Stanford, Princeton, MIT Choose ONE!!

[iamtbh]

<p>See post #45.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>That post is vacuous. You made claims about the present.</p>

<p>Relating to yield protection:</p>

<p>1) Prove Stanford has no history</p>

<p>2) Prove Stanford does not practice now</p>

<p>3) Prove Princeton practices now</p>

[iamtbh]

<p>See post #45 again. Ad nauseum…</p>

[Baelor]

<p>That post is vacuous – do you understand how it’s not relevant to the “now?” You made claims about the present.</p>

<p>Relating to yield protection:</p>

<p>1) Prove Stanford has no history</p>

<p>2) Prove Stanford does not practice now</p>

<p>3) Prove Princeton practices now</p>

[iamtbh]

<p>See posts #61 & & #63.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>I know English is not your first language, but you understand what I am saying, correct?</p>

<p>Do you understand the difference between things that have happened and things that are happening now?</p>

<p>If yes, do you understand that you claimed that Princeton NOW practices yield protection?</p>

<p>If yes, are you able to provide up-to-date evidence that supports this? I am talking about raw data that justifies this claim with no possibility of disagreement.</p>

<p>In other words:</p>

<p>Relating to yield protection:</p>

<p>1) Prove Stanford has no history</p>

<p>2) Prove Stanford does not practice now</p>

<p>3) Prove Princeton practices now</p>

[iamtbh]

<p>

@Baelor

If yes, do you understand that you claimed that Princeton NOW practices yield protection?

</p>

<p>Do you understand that I made no such claim? Or, the difference between certainty and possibility:</p>

<p>

@iamtbh

**It’s quite possible **that Princeton no longer practices yield protection after it was caught by the NBER researchers who wrote the RP paper.

</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

Do you understand that I made no such claim? Or, the difference between certainty and possiblity:

</p>

<p>Do you understand that it generally is expected for posters to remember what they have posted? Here, I’ll help:</p>

<p>

Unlike Princeton, Stanford does not practice yield protection:

</p>

[Jersey13]

<p>

Remember !!</p>

<p>At Yale Law, 5 times more Yale UG than Princeton UG are enrolled.
at Harvard law, again 5 time more Harvard UG than Princeton UG
Stanford Law, 5 time more Stanford UG than Princeton UG
Columbia Law, 5 time more Columbia UG than Princeton UG</p>

<p>at Princeton Law school… sorry princeton doesn’t have law school.</p>

<p>Princeton UG are very unlikely to get into top MD PhD JD MBA program.

Honestly German_Car, I feel less annoyed and more sorry for you with every single one of your posts.</p>

<p>Maybe a more simplistic argument will break down those barriers of ignorance clouding your capacity for logical thought.</p>

<p>Click this link here (Reread those directions if necessary):
<a href=“WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights”>WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights;

[iamtbh]

<p>

@Baelor

Do you understand that it generally is expected for posters to remember what they have posted? Here, I’ll help:</p>

<p>Quote:
Unlike Princeton, Stanford has not been (caught) practicing yield protection:

</p>

<p>FIXED. (10 char)</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>Baelor nails the 19 year old Menlo Junior College student, Iamtbh, again</p>

<p>from Iamtbh:</p>

<p>“Unlike Princeton, Stanford does not practice yield protection”</p>

<p>yet Iamtbh now denies that he made this statement</p>

[iamtbh]

<p>I don’t deny what I said. I fixed it.</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>iamtbh, ha, now that is funny</p>

<p>you go back and change your statements and admit to changing your statements</p>

<p>the fact is that Baelor made you look like a fool by proving that you lied about your previous statements…</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>iamtbh, in answer to your private message to me, I don’t think that trying to transfer into Princeton next year is a good idea, the acceptance rate is very low…maybe you can try one of the UC schools like UC Berkeley or UCLA.</p>

[german_car]

<p>

Remember !!</p>

<p>At Yale Law, 5 times more Yale UG than Princeton UG are enrolled.
at Harvard law, again 5 time more Harvard UG than Princeton UG
Stanford Law, 5 time more Stanford UG than Princeton UG
Columbia Law, 5 time more Columbia UG than Princeton UG</p>

<p>at Princeton Law school… sorry princeton doesn’t have law school. </p>

<p>Princeton UG are very unlikely to get into top MD PhD JD MBA program</p>

<p>

yay for german_car and making up numbers and using them in ways that are meaningless!

