<p>guys read this, ppl are willing to sacrifice STANFORD for NYU. I am new yorker and didnt even apply. </p>
<p>Meh, I'm not surprised.</p>
<p>why not? ppl tend to go to ivies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why are not surpirsied? STANFORD is ivy
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it's not.</p>
<p>that doesn't meant theyd all go to nyu over stanford. nyu is just a more realistic dream for most.</p>
<p>new york city is very enticing. notice how its not on the parents list though</p>
<p>i was born in NYC so i am used to all the STUFF.</p>
<p>NYU is the dream school of many a disillusioned high school student....why is this surprising at all?</p>
<p>It's not surprising.
To me, at least. Of course, I would never apply to NYU either.</p>
<p>I'm going to NYU and I love the school and NYC, but #1 dream school is pushing it. I can see why though since it is in the heart of what I think is the greatest city in thw world (well, I live there, so I'm biased). Every time I'm on facebook, I see future Freshman who aren't from the city saying how excited they are about living in NYC.</p>
<p>I am just confused as to how NYU can be the #1 dream school for students and yet Columbia is only #5. Is it not the school's location that earns it such a high spot? It's certainly not its moderate-sized student body, nice campus, or good financial aid.</p>
<p>Boston College??? ......</p>
<p>I'm surprised that Columbia is higher than Yale, but then I'm basing my surprise on the average person in Nowheresville U.S. where I live. Most of them don't even realize Columbia is an Ivy.</p>
<p>I'm surprised that Duke isn't at the very top...</p>
<p>:p</p>
<p>My opinion though, haha!</p>
<p>NYU always ranks so highly because it's a well known school that's in NYC and that most people feel as if it's in their reach, as opposed to Columbia, which is in a similar position, but known as MUCH harder to get into.
Although, Columbia still comes in at an impressive 5th.</p>
<p>Oh, this makes perfect sense. The kids who respond NYU are being more realistic as they consider each college's actual <em>workload.</em> They want to go to a great school, but honestly don't want to go to a school where they know they're going to have to work themselves to death. NYU is a nice compromise for the typical good student...</p>
<p>While parents don't actually have to DO the work, so they just want the "honor" of saying their kid is at one of the most prestigious schools. (...which I find disgusting...)</p>
<p>I'm a senior at a So. Cal high school though, and it's very similar here, for me - only kids pick USC instead of NYU (apparently USC is rapidly growing in popularity.) In one of my easier AP classes, several kids were complaining that their parents would only write their college admissions essays for them if they applied to Stanford, as well as USC. The students then shrugged nonchalantly though, because "fortunately", they knew their SAT scores were too low to get them into Stanford anyway (although not too low for USC.)</p>
<p>My disgust at those parents is.....rather hard to describe....</p>
<p>^ Silly SoCal parents. They don't know that Berkeley is better than USC and UCLA. And it's better than 'furd, cause it's cheaper. :P</p>
<p>The methodology behind the ranking is completely unscientific and doesn't reflect any facts about the real world. If the sampling procedure is biased, an ever-so-large sample size still produces junk data. The famous example that appears in most statistics textbooks is the Literary Digest poll to predict the results of the 1936 presidential election. The sample size was huge--but it systematically oversampled people who owned telephones, so it predicted a victory for the Republican candidate, who carried very few states, and completely missed the landslide that carried Franklin D. Roosevelt into a second term as President. The poll didn't predict the result of the election, but it trashed the reputation of the magazine, which soon went out of business.</p>
<p>One professor of statistics, who is a co-author of a highly regarded AP statistics textbook, has tried to popularize the phrase that "Voluntary response data are worthless" to go along with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." Other statistics teachers are gradually picking up this phrase.</p>
<p>
<p>-----Original Message----- From: Paul Velleman [<a href="mailto:SMTPfv2@cornell.edu">SMTPfv2@cornell.edu</a>] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 5:10 PM To: <a href="mailto:apstat-l@etc.bc.ca">apstat-l@etc.bc.ca</a>; Kim Robinson Cc: <a href="mailto:mmbalach@mtu.edu">mmbalach@mtu.edu</a> Subject: Re: qualtiative study</p>
<p>Sorry Kim, but it just aint so. Voluntary response data are <em>worthless</em>. One excellent example is the books by Shere Hite. She collected many responses from biased lists with voluntary response and drew conclusions that are roundly contradicted by all responsible studies. She claimed to be doing only qualitative work, but what she got was just plain garbage. Another famous example is the Literary Digest "poll". All you learn from voluntary response is what is said by those who choose to respond. Unless the respondents are a substantially large fraction of the population, they are very likely to be a biased -- possibly a very biased -- subset. Anecdotes tell you nothing at all about the state of the world. They can't be "used only as a description" because they describe nothing but themselves.
</p>
<p><a href="http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=194473&tstart=36420%5B/url%5D">http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=194473&tstart=36420</a> </p>
<p>This "survey" is so off-base it is, in the phrase of a famous physicist, "not even wrong," but just meaningless.</p>