Stanford lost my respect

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
41

<p>"3) Stanford’s yield hit record high while others hold steady"</p>

<p>well why cant u attribute the increase in stanford's yield to its popularity and educational (also graduate) quality that is second only to harvard (or piossibly even beyond)? Why do you have to see this record phenomenon in such a negative light, simply emphasizing the possble use of Tufts syndrome? Now also dont bring in all the 'issues' regarding changes in EA/ED policies in some schools if u were about to. Yes, Stanford decided to keep its SCEA, but since even the accepted students can turn it down (sinces its non binding), EA can only help the yield slightly, if not at all.
I really dont understand Matridaddy.</p>

42

<p>"I am surprised to see more attacking than rational debating."</p>

<p>MatrixDad, it is ironic that you write this. In re-reading your original post, it was extremely irrational and childish, and honestly quite offensive. It was certainly less "rational" and more "attacking" than the majority of responses (many of which were probably written by high school students!). IMO you should be very embarrassed -- especially as an adult parent!</p>

<p>"After HP eliminated the early program. Almost all the elite colleges (keeping early program) saw significant increase in their early applicant pools except Stanford."</p>

<p>Why is this surprising, and what do you think this "proves"? Stanford is on the west coast. People on the east coast may not want to commit there. They actually didn't accept too many "EA" students this year (certainly not compared to other schools).</p>

<p>"From the accepted/rejected list, Stanford’s process is much more “random”."</p>

<p>I believe you're defining "randomness" based on test scores. As several people have written, that's not the way Stanford has operated for decades. And their graduates seem to have done very well. Of course "yield protection" <em>could</em> cause "randomness," but there are <em>many</em> more likely explanations. Unless you know of any relationship, it's not a good idea to make this accusations.</p>

<p>"Stanford’s yield hit record high while others hold steady."</p>

<p>You are essentially saying "they improved -- they must be doing something illicit." Completely illogical and irrational. Uh ... Stanford's fundraising has been hitting record highs whereas most other universities have been holding steady. Does that mean something improper is going on there too?</p>

<p>"Based on these facts, I believe they played yield protection game."</p>

<p>You may believe this, and others will not.</p>

<p>Fact is that other universities (especially Princeton) have been well-known to play this type of "yield protection" game. You have no idea what Stanford Admissions does behind the scenes, and neither do I (though I'm pretty sure I know much more than you -- but things have changed now that Rick Shaw [former Dean of Admissions at Yale] took over recently, and it's tough to know the impact of that...).</p>

<p>From reading through other posts, it appears that your "doughter" is attending Harvard next year. That is a wonderful school. My suggestion is that you should spend more effort taking pride in her accomplishments, rather than ignorantly criticizing others and arguing with 18 year-old kids on this board.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
1) After HP eliminated the early program. Almost all the elite colleges (keeping early program) saw significant increase in their early applicant pools except Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You mean, elite colleges on the East Coast / Midwest.</p>

<p>
[quote]
From the accepted/rejected list, Stanford’s process is much more “random”.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, since you can't predict what Stanford will do, you say it's protecting its yield?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Based on these facts, I believe they played yield protection game.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, now Stanford is more interested in enrolling the most students it can, rather than the strongest students it can? That point alone is absurd and makes your whole argument look nonsensical.</p>

<p>FWIW, just look at those accepted to Stanford -- a large number of them were accepted to elite privates like HYPM.</p>

44

<p>oh my god how is it possible that he is still debating this?? did your daughter not get into stanford? if not we're sorry, apparently she's still going to a damn good school.
there are sooooo very many students that got into stanford as well as harvard, yale, blah blah. how is it rational for you to suggest that stanford accepted students based on their likelihood to attend instead of accomplishments? that would imply that us "underqualified" students who did get in because we seemed likely to go there wouldnt have gotten into those other schools in such VERY large numbers. stanford's process is more random? yes. but just because you dont understand the underlying reasons for a student's acceptance (which is quite reasonable since you dont get to read applications, all you get to see are our stupid posts on college confidential) you assume they rejected the most qualified applicants knowing they would go to other schools (which again is kind of impossible because they didnt reject them, they accepted them as did harvard and the rest.)</p>

<p>their yield goes up? it might be due to the fact that stanford is stanford. if this has no value, then what is the value of attributing any sort of prestige or recognition to a school? again you make no sense. it is unreasonable and even stupid to suggest that a school like stanford would reject the most qualified applicants unless they explicitly demonstrated they wouldnt go there. they do things differently at the admissions commitee, but they've done quite well so far.</p>

<p>the main reason why your argument has no value is this: the most important factor that will determine a school's reputation among its peers and to the world, the thing that makes harvard harvard (same goes for all elite schools), etc, is not how high their yield rate is. it is the accomplishments and contributions of a school's students and faculty that determine how good a school really is. in fact when compared to this, yield rate seems pretty superfluous, dont you think?<br>
i think based on this it is reasonable to say that stanford worries most about accepting students that are more likely to change the world, as their students have done and continue to do, than about accepting students that will make their yield rate look good.</p>

45

<p>bury this topic. It's over now. Move on and enjoy where you are going. Life is so short, don't look back, only look forward.</p>

46

<p>Thanks guitars101. I agree.</p>

47

<p>i agree as well. my previous long posts are due only to the fact that i am on vacation and havent started work yet. i have way too much time on my hands right now :p</p>

48

<p>I agree with Col. Mustard. methinks same.</p>

49

<p>To the OP:</p>

<p>Oh please. You're a father who's kid didn't get in so now the entire school has "Tufts Syndrome". If your child had gotten it, you would be commending the school on its on-point and apt admissions system that strives to recruit the best. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Be an adult, sir.</p>

50

<p>Stanford also experienced a jump in yield because of Harvard and Princeton eliminating ED/SCEA policies.</p>