<p>Byerly, there's no way that Princeton's yield can pass Harvard, Yale and Stanford. Who exactly are they going to pass to be "near the top." </p>
<p>Every school, including Harvard, has negative aspects. The eating clubs do seem to turn off a lot of students from applying, although those at Princeton like them. Because of them, Princeton can seem like having a air of pretension that makes it seem as far from "real world" as possible.</p>
<p>um, princeton's yield DID pass yale and stanford regularly toward the end of the hargadon era.</p>
<p>For the classes of 2005-07 that was indeed the case. </p>
<p>Factors contributing to the mini-trend:</p>
<p>During this period, (1) Princeton was filling a larger fraction of the class via binding ED than were Yale and Stanford, (2) Princeton's SAT median was declining relative to Yale and Stanford, as a part of (3) Freddie's "strategic admissions" policy, emphasizing the "Princeton type" rather than those deemed likely to prefer a "rival" school.</p>
<p>Rapelye, to her credit, is junking the Hargadon approach, causing a relative decline in Princeton's admissions stats while the target group is refocussed. Moving to SCEA next year should help.</p>
<p>Not wanting to sound like a cracked record (to use a vintage phrase) but downplaying the significance of the "eating clubs" would also help attract more of the "green-haired people" President Tilghman covets.</p>
<p>They're not moving to SCEA...</p>
<p>I just don't think yield is the most important thing...I think that Princeton is admitting a well balanced talented class and the students are happy there, and that's all that matters to me.</p>
<p>College yield rates are pretty cyclical. Yale seems to be increasing in popularity as it almost halved its acceptance rates in the past few years but up until recently, Princeton and Harvard had significantly better yields and lower acceptance rates than Yale (even before the Hargadon days if im remember correctly). Princeton's yield is still higher than Stanford's (unless my stats are old) and are about the same as Yale's and (hopefully) I feel as though Princeton will recover from its recent slump and overtake Yale again at some point. </p>
<p>I don't really see what is unique about "Freddie's "strategic admissions" policy" though. Its not as though the quality of the student body suffered in any way as the percentage of students who graduated in the top 10% and the admitted Students average SAT score for Princeton has always matched up well to that of Harvard, Yale and Stanford (despite Princeton having a larger proportion of athletes.) Every college admits students that they believe are most likely to attend, the fact that ED and EA programs exist is a testament to this. Some schools a bit blatent in this process but by no means has Princeton ever played the game as much as Wash U for example. </p>
<p>As to the eating clubs, Byerly is right, alot of kids DO decline to go to Princeton because of them. However, I do think the sentiment is a bit misguided as Harvard and Yale do have societies that are far more elitist than Princeton's eating clubs will ever be. Ivy and Cottage do have a bit of elitism but it really isnt anything significant and I would say they are not as exclusive as the Frats that most schools have. Nevertheless, I do agree that making all the Eating clubs non-bicker would probably do a great deal to dispel their elitist image (and with the current administration, I can imagine this happening at some point down the road). The administration is downplaying them with the advent of 4 year Residential Colleges but I personally believe that the Eating Clubs add to Princeton's character. The vast majority of students join a club and a huge percentage of those students join a bicker club so I don't really see how these clubs are elitist. You can meal exchange with a friend to eat at any of the clubs and parties (aside from 1 or 2 a year at each club) at all of them are open to everyone although you'll sometimes need a pass from a friend at the bicker clubs.</p>
<p>They are currently in the middle of a marketing survey, using focus groups, to learn, in part, how a move to SCEA would affect the number of applications, the quality of applicants, and the admit rate.</p>
<p>My mistake. Princeton's RD yield I don't think can top Stanford (especially now that we're in the Shaw Era), Yale and Harvard. Early decision helped its yield rate quite bit, and it's also a little unfair to compare schools with ED policies to ones with SCEA policies. </p>
<p>Yale's yield this year, at 72%, was clearly the second-highest, far outdistancing every school that isn't the non-tech school in Cambridge </p>
<p>Princeton remains a highly competitive school of course, and I hope it can further make a dent in the HY dominance at the top of the Ivy League. And as for the eating clubs, they are far far more visible and well-known than the clubs at Harvard, and the secret societies at Yale remain something of curiosity and fascination, and most students ignore them while applying because they involve fewer students than the eating clubs at Princeton.</p>
<p>In the end, the Yale overall yield will be about 70.5%</p>
<p>
[quote]
Princeton remains a highly competitive school of course, and I hope it can further make a dent in the HY dominance at the top of the Ivy League.
