderstanding the notion that Stanford is now rising and taking it’s place as the end all be all institution it deserves to be.”</p>
<p>Completely agree. Stanford’s been one of the most elite schools in this country for years and years. It’s not “rising” because it’s already well secured at the top. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One can read different things in the cross-admit data. It is, however, for the most common mortals just as irrelevant as the yield. That type of information is not really important to the applicants – successful and non-successful. The relevance is for the enrollment managers who spend plenty of money and effort to maximize the impact of each class. It also serves as an indication of validation of the decisions made by the adcoms. In regard to Stanford, it would be hard to deny that Dean Shaw must find some pleasure in announcing the cross-admits with Yale when the data indicates a winning “season” and he surely does not miss the opportunity to shoot down the the hard to dispel myth that Cal/Berleley is an institution that is a true peer in terms of yield (Not more than a handful cross-admitted by Cal and Stanford enrolls at Cal.) </p>
<p>All in all, it is just a bit of bragging by the schools, an important metric for the professional, and a source for silly debates for all of the rest of us. </p>
<p>Harvard gets taken off all the time. Heck, I’ve taken Harvard off my recruiting schedules (but no big company allows its recruiting teams to take ANY school off without a peep- you need to show 5 years worth of data to demonstrate why the budget is better spent elsewhere.) We don’t track cost per hire with the specificity of “oh, Suzie came from Harvard and it’s cheaper to hire someone from Harvard than to shlep up to Dartmouth so we’re sticking with Harvard and dumping Dartmouth”. But metrics which show how many offers were made out of how many students got interviewed; how many offers were accepted, how broad the geographic distribution of the kids we hired was (i.e. if every single kid at Dartmouth will only work in NYC and I’ve got a function I need to staff in Cleveland, that doesn’t bode well long term for Dartmouth) and of course the holy grail- retention/promotion/advancement.</p>
<p>The more likely explanation for the “belt tightening” story is that the recruiting targets themselves were what got cut. If you’re hiring 20% fewer new grads, you don’t need to reach as deeply into the talent pool to get there. On the margin, the extra cost of going to Dartmouth if you’ve been sending teams to Dartmouth for years isn’t that big a number. My guess would be that the company your son was asking about cut its hiring targets of BA’s as well as its targets for MBA’s. BUT- MBA recruiting is usually the last thing to go (it’s hard to rebuild a reputation among MBA’s once you’ve let it go fallow) so given smaller numbers of kids to hire, the company kept Tuck and eliminated Dartmouth undergrad.</p>
<p>That leaves a toe-hold for next year when your numbers go back up, and telling career services that its “belt tightening” is a bit of a face saver all around.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These numbers all are indicators of something (acceptance rate = interest, cross-admit = preference, yield = commitment? )</p>
<p>But doesn’t say anything about the important question: is this the right fit for me?</p>
<p>But of course we can argue and this is an anonymous forum on the internet after all so that is expected. After a while it is just as silly as a debate as to who would win in a fight, superman or batman? </p>
<p>TVenee, I dislike when people claim undergrad doesn’t matter, because that assumes most people plan to become a doctor or lawyer or professor or PhD researcher or whatever other lofty profession requires that advanced degree. In reality, many people just get a job after their 4 years, so that undergrad degree is all they end up having. Only 10% of Americans have graduate degrees.</p>
<p>Oh I don’t agree or disagree. I just know that in every thread discussing selective schools that argument comes up without fail. I’m assuming there’s data to back it up as it comes up over and over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. How many bronze medalists are on Wheaties boxes or get invited to The Tonight Show?<br>
<a href=“A Brief History of The Olympics, According to 13 Wheaties Boxes | Mental Floss”>http://mentalfloss.com/article/54990/brief-history-olympics-according-13-wheaties-boxes</a>
I can name probably a dozen US Gold Medalists, not sure if I can name any bronze medalists. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False comparisons are…false. Since people perceive differences in upper and lower ivies, there is a difference and that difference is the perception of the education. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is a right fit is a question first answered by the applicants when they … build their applications’ list. In a perfect world, one should not apply to a school that is not a right fit. Of course, the balance between prestige, selectivity and fit is always perfect, but that is another story. After that first step comes the response from the schools, and again in a perfect world the school would select the students that … best the schools. I happen to think that, despite the commotion about the low admit rates, that the school do an EXTREMELY good job a plucking the fruit they like and would like the school. </p>
<p>So, the final decisions when the shoe is again worn by the applicant should not be “that” elusive in terms of right fit. If the list was done with some sense, all the schools should offer a good fit. </p>
<p>Last but not least, the impact of financial aid is not trivial. I mentioned the Stanford versus Cal above, and out of fairness, one should be aware that the net COA is often lower at the selective private school for the many students who qualify for need-based aid. </p>
<p>Too many think too hierarchically. The right school is the right school. We all know plenty of people who led challenged lives despite some gloss from their younger lives. Life’s still a B. So if your kid gets into Stanford, just make sure she agrees with your choice. And that if she stumbles, you offer the support she needs- not, “but it’s the best.”</p>
<p>Was rejected to Stanford, but was accepted at USC (6%) and Pepperdine (8%)</p>
