<p>
[quote]
There's no need to do scientific studies - admissions officers know the numbers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what I'm saying. They don't know. All they know is the voluntary response data they get from students. Not all students even respond, and of those that do, not all even put where else they're going. And of course, if you choose to attend, you'd also have to put what schools you're turning down. I know, from filling out the response cards, that many don't; Stanford's didn't, and I don't think Yale's did, either. Even if they did, it's all voluntary response data, which is very prone to error. Admissions offices know this and have even admitted the imperfections of their data. The market of college admissions is not one with perfect data, or one in which data is heavily regulated by a third party.</p>
<p>I would say, though, that your conclusion for recent times is probably correct: Yale probably ties with Stanford and loses slightly to Harvard. It probably doesn't really lose to any other college.</p>
<p>The fact that they don't ask what schools you turn down leads me to believe that there must be some data sharing (otherwise, where else is Stanford coming up with the claim that it won 80 cross admits against Yale this year) among institutions. I'm not sure what form it takes, but admissions deans certainly have at the least a very good idea about how well their school does in winning cross admits.</p>
<p>I just checked the Stanford one, and it does not have any place to put which schools you're turning down. (I don't know about the others, as I threw them away. Perhaps someone else can check, if they still have it.) It does have a place for you to put which university you're attending if you're choosing not to enroll, though.</p>
<p>I think you may be right that they're sharing data. I can't see any other way they'd know. (There were never any other forms asking for it, I didn't see anything about it at admit weekends and such, and I wasn't asked for it once. It's possible others have different experiences, though, or maybe I'm just missing something.)</p>
<p>Very interesting link, though; good research there. I'm particularly surprised that Yale dropped and Princeton rose so sharply. I'm not sure whether it's more because of a different cross-admit pool or just a changing of the tides.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All they know is the voluntary response data they get from students. Not all students even respond, and of those that do, not all even put where else they're going.
[/quote]
I don't think the situation is all this bad, though -- one year when I was working for MIT admissions, they asked me to track down some of the (comparatively few) people who hadn't responded to the question on the reply card. I ended up getting a very complete set of data -- there were only one or two admits (out of ~1500) I couldn't locate.</p>
<p>I mean, the possibility exists that they could have been lying about which schools they were attending, but the data set was definitely not incomplete.</p>
<p>^^ interesting. I don't think Stanford was able to track down all the data; from the link above, there were 30+ unaccounted for, at least. Of course, having a larger class/admitted pool means there's more room for this.</p>
<p>There is the possibility that they're lying, but I don't think that happens much if at all. More than that, though, they still don't know the total cross-admit data; while they know what other colleges students ultimately chose, they don't know which colleges their own matriculated students turned down. There is the possibility of data-sharing between colleges. Then again, I don't know whether other schools (like MIT) have "colleges you're turning down" options on their response cards.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, how did the MIT admissions office expect you to track down those who hadn't responded? Facebook and such?</p>
<p>The info of cross-admits is public information. Let's say you are admitted by Yale and Stanford, you can log in the websites and see who else are in. I am sure those schools have each other's info. As matter of fact, if you choose Stanford over Yale, Yale probably will know within a second. :-)</p>
<p>Yeah, as to this whole cross admit issue, it has been my opinion from all the figures and revealed preference studies I've seen that cross-admits at the top schools went like this (notice how many dots):</p>
<p>H
....
Y
..
