<p>Because of the yield issues, I think it'll end up like this --</p>
<p>H S Y M P.</p>
<p>Thanks idad... on the one hand you mitigate the strength of my comment, but at the same time, in regard to that game of assassins, well, let's just say that is <em>different</em>. I would possibly expect the same at Caltech or MIT.</p>
<p>Georgetown is undisputed for international affairs. If you want to do international affairs...there is nothing more marketable than a georgetown SFS degree. Yes, that means it's better than Yale, Stanford, Harvard, UPenn, etc.</p>
<p>Which is exactly why NO ONE picks YSH or Penn over SFS. Which is why NO ONE who wants to go into business would ever pick Harvard over Wharton.</p>
<p>Come on...</p>
<p>DunninLA: Don't know enough about assassins to know how popular it is. S1 did play it one quarter. I did see a CSI NY episode where it was being played by young investment banker types on Wall Street, but that is the extent of my knowledge. It does sound a little "different," I'll grant you that.</p>
<p>The yield is also a reflection of how aggressive a school is seeking those cross-admits, and not necessary good for the school if the yield is too high. I saw so many cross-admits between HP and Princeton lost them all. But that did not stop Princeton actively seeking those cross-admits. Compare with past, this year Harvard seems lost more cross-admits to Yale. Yale lost more to Stanford (even this time 80-80). Stanford lost more to Princeton, and Princeton lost more to Harvard. It is a HYPS cycle.</p>
<p>BTW, Harvard has the yield of 76% after heavy drawings from the waitlist people. I would speculate that enough of them lost to Yale.</p>
<p>Dunnin, I am going to chicago this year. i was a school gov officer, and homecoming king. also did 2 varsity sports for 4 years, and am not playing either of them in college. i think the stereotype has really faded as admissions get more competitive to top schools. oh and i am quite a partier.</p>
<p>^ You like to Brag don't you :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
and not necessary good for the school if the yield is too high.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very true. Stanford's yield was 72%, enrolling some 1,727 students, 60 more than was the target. This is the second year they're overenrolling, and with the current housing crunch already, Stanford is really pushing it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Compare with past, this year Harvard seems lost more cross-admits to Yale. Yale lost more to Stanford (even this time 80-80). Stanford lost more to Princeton, and Princeton lost more to Harvard. It is a HYPS cycle.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While this year a higher percentage of the students who chose not to attend Stanford chose Princeton, that does not mean that Princeton overall won the cross admits between the two. In other words, while 18.2%--or about 117--of this year's non-enrolling Stanford admits chose to attend Princeton, it's possible, even probably, thant more than 117 Stanford and Princeton admits chose Stanford. From the Senate minutes, it appears (by the wording that Shaw gives) that the only school that Stanford lost to this year was Harvard, after having tied with Yale. Stanford has typically won against Princeton (by about 60-40, I'd say, adjusting for the Northeast bias in the Collegiate Matchups chart).</p>
<p>I do think that each of HYPS (to a slightly lesser extent M, and of course other schools) will continue to fight each other for admits until it's 50-50, an equilibrium of sorts. If a school manages to get more than 50% after that, the other school will try to win them back the next year, and vice versa. This will probably continue until some other school comes into the fray and becomes as competitive as HYPS+M. Given the endowment differences, though, this is going to be a while.</p>
<p>DunninLA, you haven't addressed the central part of my argument, which is that, given a total yield (according to its CDS) of 36.5%, it is impossible for Caltech to be winning cross-admits with every school other than Harvard, which is what Revealed Preference claims. </p>
<p>And I'm a Southern Californian, not an East-Coaster, which puts me as much in Caltech's geographical draw zone as any. I can tell you that, at my very good public high school, Caltech was not considered as desirable as any of HYPSM by most students. I know exactly one person who chose Caltech over those 5, and he got a big merit award from Caltech. In fact, I know multiple people who chose Berkeley over Caltech (and, again, no one ever chose Berkeley over HYPSM). And as for me not getting into Caltech, it's hardly surprising given that I didn't apply. I'm a history major - it wouldn't really be the right place for me.</p>
<p>to #750
Stanford's SAT scores are lower than HypMC and on par with Dartmouth and Duke. If Stanford is willing to admit people with lower scores, of course they are going to have a high yield because those people don't have anywhere else to go.</p>
<p>....................................</p>
<p>^^ Did that really make sense to you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford's SAT scores are lower than HypMC on bar with Dartmouth and Duke. If Stanford is willing to admit people with lower scores and give them all the money, of course they are going to have a high yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly, even among HYP, SAT scores vary. Does that mean one is less selective than the other? In fact, Caltech has higher average scores than they do--is it more selective? Stanford isn't admitting "less qualified" students to get a higher yield. The fact that you try to make a connection between the two is silly; the difference in scores is incremental (I think the median scores this year were 2170-2180, higher than recent years). Stanford has typically de-emphasized scores and is less impressed with a 2300+ than HYP are.</p>
<p>Stanford's yield may have held steady because a) it has a new financial aid policy, which is very generous (no loans, full scholarships below $45k, free tuition+room/board below $60k, free tuition below $100k, significantly reduced tuition under $150k), b) it retained its early program, whereas Harvard and Princeton did not (notice that their yields went down, while Yale's stayed steady, and Yale kept its early program as Stanford did), and c) Stanford will probably have less overlap with HYP than HYP will have among themselves, since Stanford is geographically far from them.</p>
<p>Duke especially seems to put emphasis on scores. Not sure about Dartmouth, though it's probably just a product of its high selectivity--I think it had an all-time low acceptance rate this year, sub-15%.</p>
<p>^^ I agree that Stanford's financial muscle helps its yield and so are the low scores.
