<p>I have heard of Tufts Syndrome for a while. This weekend I got time to study the Accepted list and Rejected list of Stanford. It clearly played Tufts Syndrome in this year admission process. It did helped Stanford raised its yield rate but it also lost my long time respect.</p>
<p>why would Stanford have tufts syndrome?!?!? are you kidding--it's like Harvard having tufts syndrome...doesn't add up at all</p>
<p>o yes, STANFORD has tufts syndrome. Just like Harvard, Yale, and MIT right?</p>
<p>NOBODY wants those top students obviously....</p>
<p>^lmao yeah. imagine...schools like Washu and Tufts rejecting "overqualified" kids because they won't matriculate...and schools like stanford rejecting "overqualified" kids as well because they're, well...overqualified. So being overqualified = very bad for college admissions because you will obviously get rejected everywhere.</p>
<p>On a more serious note...MatrixDad, you should know that:</p>
<ol>
<li>The kids here do not, in any way, represent the entire population sample.</li>
<li>Even if the previous point is true, you do not have access to these kids' transcripts, scores, essays, recommendations, etc. How can you judge qualifications of the candidates using only one or two of their forum posts?</li>
</ol>
<p>Have you been to Stanford? Have you studied with its students/participated in any of the classes?</p>
<p>Narcissa, please carefull read the accepted list and rejected list and compare them with Harvard and Yale to draw your own conclusion.</p>
<p>gqunit, I agree with you that kids here do not represent the entire polpulation sample. But they are good samples (may be 5-10 %, not sure), at least statistically.</p>
<p>The "sample" provided by college confidential is pretty much the most self-selected sample of all time and in no way representative of the rest of the applicant pool. The people who come back to post on the site are naturally going to be the ones who feel they are the victims of some "tremendous injustice." They want to post their super awesome stats and then have people tell them that its soooo unfair that they did not get in. Its not surprising that Tufts Syndrome would seem to appear in this sample. However, the claim that Stanford is rejecting its most highly qualified applicants just doesn't hold water.
Furthermore, you claim it could be 5-10% of the pool? For Stanford that would be between 1200 and 2400 students. I highly doubt you considered that many.</p>
<p>MatrixDad,</p>
<p>Stanford's admission has been more "random" than HY for years, not just this year. The fact that Stanford's yield increases while others decrease is not a result of any "change" you alleged.</p>
<p>johno12345, I agree with you that the 5-10% estimation may NOT be a solid statement. But statistically, even it is 1% (or less) sample it is a prety good sample set. You argument "The people who come back to post on the site are naturally going to be the ones who feel they are the victims of some "tremendous injustice." " can not be count as a strong statement. Because if it is true, this phenomenon also happens to all the most selected colleges. Basically, this statement has no value. </p>
<p>Sam Lee, to be honest, I have not read the accepted/rejected list for the past years. So I have no word for it. My conclusion may not be exactly correct. But if we faithful compare the accepted/rejected list of Stanford with Harvard and Yale this year. For any sincerely people, we have no difficult to say, Stanford's admission is more "random" to be modest. Next question is, why the yield has a sudden jump? From "random" process to a sudden jump of yield. What does it tells? --> a kind of Tufts Syndrome.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, every school has tufts syndrome, HYPSM included. The fact that Stanford is bragging about they had highest yield rate ever is a proof!!!</p>
<p>MatrixDad,</p>
<p>I think it's too premature to make such conclusion. If Stanford does use Tufts Syndrome all of a sudden, one would expect its test scores to drop. Why don't we wait until those come out?</p>
<p>In the meantime, I'd like you to consider the following:
1. the jump from last year to this year is actually less than the jump between last year and the year before (69% to 70.8%).<br>
2. Stanford didn't expect the 72% yield; the target size is 1670 and they were expecting 69.6%, a drop from last year's 70.8%. I can't prove or disprove your allegation, but it's safe to say Stanford didn't plan for the record high yield.</p>
<p>This is a ridiculous assumption. Stanford obviously is among the best schools in the world, and desires to enrich its campus with the best students. Stanford is among the top because of its brilliant students! Stanford has a higher yield rate because people are discovering that Stanford excels in a wide range of academic disciplines---even more so than even Harvard.</p>
<p>Its funny because people at Stanford and Stanford itself could not give a **** about what you think. Don't be angry that your daughter didn't get in. But don't attempt ego protection and blame it on stanford.</p>
<p>i agree with blah2009,
jss bc you or someone close to u didnt get in doesnt justify the fact that stan is using tufts syndrome.
The funny thing is had you been accepted (or ur S or ur D), then you would argue that stan justly picked the best students in the world.
funny how the mind works</p>
<p>I fully agree with the above posters, not only is such a statement unfounded, but most likely untrue. One can only determine that after looking at the test scores/ class ranking of admitted students in the Common Data Set for the class of 2012 (which they should release rather shortly). In the meantime, celebrate that your daughter got into HYPM and is receiving good financial aid from them. There's no reason to be on this forum insulting Stanford.</p>
<p>heh..sorry for being rude xD</p>
<p>I am sorry, if any people feel having been insulted. No doubt, Stanford is one of the best colleges in this nation and it admitted a good portion of the top qualified. In this year’s accepted list, I see a lot of brilliant kids too. </p>
<p>A college, like Stanford, does not need do exactly the same thing as Tufts did many years ago, as long as it make its admission process a little more “random”, it will be enough to raise its yield rate. If it did not play the yield protection game, how can we explain the accepted/rejected list? Why its yield rate keeps shooting up at the same time its siblings virtually hold theirs steady? </p>
<p>Well, we can obviously say that Stanford did a better job to attract the brightest kids. But another factor does not support this argument. As HP abandoned their early program, we expected all the top notched colleges keeping the early program will see a significant increase of applicant pool. As it turned out, it is true for most top notched colleges, but not Stanford! Of course, both HP are located on east coast. Their changes may cause more impact to the schools located on east coast. </p>
<p>May be it is not a good place to raise this question. May be it's too premature to make such conclusion like Sam Lee suggested. I welcome any kind debates based on factors not on attack.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, I checked the last year stat of HYS. Stanford’s SAT average is about 70 points lower than HY.</p>
<p>maybe cause stan puts much more emphasis on non academics fields like atheletics.</p>
<p>Matrixdad wrote: "If it did not play the yield protection game, how can we explain the accepted/rejected list?"</p>
<p>To bring the tone of this discussion back to a more civil tenor, I'd be curious to know what exactly about the accepted/rejected list brought you to this conclusion?</p>
<p>Stanford put together an amazing program for new admits. It was by far the best pre-college program I have ever attended. Many of the students there were debating between Stanford vs Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT and were all blown away by the program.</p>