<p>I don't think yield is synonymous with the quality of education...
it could just be that a certain school starts off good, so everyone goes there, it gets a high yield and a good reputation, and because of that people keep going there, but what if at some point the institution starts deteriorating, but based on reputation people keep going and the yield is always high? That doesn't mean the school is still top-notch.</p>
<p>I second anonymous</p>
<p>I third. Why? Because there are much more important things to worry about...like...war and hunger and poverty and all that jazz.</p>
<p>I've read all of those articles and studies, so I consider myself qualified to partially support Byerly in this case. </p>
<p>Endowment per capita means nothing if it can't attract top students. Princeton's current fundraising levels are far lower, per student capita, than Stanford (which leads this category) and Harvard. And Yale for that matter. </p>
<p>You're right, Princeton people, perception does often make or break a college choice, and Harvard often leads the perception category. However, part of the attraction of a top college is being with your peer group, and not having to deal with the ignorant morons you did in high school. Having top students DOES add to the academic experience and the quality of the academics at said college, as the grad school placement will be better and so on. </p>
<p>One of you said "maybe the kids who are going there are going there [Princeton] for the specific qualities of the school and will be happier." That, my friend, is simply false. It <em>may</em> be true in the ED round, although for some I'm sure that's doubtful, but it is simply incorrect in the RD round. All of the kids who pick Princeton over lesser-ranked schools like Penn and Columbia (and that's a large segment of the student body, if not the majority) will be doing the exact same thing, one could argue, that students who pick Harvard over Princeton do. </p>
<p>One must also concede that Cambridge is a highly attractive factor and certainly beats New Haven and New Jersey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
not having to deal with the ignorant morons you did in high school.
[/quote]
Quite pretentious of you.</p>
<p>Also Cambridge only beats Princeton if you're looking for an urban setting (as most people are). As far as suburban/rural campuses go, you can't really beat Princeton.</p>
<p>I will give you suburban, with the possible exceptions of Wellesley and UCLA, but I hardly give Princeton kudos as a "rural" campus. Within the Ivies alone, Dartmouth and Cornell have beautiful rural surroundings, with close access to mother nature's charms. Ditto Middlebury.</p>
<p>"Princeton's current fundraising levels are far lower, per student capita, than Stanford (which leads this category) and Harvard. And Yale for that matter."</p>
<p>i believe we established in a previous thread that the order of fundraising per capita over the past five years is S-H-P-Y. notwithstanding that fact, princeton still dominates the others, S included, in endowment per capita.</p>
<p>But it won't for long at the current rate. Stanford is fundraising at twice the level of Princeton if not more, and at half a billion per year, it's only a matter of time before we equal and then surpass Princeton in terms of endowment per capita.</p>
<p>Princeton's, however, remains the mark to strive for, of course, and is a uniquely impressive attribute about the school. </p>
<p>Princeton is certainly not "rural."</p>
<p>I expect that Stanford's endowment will surpass Princeton's in FY 2005, to rank third behind Harvard's and Yale's.</p>
<p>What the kids here are saying and I echo, Princeton wins on student happiness, alumni loyalty as measured by return to reunions and donations, and the endowment per capita is an embodiment of all of the above. And what we are all, except B, are stressing is that there are too many good students for school #1 to have a statistically significant or experientially realized "better" set. Probably the top 10-15 schools have this 'better" set, but not only the "#1".</p>
<p>There is room in the world at the top for personal preference. Some people just don't want to live in a city and they like lawns. In that case, Princeton wins. Some people want to go to California. In that case, Stanford wins. Some people are tecchies in their heart. In those cases, MIT or Caltech wins. I have to confess I don't know why anyone picks Harvard over Yale or Yale over Harvard but my next child has no interest in either so I won't have to figure it out...</p>
<p>No, Princeton is definitely suburban, not rural, which is why it's always been very attractive to me. For a long time my first choice was Yale, but I was actually disappointed by the campus because it was too urban. Princeton is a great choice if you're looking for clean(er) air and grass.</p>
<p>What makes you think the air is cleaner?</p>
<p>I'd wager there are more acres of "lawn" at Harvard than there are at Princeton,</p>
<p>Alumother's view of Harvard seems to have soured since March 31!</p>
<p>Byerly honey, my view of Harvard is exactly the same as it was in March. I don't have a sour view of it at all. Trace all my posts. I never engage in Harvard-bashing and I warn off those who do. My view of the place is exactly the same as it was when I was 17 years old and chose Princeton. I wanted lawns, I wanted trees, I wanted a unified campus. </p>
<p>We can argue lawn acreage all you want but I defy you to find one person who feels that the Harvard campus is more green, more treed, more serene than Princeton's. I wanted some serenity when I was 17. Some do, some don't.</p>
<p>BTW - What is the difference between Yale and Harvard anyway?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What makes you think the air is cleaner?
[/quote]
That's subjective...it's cleaner than the air in nyc, thus I found it cleaner. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd wager there are more acres of "lawn" at Harvard than there are at Princeton.
[/quote]
I did visit Harvard, and the grass there just wasn't as well manicured...it was kind of yellowish to me.</p>
<p>Anyway, I'm not denying that Harvard, being in a city, has things to offer that Princeton doesn't. Why can't you just let Princeton have what it has, nice lawns and gardens and space, instead of making a point of comparing everything to Harvard?</p>
<p>I was not the one making the comparisons. Alumother is the one that boasted (in her usual manner) that Princeton "wins" in the lawn category.</p>
<p>I think I can safely say that Harvard has more "trees" - not only in Cambridge but in the Arboretum across the river - not to mention having 10% of its sizeable endowment invested in timberland. You want trees ... we got TREES!!</p>
<p>Further, her selective memory about the extent to which her Harvard bashing dates from March 31 is amusing.</p>
<p>I "boasted" in my usual manner:). I learn so much here about my true personality... As opposed to your usual manner of modest and humble responsiveness to issues on the table, I suppose. </p>
<p>The point being argued, without diversions into personal statements, is whether Princeton has something Harvard doesn't that some people might desire. The answer is yes. Harvard is in a city. Princeton is not. Harvard has all the attributes of an urban environment, cars, roads crossing campus, less greenery. Princeton has all the attributes of a non-urban environment, a unified campus and more greenery. Also magnolias. Did I mention magnolias?</p>
<p>This one is simple.</p>
<p>And BTW, what is the difference between Yale and Harvard anyway?</p>
<p>i'll be stunned if you answer this, byerly, but i'd like to know if your own offspring applied to and was/were accepted to P.</p>
<p>byerly- just out of curiosity, and you may have answered this elsewhere, i dont know, do you go to harvard now?</p>