Stanford, Princeton, MIT Choose ONE!!

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
81

<p>

</p>

<p>If “that’s no longer true,” then are you admitting that it used to be true? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So this wasn’t a “priority” for Princeton before?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And Princeton has suffered a decline in yield accordingly, which suggests that in the past, its yield was artificially boosted.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>False. The NBER paper pointed to a NON-linear correlation between SAT scores and acceptance rates as “evidence of yield inflation.”</p>

82

<p>iamtbh, </p>

<p>Let me summarize your point: This study exists.</p>

<p>Because that’s all you’re saying. Those who did the research, if that research were conducted accurately, are correct. </p>

<p>Too bad it’s no longer relevant.</p>

83

<p>Originally posted by Baelor:

</p>

<p>Is it too early to start proposing on CC? Best veiled sarcasm to be condescending (justifiably) ever.</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>So you no longer dispute the findings and their implications (of yield protection)?</p>

85

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh my God. Do you really not understand what Baelor is saying? I briefly skimmed the 4+ pages of arguing and got what he was saying. IF the research was COMPLETELY correct, then it would be correct. Do you really think top schools flippantly reject “overqualified” applicants simply because the chances of their matriculation are low? Doubtful. There’s an argument to made about whether or not it’s possible to be “overqualified” at Princeton/Stanford.</p>

86

<p>

</p>

<p>That is a very loaded statement – I never discredited nor discounted the findings of the research, although I (justifiably) at least considered alternate justifications and situations. There’s your answer.</p>

<p>Also, this entire line of thinking is totally irrelevant. Why you insist on wasting your own time is beyond me.</p>

87

<p>

</p>

<p>What was so “veiled” about it? Do you have anything to contribute yourself? Or, do you just enjoy waving your pom-poms from the sidelines? GO TIGERS!!!</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, your “alternate justifications” were not reasonable.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I never said Princeton was “flippant” about it.</p>

89

<p>

</p>

<p>It was a derogatory statement that was phrased in a way that was far more eloquent than “I think you’re stupid.” So, veiled contempt for you. Now it’s just overt contempt. Anyway, yes, personally, I find it extremely rewarding to frequent the CC discussion forums and listen to your sound logic. I truly have nothing better to do, and I’m not sure why you even had to ask if I had anything contribute. Of course not. I got into Princeton, which obviously yield protects, given the sufficient evidence provided in your outdated study. Therefore, I am unable to think for myself, and I simply spout BS to contradict your more than valid points.</p>

90

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course they were. Go ahead and list the sample sizes for me, and we’ll be able to resolve this immediately.</p>

91

<p>Baelor! You’re about to hit your 2,000th post!</p>

92

<p>Wait. My counter says 1988!</p>

93

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay, if you say so.</p>

94

<p>iamtbh, now that is a good one…using the “english is my third language” excuse for making false 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>