<p>Is it too late for us to all be friends?</p>
<p>Yes. 10 char. lol</p>
<p>Goblue, he doesn’t have acces to information that doesn’t exist. The fact of the matter is, Duke has NO way of knowing where else all of its applicants apply, or where they end up going. Can you think of any way that Duke has access to this information??</p>
<p>We’re just having a discussion.</p>
<p>hacking???</p>
<p>34 page “discussion”?</p>
<p>ok, so i guess it’s not actually called hacking, but rather, “Breaking Into Yale Web Site” (my thanks goes to PC World)</p>
<p>I am going for post 1000</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cornell has to compete with a lot of different types of schools. </p>
<p>For one, I know students who ended up at Geneseo and Binghamton because Cornell was too expensive.</p>
<p>Secondly, don’t underestimate the appeal of merit and/or athletic aid at other schools. WashU, Northwestern, Duke, Emory, etc. all have started to offer substantial merit aid, which the Ivies can’t match at all. </p>
<p>And it matters in athletics too: A top student from my high school attended Duke on a lacrosse scholarship. He was recruited by Cornell but would have had to pay full tuition. He ended up being an All-American defensive middie.</p>
<p>This year, I know of 12 students who got accepted to Cornell. 8 attended. The others took full rides – two at Hobart, one at RPI, and one at Richmond.</p>
<p>It just proves that admissions officers only have access to the information we give them. And that they’re humans, and they make mistakes. Believe it or not, Duke’s director of admissions is human too. Shocking, I know.</p>
<p>Let me state this once again…
The bottom line is that both sources of data (NYT article and Duke admissions director) are seriously flawed. Most inferences made from either source have so far not been valid. Any future inferences made from the data must be taken with a grain of salt, considering these tremendous flaws.</p>
<p>The Duke admissions data is really, really unsound. Thus you cannot use it to unequivocally substantiate any claims, and this cross admit argument will keep on going in circles.</p>
<p>Do you mean know personally?</p>
<p>I have to admit I find it ridiculous you are calling Duke’s data seriously flawed with no solid advice backing you, and the fact that Cornell (or any other school mentioned) hasn’t raised any flag.</p>
<p>How do you know they haven’t raised a flag. How do you know that Cornell’s Dean of Admissions didn’t contact Duke’s? It’s likely that Cornell would not start a public fued over this, and so any contact would likely be private. </p>
<p>Or, maybe Cornell ignored it because, quite frankly, it doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>as far as im concerned, there are no official data what-so-ever available that lists cross-admit yield % between two schools because such list is impossible to make from the start, and we are explaining this exact point.</p>
<p>if you know one however, please do tell.</p>
<p>i think the fact that we have all the data available for median SAT, acceptance rate, yield rate, retention rate, etc etc but no single data available for yield % data between two schools is clear indication of what we are trying to say here.</p>
<p>and your “official” source is from this guy’s e-mail and he was using acronym HYPSM in his e-mail trying to prove why he felt his school should be regarded as right below that group.</p>
<p>So you consider data released by biased 3rd groups official but not data released by the dean of admissions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As you continuously discredit the validity of overall acceptance rate, overall yield percentage, or the general college preferences ranking yet only care about SAT scores, why not include UChicago, Rice, WashU for this so called “peer schools of Duke”? I see that you have been always associating a college’s caliber or prestige based on raw SAT scores of incoming student body. Going by your logic, CalTech would be the most prestigious school on the planet, well ahead of HYPS. And, please at least stay consistent with your arguments. You swing back and forth, without much sense, just to argue in favor of Duke.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who are these biased third groups?</p>
<p>We have said that both are flawed. Although it does make sense that the 3rd group data would be more accurate (they aren’t biased).</p>
<p>Goblue10s, why isn’t the admissions director data OFFICIALLY published? Surely this data would work wonders for Duke’s applications, yield, and prestige. If the data were true, I would expect Duke to take full advantage of it and OFFICIALLY publish it somewhere important, such as the front page of Duke’s admissions site etc., so that it can serve as a big selling point to prospective Duke students. This makes me greatly question the veracity of your data. Also, we have made many other (less circumstantial) claims that show that the Duke data is flawed. Feel free to look back at earlier pages in the thread.</p>
<p>I think we can all agree we’re going in circles…if people are posting on this most likely I’ll be back tomorrow, but eventually this thread must fall</p>
<p>goodnight</p>
<p>The main message that I am concerned is that your asserting Duke’s dominance over Cornell, Brown, JHU, and Northwestern, when clearly they are atleast the same or on par with each other. We’re not bashing Duke, its clearly, we’re jut trying to cover your mistakes.</p>
<p>If there is any doubt that JHU and DUKE are sister universities. Straight from President Emeritus mouth. JHU and DUKE are sister universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EAD, Can you back down already. Duke is a respectable name, but to boost it to a level that it doesn’t deserve while simultaneously putting down various other colleges is not the way to go, I disapprove.</p>