Stanford de-emphasized scores because if they don't, they are going to end up like other top California schools: 40% Asians. I don't think that Stanford wants that to happen. They wants diversity.</p>
<p>I wonder what HYP's SAT scores would look like if they actively recruited athletes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford de-emphasized scores because if they don't, they are going to end up like other top California schools: 40% Asians. I don't think that Stanford wants that to happen. They wants diversity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that causal relationship were true (and it isn't), HYP would have to do the same thing to "keep the Asians out." And we know that isn't true, either.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I wonder what HYP's SAT scores would look like if they actively recruited athletes.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>This is the credited response. I will admit that I too am a little skeptical that Stanford values a 2300+ less than HYP. However, it is common knowledge that Stanford actively recruits the best athletes (Sears Cup anyone?) which, more often than not, do not get the absolute best test scores. HYP, on the other hand, recruit relatively mediocre athletes who better have something else to bring to the table than just athletics. If we normed for this, the already small difference between HYP and Stanford's median SAT score would vanish.</p>
<p>Kyle,
You have to look at the demographics of the school location. HYP don't have a huge Asian population in their backyard. So they don't need to practice Stanford's policy. Looking at UC Berkeley and U. Michigan, both are barred from practicing AA, UCB has 40% Asian, and for Michigan, I don't have the number, but I am sure it's not 40% because they don't have a huge Asian population there. Stanford's number should be on par with Cal Tech and other top California schools, close to 40% if no AA is practiced.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
You have to look at the demographics of the school location. HYP don't have a huge Asian population in their backyard. So they don't need to practice Stanford's policy. Looking at UC Berkeley and U. Michigan, both are barred from practicing AA, UCB has 40% Asian, and for Michigan, I don't have the number, but I am sure it's not 40% because they don't have a huge Asian population there. Stanford's number should be on par with Cal Tech and other top California schools, close to 40% if no AA is practiced.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Um, if HYP did not practice AA their racial make-up would be 30-40% Asian as well as Stanford's. It doesn't matter what the demographics are in HYP's backyard-Stanford as well as HYP are true national universities. They get applications from everywhere and students from everywhere. UCB and UMichigan however are very regional, especially the former. Why, with 93% of the kids being in-staters at Berkeley, this kind of Asian demographic is to be expected. If anything, I would suspect Harvard's and MIT's population of Asians to be even higher than Stanford's due to the near-worship (relatively speaking of course) of these schools in the Asian community.</p>
<p>^^ we can alway speculate, but please look at these numbers:</p>
<p>Cal Tech:</p>
<p>36% In-state students
64% Out-of-state students
37% Women
63% Men
39% Asian/Pacific Islander
1% Black/Non-Hispanic
5% Hispanic
41% White/Non-Hispanic
11% Non-Resident Alien
3% Race/ethnicity unreported
99% in top 10th of graduating class
100% in top quarter of graduating class
100% in top half of graduating class </p>
<p>Stanford:</p>
<p>44% In-state students
56% Out-of-state students
51% Women
49% Men
2% American Indian/Alaskan Native
25% Asian/Pacific Islander
8% Black/Non-Hispanic
13% Hispanic
40% White/Non-Hispanic
7% Non-Resident Alien
4% Race/ethnicity unreported
91% in top 10th of graduating class
98% in top quarter of graduating class
100% in top half of graduating class
93% had h.s. GPA of 3.75 and higher
6% had h.s. GPA between 3.5 and 3.74
1% had h.s. GPA between 3.25 and 3.49 </p>
<p>Stanford has more in-state students, yet lower percent of Asians than CalTech.</p>