</p>

<p>At Yale Law school
82 are from Yale College vs. 17 from Princeton UG</p>

<p>82/17= 4.83 ~ 5</p>

<p>Again at Yale Law</p>

<p>5 times more Yale UG than Princeton UG … what a joke !!! a real joke</p>

<p>[Yale</a> University Bulletin | Yale Law School 2009?2010 | Law School Students](<a href=“Welcome | Office of the University Printer”>Welcome | Office of the University Printer)</p>

<p>p.s. at Harvard Law : 289 Harvard UG vs 50 Princeton UG
similar numbers at Stanford Columbia Law Med PhD</p>

[iamtbh]

<p>

@JohnAdams12

iamtbh, in answer to your private message to me

</p>

<p>Yeah, I really PM’ed YOU, of all people. That’s precious.</p>

<p>

@JohnAdams12

you lied about your previous statements…

</p>

<p>Let’s not exaggerate. I used the wrong tense in one sentence. So sue me. In my native tongue, verbs are not conjugated. The same version of a verb is used for each and every tense. You try typing fast in your 3rd language.</p>

[Momsters]

<p>Whoever German-Car is, please cease and desist. I don’t know why you’re bashing Princeton non-stop in every forum, but it’s sad and quite pathetic. I graduated from Stanford and don’t feel the need to put down other equally strong colleges.</p>

<p>Where did you go to college?</p>

[Silly_Puddy]

<p>I wasn’t sure whether or not to throw myself into this food fight, but…</p>

<p>To the debaters:
Relax, guys. The fight isn’t worth it. Princeton, Stanford, and MIT are filled with superstars, and they’ll be filled with superstars tomorrow regardless of where the OP chooses to go. Take comfort in this fact, because four pages of petty bickering only reflects badly on the schools you’re backing.</p>

<p>To the OP:
Look, by asking for a two sentence vote on CC, you’re often soliciting the (passionately biased) vote of some a random 17 year old boy. That’s a pretty bad strategy for a big life decision. What might be more useful would be for you to prioritize what you want out of your school education (ex. “I want a school with a good Math program that’s also based in a city, with social life defined by…”) and then go directly to the undergrads in that school and see which school best matches your priorities. Be smart about seeking opinions online.</p>

<p>Why don’t you tell us what you want out of college? Then we can better help.</p>

<p>A note on yield inflation:
“Past performance is the best indication of present and future behavior” is only true if all else remains constant. But that’s no longer true: a decade and a half have passed, Princeton has a new president, and Princeton has a new Admissions Dean. Not only has she almost explicitly prioritized aggressively targeting the best students, she’s practiced what she’s preached by getting rid of of ED. What yield inflating school in its right mind eliminates ED?!</p>

<p>A point of irony is that the decade plus old NBER paper initially pointed to lower SAT scores as evidence of yield inflation. Today, of HYPSM, it’s Stanford that has the lower SAT scores. Now, I don’t believe at all that Stanford is practicing yield inflation of any kind (there are plenty of good reasons to believe lower SAT score applicants might be stronger students), but advocates of using the NBER paper as their sword should keep in mind that it doesn’t really put Stanford in the best light either. At day’s end, I don’t see any evidence of inflation from either side.</p>

<p>At the end of the day:
Princeton and Stanford will give you (a) equally strong educations, and (b) equal post-graduation opportunities. You should decide between the two by first asking yourself what you value in an education.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

Let’s not exaggerate. I used the wrong tense in one sentence. So sue me. In my native tongue, verbs are not conjugated. The same version of a verb is used for each and every tense. You try typing fast in your 3rd language.

</p>

<p>1) No you did not. You made a claim that you didn’t realize people would accept without being proven. Once I pushed it, you had two options: admit you were wrong or retroactively correct it. You chose the latter. I won’t sue you, but this is your own fault – you could have backed down as soon as I pointed out your lack of evidence.</p>

<p>And it is not my problem that you are unable to type quickly. That’s your own situation to resolve – possibly by, I don’t know, not typing so quickly.</p>

[iamtbh]

<p>

@Baelor

Quote:
Let’s not exaggerate. I used the wrong tense in one sentence. So sue me. In my native tongue, verbs are not conjugated. The same version of a verb is used for each and every tense. You try typing fast in your 3rd language. </p>

<p>1) No you did not. You made a claim that you didn’t realize people would accept without being proven.

</p>

<p>Despite my regrettable grammatical mistake, I still stand behind my claims 100%:</p>

<p>

@iamtbh

The Revealed Preference study showed that Princeton was the only HYPSM school that practiced yield protection. The study’s researchers found that at Princeton, there was no linear relationship between SAT scores and probability of acceptance. In other words, Princeton rejected many (high SAT scoring) students who its admissions officers thought were going to enroll at HYSM instead.

</p>

<p>

@iamtbh

It’s quite possible that Princeton no longer practices yield protection after it was caught by the NBER researchers who wrote the RP paper. But you’d have to show me a graphical representation to disprove their claim.

</p>

<p>

@iamtbh

We obviously cannot read the minds of the Princeton admissions officers, so in that sense we cannot prove “intent.” But we can certainly hypothesize from Princeton’s non-linear representation, especially since it deviated from HYSM’s linear representation. What else could be a more plausible explanation other than yield protection?

</p>

<p>

@iamtbh

Look at the graph. It makes no sense without inferring a manipulative intent. Why else would a Princeton applicant at the 93rd (and 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th) percentile have a better chance of acceptance than one at the 98th percentile? The RP study revealed that the correlation is NOT positive between the 93rd and 98th percentiles. There is a “dip” in the graph.

</p>