@websensation I think TiggerDad’s are more self congratulatory than informative in tone.
I know these schools quite well, and there isn’t a bad choice of course. They are so different that the personal fit should be obvious. I know both humble and not so humble graduates of each. When it gets to graduate school, there is no difference between the best of each.
Thanks, Mathacle / @ewho…
On another point, I agree that if H and S each admit a little over 2,000 kids, and 200 of them are cross-admits (i.e., roughly 10% of the admits to each), the question of whether 40%, 50% or 60% of cross-admits (representing 4% - 5% - 6% of total admits to either H or S) choose the other school can only be of interest to certain people associated with H or S.
Such folks would consider a rise from 50% to 60% of cross-admits to be a victory, but we’re talking about a spread of 20 kids - comprising four or so freshman suites, maybe a quarter of one entryway in Harvard Yard - in a class of about 1,675.
@arbitrary99 I run across situations like this frequently. Student A’s “dream” college was Princeton but she got rejected or waitlisted by Princeton but accepted by Yale, Harvard or Stanford (or some other combo); and Student B’s “dream” school was Stanford but she got rejected or waitlisted by Stanford but accepted to Yale, Harvard or Princeton (or some combo). In such a case, I always think such students should be able to switch their acceptances so both can go to their “dream” schools. Pity.
“You should be ashamed of yourself for making generalizations like that. I would certainly ban you if I could.”
“^^ referring to post about Andrew Luck, athletes, Neanderthals, and rape.”
I agree 100%. There’s a sexual harassment problem that pervades all walks of society. And the news of the last week or two should confirm that point. Additionally, the UC system, Cal specifically, has had some issues in this area as well. There are bad apples everywhere, not just sports.
The time period (2012-16) that you quote during which Stanford’s yield increased relatively faster than its peers, roughly coincides with the dramatic increase in CS major enrollments and applicants all over the US. When it comes to cross admits interested in CS, Stanford will win hands down against HYP (and even MIT). Even Berkeley EECS which had a 20% admit rate until 2012 saw its acceptance rates fall to an estimated 4.5 % this year. At the same time, at Stanford, CS majors which was historically at 5% of the class has now grown to 25%. The surging interest in CS skews the data for Stanford. As anyone involved in CS knows that tech goes through boom and bust cycles, yields and cross admits for Stanford will shift with the changes popularity of CS.
Personally I think Stanford is a juggernaut that will hold the top place for a long time, why you ask? It has two things none of its peers have.
While I think these things are ridiculously unimportant to get a top education, they are important to teenagers.
^^ You forgot CalTech.
I said top 10, and even if I included them, what is there freshman class ~ 250, not a significant player and almost strictly an engineering school.
^ Caltech is actually a top 10 school. just because this year it was not ranked in the top 10 it doesn’t mean that it isn’t really a top 10 school. if you look at the long term past usnews rankings (last couple of decades), it definitely is. Besides no on takes the year to year variations o the usnews rankings that literally.
I agree that it is rather small though so it doesn’t affect Stanford that much.
OK I’ll qualify it…USNWR…top 10…this year, but I think you get the gist of what I am saying. 8-|
@CA94309 Tech is the future and that will not change, yes it goes though boom and bust cycles, but that won’t really affect yields and cross admits for Stanford that much. Especially since Stanford’s top in all fields, tech, non-tech STEM fields and also social sciences and humanities.
It will soon be Stanford, then HYP with a good size gap, if its not that way already, and I’m not a Stanford nor a HYP sycophant. I’m just reading the tea leaves.
Harvard is still and remains the gold standard. It has more money than most countries and by about ten billion more than Stanford. Stanford is and will remain the honorable mention second.
Its a matter of time before Harvard is relegated to number two if not already. Things never stay the same. They’re already winning the acceptance % game and the cross admit game (which is really telling). In fact they would probably be ranked #1 in USNWR except for there 4 yr grad rate (a pitiful 75%) which is probably due to the DIV 1 athletes they recruit. BTW, they should be dinged for that grad rate, recruit athletes that want to graduate!