S
M
P</p>
<p>This year though, Stanford did especially well with a 72% yield while every other school's yield went down. Harvard to 78% from 80%, Yale to 69% from 70%, MIT from 69% to 66% and Princeton a lot down to 60%. I'm pretty sure this was due to the elimination of EA/ED at Harvard and Princeton this year. Also, I'm pretty sure it would be illegal (?) for certain information to be spread between the colleges. There was a lawsuit about this in the past that dealt with top colleges sharing financial aid offers. And if they are sharing cross admit data, it's almost certainly not public info.</p>
<p>Sharing financial aid offers is problematic because it allows collusion. Knowing cross-admit decisions doesn't. I'm almost certain it isn't illegal.</p>
<p>Where would you think University of Michigan, Ann arbor of course, would place? And if I throw in U of M Honors, where would that place it? I'm just curious because I heard the U of M with Honors is as prestigious as Northwestern might be more prestigious than U of Chicago.</p>
<p>I don't think that it is illegal to share the info of cross-admits. It is like telling your salary or how much you make. It is your choice. Certainly your spouse or co-workers know.</p>
<p>Michigan, honors or otherwise, is not more prestigious than Chicago. </p>
<p>Michigan and Northwestern have a lot in common and generally considered peers. Chicago is at least as equally prestigious, but it is sufficiently different that a direct comparison between Chicago and Michigan/Northwestern is hard to make.</p>
<p>Hmmmmm, idk U of M honors seems equivalent to U of Chicago regular (no honors), honors have way smaller classes, a more difficult curriculum, personalized attention, more research opportuinites and etc. I know this has nothing to do with prestige, but ann arbor is an excellent college town, one of the best in the nation. I strongly support U of M, and I truly feel it is very prestigious, almost the next best thing to the Ivies.</p>
<p>kyledavid80 wrote: "There is the possibility that they're lying, but I don't think that happens much if at all."</p>
<p>I think there is a probablility, not possibility, they are lying. It boosts one's ego and position in the peer pecking order to receive a single offer from CHYMPS, yet claim offers from several. These are 17-18 year olds kids with pride and bragging rights to uphold.</p>
<p>I do not know about the financial aid situation, as its been too many years since I participated. I assume one can claim an offer and nice package from a peer institution where no offer exists, simply for bargaining leverage. It's done when people sell their homes routinely -- "well, Mr. & Mrs. Eager Buyers, we <em>do</em> have a competing offer that should arrive by 3pm today. Are you prepared to meet our counteroffer?"</p>
<p>I don't believe the interview data from the Revealed Preference study is any less valid than self reported, unverified data collected by admissions offices. If there <em>were</em> clean data from admissions offices, the researchers on the Revealed Preference study would not have wasted their time.</p>
<p>P.S. svalbardlukefisk -- I mean no disrespect to Yale, or Stanford or any elite school. Your place at Yale was, I'm sure, well earned. <em>just sorry you didn't get into Caltech</em> LOL</p>
<p>I'm starting to see a pattern BTW -- Caltech is very small, very specialized (as is Mudd). I get the feeling elite students on the East Coast are simply not aware of Caltech, while everyone has heard of each of the HYPSM schools. I only heard of it in High School because of the publicity around Linus Pauling when he was publicizing his hyper-dose vitamin C research.</p>
<p>animefreakss4 -- I would consider Honors at UMich, or UNC, or UVA or UCLA to have students of comparable skill to those of Chicago (or Northwestern) ... but with a <em>very</em> different approach to learning and socializing.</p>
<p>I did not attend Chicago, but have a co-worker who did. She transferred from Wisconsin to Chicago and back to Wisconsin twenty years ago. The most I can get out of her is a laugh and the comment "it just wan't for me".</p>
<p>I get a consistent feeling from Chicago commentators that it attracts intellectuals who are not socially popular or party people (I make no value judgement on that) ... few if any cheerleaders, athletes, class presidents, DJs, that sort of thing. The sort of kids who as adults join book clubs and literary societies for excitement instead of athletic clubs, yacht clubs, dance clubs, etc.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that stereotype is true any more, if it ever was. A look at the incoming student profile shows 19% were involved in student government and 47% were varsity athletes. I did not see a category for cheerleaders. :)</p>
<p>The intellectual intensity is there if one wants it and can be found at parties as well as in classrooms. This has been discussed in many threads in the UChicago Forum. Observations by a visiting student who was writing in the CC visits section may provide some insight.
[quote]
I sat in on a Core class (Humanities division). They were talking about Plato's Phaedrus. Everyone was so much more mature than kids are in high school--they talked about some embarrassing stuff and no one laughed awkwardly or made jokes or anything. Plus, it was clear that everyone still had fun. One girl was in the middle of a game of assassins and was dressed in black and cradling her nerf gun to protect her from attacks during class time. The teacher was so cool about it--the door to the classroom was down a corridor that only the teacher could see down, so when a kid came in late, she said to the assassins girl "Oh no, here they come," and got her all nervous that the attack was about to come...and then it was just a classmate. That was funny. The teacher also knew all about her students' lives, like one who had surgery coming up.</p>
<p>When I first entered the classroom, there were these jocks joking around with each other and, thinking of high school kids I knew, I got worried--but as soon as class began, they started making these amazing insights and it was so surprising--at Chicago, you can be cool AND smart.</p>
<p>That was the thing that really made me love Chicago--there was no "typical" college student there. As my dad said, they came in "all shapes and sizes," but above all, every type of person was respected. It wasn't like in high school, where certain people would never dream of talking to certain other people. Baseball players talked easily with physics majors and outgoing econ major freshmen talk with cynical third-years...I could go on and on.
<p>
[quote]
Hmmmmm, idk U of M honors seems equivalent to U of Chicago regular (no honors), honors have way smaller classes, a more difficult curriculum, personalized attention, more research opportuinites and etc. I know this has nothing to do with prestige, but ann arbor is an excellent college town, one of the best in the nation. I strongly support U of M, and I truly feel it is very prestigious, almost the next best thing to the Ivies.