[/quote]
Haha you make it sound like there is nothing more important than "yield rate."</p>
<p>There are few better measures of the desirability of an elite than its RD yield rate.</p>
<p>But that's not really what matters to the students on this board...</p>
<p>Perhaps I'm hopelessly naive, but I would think that overall academic quality would be slightly more important than yield rate in determing the worth of an elite institution.</p>
<p>They may very well be the same thing. </p>
<p>If one assumes that the best students choose the top schools - where other talented students are going - then there will be a substantial overlap between the "best" schools, however defined by those who have a choice and choose them, and the most desirable schools, as defined by yield rate and cross-admit data.</p>
<p>Haha, because all of those people are making entirely informed choices, as they personally know many many professors, have taken classes, and each and every one of them know how employers view there school. Yeah then I guess you could say that high school grads choosing their school are the ultimate judges of the quality of a school.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, the top students who have applied to and been admitted to multiple elites <em>are</em> pretty well informed. The decisions they make are worth paying attention to, since they are putting their money (or their parents money) on the choice.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the enrollment decisions by top students are - to a substantial degree - self-fulfilling; when the top students congregate at particular schools, those schools tend to be better simply because the quality of the student body is higher.</p>
<p>This fact has an influence on faculty, since professors find it more stimulating to teach and work with talented students, and thus a strong student body helps attract a strong faculty.</p>
<p>Is this all a bit unfair? Perhaps so.... but it is a fact of life.</p>
<p>"Top"</p>
<p>That's a funny word, like you assume that all of the "top" students gain entrance, which isn't true. Yes, many of the "top" students can gain entrance to all three, especially URMs and athletes, but with everybody else it is very subjective. Not to mention those who already know where they want to go and don't even bother applying to rivals. IMO, your logic is flawed. While the students are informed about surface aspects of each institution, such as its campus and dormitories, very few cross-admits are informed about the actual quality of professors and classes. And then there is stereotype bias that goes into these decisions.</p>
<p>I think that endowment per capita is a much better indicator of a good school, because not only does it mean that the alumni have alot of money, it also means that they enjoyed their time at the institution and have pride in it. Princeton wins that category.</p>
<p>This was my point also Anonymous. This is a much better indicator because it indicates how good students that graduated that school are, and how satisfied they are with what they got at University. </p>
<p>This indicates how students view school "after" completing them. Yield represent student's opinion "before". Yield also creates a bias. When you've been admitted to HYPS, you will choose the one with the better yield cuz of prestige. And if you don't, your parents (who pay for college and who are more prone to be biased by yield) will.</p>
<p>harvard has a higher yield because everyone wants the name harvard and a matching sweatshirt. probably, though, a lot of kids are going for the wrong reasons and wont be happy. even tho pton has a smaller yield, maybe the kids who are going there are going there for the specific qualities of the school and will be happier. just a thought...and on that note, would anyone mind going back to the specific qualities of each school and not the yield since we can all just look that up?</p>
<p>There are a lot of dubious assumptions in the preceding posts - ie, that people attending the "prestigious school" they <em>didn't</em> apply to/get into are doing so for shallow reasons, while those attending the "presitious school" they *did apply to/get into are doing so for noble reasons! This is the standard bull.</p>
<p>This kind of silliness flies in the face of all the serious studies that have been done.</p>
<p>Three-quarters of all common admits choose Harvard over Princeton, and have for some years. These are - by definition - the top applicants: those admitted to more than one super elite college or university, and presumably sought after by all of them.</p>
<p>You people should read these studies thoroughly - although I doubt you will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You people should read these studies thoroughly - although I doubt you will.
[/quote]
Good guess. :)</p>