<p>When one compares the percent admit rate and the cross admit statistics it is important to remember that these statistics are drawn from two entirely different groups. In one case the pool is drawn from all high school applicants who have a strong enough preference for a particular school that they expend the time, money and energy to apply to that school. This is a measure of how the common high school student feels about both H and S. For this group, for this year, it appears that Stanford has a slight edge.</p>
<p>When one looks at the cross admit statistics one is looking at an entirely different pool of students- namely students who were accepted to both S + H. This is a much smaller and more talented group then the percent admit group. For this group appears to have an equal preference for both Harvard and Stanford. This group would be expected to spend much more time and energy comparing the relative merits of attending either school.</p>
<p>For the less informed group the slight preference for Stanford may be due to the weather. For the more informed group there is no preference. Both these statistics indicate that Harvard and Stanford are equally desirable, on average, for the most intellectually talented high school students. </p>
<p>Am I the only one reading this thread and finding it hilarious?</p>
<p>Stanford is an amazing school that will set you up well in life. Harvard is an amazing school that will set you up well in life. “Lower level ivies” are amazing schools that will set you up well in life. Hell, most if not all of the Top 20-50 schools will give you a great shot in life. While there is certainly distinction between Stanford and Harvard versus say Tulane and Tufts, I think people would agree you are in a good position attending any of these schools. Some things simply aren’t important in life, like what Ivy is objectively best.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with everyone who is talking about the subjective feels. Especially in the 20-50 range, it is all about what fits you best + financial IMO. Same goes for within that tier of Top 1-20.</p>
<p>I still don’t get why we rely on numerical hierarchies still versus tiered ranks. The world, education, and the economy is too subjective to be put in a neat and objective order.</p>
<p>The thing I find the most humorous is that we all know exactly how this argument is going to end. Nothing will be resolved and few to no minds will be changed. I guess people like to argue about this? Anyways, for any HS students reading, make the choice for yourself if you are in the lucky predicament of picking between ivies. They really are all academically comparable.</p>
<p>
You are ignoring the large difference in portion of class admitted in the early round. Harvard had an early admit rate of 21.1% this year, admitting ~60% of their class (assuming near 100% yield on early admits). Stanford had an early admit rate of 10.8%, approximately half the rate of Harvard. If a college wants to increase their yield, one of the easiest ways to do so is to admit more of the class in the early round. Driving up yield via increased early admits also has the added benefit of decreasing overall admit rate since you send fewer acceptance letters when you expect a higher yield. The effect on cross admits is not as obvious to predict for SCEA, but is likely to be significant. You are removing some of the cross admits you’d win since they don’t apply to other schools, but decision threads show that a notable portion of SCEA admits do apply to other schools. In some cases, they may be comparing FA offers with lower choices or other means of a backup choice, which would increase cross admit wins.</p>
<p>An interesting read that reflects what many current students at The Farm might say. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/03/31/admission-rates-and-why-were-here/?utm\_source=rss&utm\_medium=rss&utm\_campaign=admission-rates-and-why-were-here”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/03/31/admission-rates-and-why-were-here/?utm\_source=rss&utm\_medium=rss&utm\_campaign=admission-rates-and-why-were-here</a></p>
<p>By the way, the sportsman, what is the meaning of the percentage numbers after USC and Pepperdine? If meant to be admit rates, check the sources again. </p>
<p>@Trinity. That was an excellent piece by Winston Shi…</p>
<p>It’s conversations like this that work to convince 17-year-old high school students that they are failures if they don’t get into Harvard or Stanford. No wonder so many kids are devastated when they get rejection letters and have to settle for a “lower Ivy” or, God-forbid, Vanderbilt or Colgate or Rice or Tufts. Some of you make it sound like if you don’t go to Stanford you’ll only find a crappy job at a crappy company because THE BEST recruit ONLY at Stanford. Is that really the message we want to send to the thousands of students who just got a rejection letter?</p>
<p>@fireanddrain</p>
<p>You are reading far too much into this.</p>
<p>I don’t think that any student who is smart enough to apply to Harvard and Stanford believe that level of hyperbole (complete with CAPITAL LETTERS!).</p>
<p>They are aware however that companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, hedge funds, Goldman and others have a preference and do more recruiting from Stanford and Harvard than they do from Rice. They are also aware that (a) there are more companies in the world than those and (b) it is not that they exclusive recruit from those schools.</p>
<p>Wow. Reading all this really makes me wonder if Hobbes wasn’t right when he said the “the life of man is… nasty, brutish and short”. And let’s give a shout-out to Machiavelli, too. And Darwin. </p>
<p>If you’re not among the 5% “safely” ensconced at Stanford (or HYPM), you’re basically f–ed. N’est pas? Are am I being unrealistic?</p>
<p>Getting into Stanford doesn’t guarantee your success, just like getting rejected from Stanford won’t guarantee your demise. Opportunities are always there at every school, but the student has the be the one to take the initiative. So you are never “safe”, even if you go to Stanford or Harvard or Oxford. You just have opportunities to succeed, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t opportunities everywhere else.</p>
<p>well said beep</p>
<p>“Since people perceive differences in upper and lower ivies, there is a difference and that difference is the perception of the education.”</p>
<p>Really? What % of the pop can even nane an Ivy, much less distinguish upper and lower? Frankly it’s hard to take anyone who uses the term lower Ivy seriously. Any minute differences in the schools pale when you actually interview a person. You ascribe waaay too much power to brand name and fail to see the person. </p>