<p>And, fwiw, in light of one of the favorites issues on this forum, let it be known (and despite the cross-admission of 26%) that UC-Berkeley was not among the top 20 schools chosen by the enrolled students. </p>
<p>Not sure what fireworks that you are expecting. :)</p>
<p>1) Both the cc revealed preference self-reporting AND the Hoxby report – I can’t in good conscience call it a ‘study’ – both originate (and fail) from the same data origins, namely NE-centric students. (In contrast, 40-50% of Stanford admits are west coasters.)</p>
<p>2) With the exception of 1 or two posters and third-hand anecdotes (I know a friend who know a friend who knows…) – who I think are students – not much argument on cc that Cal wins the cross admit battle with Stanford. Ignoring the academic differential, finances also come into play:</p>
<ul>
<li>Stanford has a much wealthier student body (if you can afford it why not pay sticker?); AND</li>
<li>S offers much better finaid and meets full need unlike the UCs (if you are poor, S is still a better deal).</li>
</ul>
<p>BB, there is indeed not much of an argument, and mostly because there is no battle. Since it’s a given that most competitive students from California apply to the UC system as a matter of routine, it’s hardly surprising that a large percentage of the Califonia students who are admitted by Stanford also were admitted at Cal. </p>
<p>But, for a “battle” to exist there ought to be a reasonably quantifiable number of students who choose Cal over Stanford. And, as I have claimed before, that is hardly the case. Because of this, and also because of the reasons you stated, the student bodies are not as comparable as some claim. Student bodies reflect enrolled students and not admitted students.</p>
<p>If you add all the numbers of HYPM cross-admits, the total will be 1491, and if Stanford loses half of the cross-admits, I believe that is the case, Stanford would lose 745 admits – a number larger than 664. This excludes the losses to other schools. The person admitted to Harvard could also be admitted to Princeton, and enrolled at Harvard. The “net” loss to Princeton is 93. That means those 93 students cross-admitted by both Stanford and Princeton and enrolled at Princeton. There are others cross-admitted by Stanford and Princeton and enrolled somewhere else.</p>
<p>The number of total losses of 497 is meaningful; how many were cross-admitted are meaningful. Harvard’s number could be close to real, which is about what CC’s data indicated. I still stand by the CC data, as they are the only one available, good or bad. So far, I am not convinced otherwise. </p>
<p>At least, I don’t believe that Harvard won 70% of the cross-admits. That is what I tried to prove, or find out initially.</p>
<p>On my OP post, the info is what we can find out. At least I believe so. Hopefully someone can find out more. I am listening… or watching…</p>
I have a feeling that most of those students who did not choose to enroll in Stanford are non-Californians (OOS) and are only attracted to Stanford (a West Coast school) or their elite regional schools in the Northeast or Midwest or South. In other words, the bulk of those who applied to Stanford did not apply to Berkeley. They either like Stanford or HYPM or their elite regional school. Therefore, I see no reason for them to enroll in Berkeley. </p>
<p>Another reason could be that almost every California resident admitted to both Stanford and Berkeley has enrolled in Stanford leaving only a very few small number of students choosing Berkeley. I think that Berkeley has performed slightly better in the cross admit battle between it and Princeton or Yale than between it and Stanford.</p>
<p>Berkeley is expensive for OOS, and is not as generous as most elite privates are. It has a very low enrolment yield rate of only 28.2% for OOS.</p>
Well, I hope you’re not insinuating that the Stanford admission could only determine who’s smart and who’s not. A lot of those students that Stanford rejects are just as bright as those who were admitted only that they weren’t picked or lucky or they lack a few vigor in other areas. Some of those Stanford admits are Berkeley rejects. I am not at all saying that Berkeley’s student body is generally equal to Stanford’s student body. I think that in general, Stanford is in a class above Berkeley. However, I guess at least half of those students at Berkeley are just as bright and talented as those Stanford students. Stanford’s admission does not singlehandedly say the intellectual potency of the students. Nor does Harvard’s.</p>
<p>xiggi, I think that I figured out more from the report, and let me try to explain some of the results. But, pardon my Pekinglish and my mathematical terms if I confuse you even more, as I try to erase my accused “nonscientific” image for doing things. After all, I am just a Badger at large who was also educated by monks at a remote mountain in China. :)</p>
<p>Stanford’s Class of 2014
Total Admits: 2340
Yield: 71.6%
Total Non-matriculates:664 </p>
<p>School, Number of Cross-Admitted, Enrolled@ the Cross-admitted School, Enrolled at somewhere else
Harvard 398 212 186
Yale 359 106 253
Princeton 430 93 337
MIT 304 86 218 </p>
<p>We can reasonably say that most of HYPSM cross-admits attended those five schools, and consider otherwise as the outliers. I can not tell the percentage though, but let us say this is an acceptable assumption. With Harvard, Stanford had 398 cross-admits, and 212 enrolled at Harvard, the rest of 398, or 186, per our assumption, went to YPSM. Mathematically, we can write Y1+P1+S1+M1=186. So we can say those 359-106=253 people who did not attend Yale went to H2+P2+S2+M2= 253, etc. To summarize the equations, we can write
Y1+P1+S1+M1=186
H2+P2+S2+M2=253
H3+Y3+S3+M3=337
H4+Y4+P4+S4=218</p>
<p>Add them all together, we get
sum(all H)+sum(all Y)+sum(all P) +sum(all S) + sum(all M)= 994
But we know, sum(all H)+sum(all Y)+sum(all P) + sum(all M)= 664
So the total enrolled at Stanford is sum(all S)=994-664=330, or the cross-admit yield for Stanford is 330/994 = 33%, also about 1000 cross-admits Stanford admitted. A perfect match with CC data.</p>
<p>Sorry, I take the above post back. Too late to delete it. I can not assume sum(all H)+sum(all Y)+sum(all P) + sum(all M)= 664. And I can not assume cross-admits did not go somewhere else. I proved nothing.</p>
<p>we have been given a number: letting alone applicants, 26% of stanfords ADMITS last year were also admitted by berkeley, a very significant percentage. that works out to approximately 608 students admitted by stanford last year who were also admitted by berkeley. since it was also given that berkeley was NOT one of the top twenty schools chosen by stanford admits, we can also derive that AT MOST eight (and almost certainly several fewer) students admitted to stanford last year actually enrolled at berkeley.</p>
<p>assuming that berkeley cross-admits (who are likely disproportionately californian) are NOT more likely to enroll at stanford than admits as a whole (and this is likely false), we can derive a best-case cross admit ratio for berkeley of 1.8% (with 441 of 608 cross-admits choosing stanford and 8 of 608 choosing berkeley). the real percentage is probably closer to half that.</p>
<p>in other words, your second ‘reason’ is the correct one. indeed, very, few stanford admits–in-state or otherwise–choose to enroll at berkeley. </p>
<p>(frankly, even as someone who is not a big fan of public schools for undergraduate education, im rather shocked by these numbers.)</p>
<p>you clearly stated in your post that you were making that assumption. although its clearly false (certainly SOME students are enrolling at williams, wharton, duke, lower-ranked schools on full scholarships, et cetera), its probably not TOO far from the truth. for example, the stanford data indicates that 93% of students admitted to ‘at least’ stanford enrolled at one of the ‘top five’ schools listed. thus it stands to reason that at least 93% of students admitted to stanford and at least one of the other ‘top five’ schools would enroll at one of them. as a consequence, i dont think assuming that 95% of cross admits choose one of the five schools would be unreasonable when making assumptions about ‘top five’ cross admits.</p>