^Harvard has the centuries-old established prestige, Stanford has the momentum and also the advantage of being strong in every single field and being seen as the future. But it will take decades and decades until Stanford is totally equal to Harvard in terms of lay prestige (i.e. for the general population). These things take very long to change. Harvard has had centuries sitting at the very top and its status as such has been ingrained in public consciousness. While Stanford is arguably an overall stronger university than Harvard, for now it remains slightly below Harvard in the general public’s consciousness and perception in terms of prestige.
But there is no question about it that the top two universities in the country (and the world) are Harvard and Stanford.
@Penn95 Tech was the future in 2000 also when the last time tech bubble burst. CS enrollments dropped so dramatically. that it caused a lot of panic in the academia around the mid 2000’s.The next tech bubble will happen at which time enrollments in CS/Engineering will fall. Stanford cannot win the cross admit battle against HY (and maybe P) for the non-engineering sciences and the humanities. In fact if you look at the 2006-2007 numbers CS majors were about 4 % and Engineering about 13 % of the undergrad population, the yield that year was 67%.
Stanford’s location has not changed in the last 10 years, neither has has its weather (as far I can tell at least) so that can’t be a factor. The population shift towards the west, assuming that Stanford’s admits’ geo distribution changed accordingly, could have made a difference, but that would not be significant.
@penn95. We agree on the top two. One of the reasons for that is that Harvard and Stanford are the only universities with top three medical, law and business schools.
UChicago follows with two in the top four (business and law) followed by Penn with two in the top five (business and medicine)
Well there is that east coast bias raising its ugly head again, go west, young man, that is the future! (or south to Florida if you’re from NY)
What these statements from two different posters have in common is that they’re entirely evidence-free, and prove nothing, because “the gold standard”, and “number one/two” are just the authors’ perception of some nebulous concept of prestige.
Honestly, why bother arguing about something no one can prove? Both schools have low single-digit admit rates and ~80% yields, which means, as shown upthread, that they’re largely admitting different subsets of top-tier candidates. Yale and Princeton have nearly as low admit rates and ~70% yields, indicating that they too are admitting relatively few candidates in common. If you spend enough time on CC, you’ll come to believe that lots and lots of kids are admitted to two, three or four of these schools, but it isn’t supported by the numbers. As demonstrated earlier, the difference between Stanford winning 50% and 60% of cross-admits from Harvard is maybe 20 kids out of a class of 1,675. I don’t think if that happens Harvard will be convinced that it’s America’s new second choice.
I think if we had fuller data it would become clear that the principal determinant is geography; what we know is that 36% of Stanford students are from California and I would guess close to 50% are from the West Coast overall (http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-profile), while 39% of current Harvard freshmen are from New England or the Mid-Atlantic states and only 17% are from the “Pacific” region (https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics). Each of Stanford and Harvard is getting top students, but each gets a subset skewed toward its home region.
The real story here, in my opinion, is that because (i) Stanford has established itself as a clear peer of HYP and consequently has distanced itself from its relatively limited regional competition, and (ii) Stanford is strong in CS/engineering which is hot right now, many fewer top West Coast students are crossing the country to go to HYP these days and a few more from the East Coast are turning down HYP to go to Stanford - both of which could change. These schools are ultimately all just different flavors of the same super-premium ice cream.
@CA94309 Not even close. Of course Stanford can win the cross-admit battles for the non-engineering sciences against HYP, especially Yale and Princeton. Stanford has definitely stronger sciences departments than Yale and Princeton, and especially Yale. Also it has just as strong or in some cases stronger humanities and social sciences. Plus not all engineering disciplines are that related to tech anyway.
The tech boom has enabled Stanford to rise up in prominence and challenge Harvard but because Stanford is strong across the board that rise in prominence will not be reversed even if there is a tech bust. Stanford is not a tech school, it is an all around leading research university that got an extra boost from the tech boom and was able to rise organically out of Harvard’s shadow because it offers something new. On the other hand Yale and Princeton are and prob will remain in Harvard’s shadow because they are too similar and have nothing drastically different/better to offer.
Also equating what is happening now in tech to the craze back in 2000 it is not really apples to apples.