<p>Bulldog just takes the position that he thinks advantages Yale, and disadvantages Harvard and Princeton. He loathes Harvard (in the typical Yalie fashion) and is annoyed by Princeton's higher USNews ranking. Ignore his predictable grumping.</p>
<p>As for your other observations, I find them perceptive, but should note that not ALL the new Princetonians will necessarily be National Merit Scholars or "green-haired people."</p>
<p>The coaches have also pressed for the enrollment increase in order to facilitate the recruitment of jocks - not just players, but "boosters" as well. They will want their share of the new bodies. Princeton's major teams have been in a bit of a slump. The Princetonian, for example, has been agitating to fire the football coach, as has the Yale Daily News at Yale.</p>
<p>Where did I ever "proudly spout out a nominal yield advantage in Yale's favor." Maybe your insecurity made you hallucinate something I never wrote. What I did write pertains to Princeton's potential inability to maintain its level of students while admitting more. Princeton right now could raise its SAT score - HYP could fill their classes with 1600's, so I don't know if that's any sort of measure of whether there is or isn't a dilution by admitting more. I think that was telling was that their yield did drop and they lost precipitously to harvard (According to Byerly at least) when they rid themselves of the Tufts syndrome. If there's a limited pool of applicants up to your measure at least (rickoids, westinghouse), your math fails to appreciate that princeton has probably accepted all of them already, as they should on the merits.</p>
<p>Regardless, I am not sure how any of this is in any way relevant to my statement to which you took offense, namely, that if princeton increases its student body, the academy faculty/student ratio will decrease and yale will outpace. Read my original post, its not very controversial. Read my posts closer in general, you're arguing in tangents.</p>
<p>I was interested to learn that the editor of the U.S. News & World Report Education Issue w/rankings is a Yale college graduate from 1986. I just saw this in the online edition of the Yale Daily News.</p>
<p>As Tom Wolfe pointed out in his most recent book, the original creators of the rankings designed it so that HYP would eternally dominate the rankings. And besides the brief ascendancy of Caltech, they have.</p>
<p>Which authors are those, and which school of schools did they attend? I think you are making an irresponsible accusation based on zero knowledge and zero evidence.</p>
<p>"Stuck in third, Univ. ranks behind Ivy rivalry
Fewer faculty resources led to U.S. News ranking</p>
<p>BY JOSH DUBOFF</p>
<p>For the third-straight year, Yale finished third in U.S. News & World Report's national college rankings -- a positioning a U.S. News official said was largely due to the University's 10th place finish in a category measuring faculty resources."</p>
<p>Apparently the YDN was surprised and hurt by being "stuck in third" - if for no other reason than because the daughter of US News ranking guru Robert Morse is a Yalie!</p>
<p>"1. The principal weakness of the current approach is that the weights used to combine the various measures into an overall rating lack any defensible empirical or theoretical basis."</p>
<p>"2. Apart from the weights, however, we were disturbed by how little was known about the statistical properties of the measures or how knowledge of these properties might be used in creating the measures. For example, the simple correlation matrix among the variables has apparently not been computed. This would tell us whether some of the present measures are redundant, or whether some are contributing more to the discrimination among colleges and universities than others."</p>
<p>"USNWR assigns the greatest weight to academic reputation. However, generated first principal component eigenvalues of tier rankings indicate that the most significant ranking criterion is the average SAT scores of enrolled students."</p>
<p>I agree that Stanford should be ranked a place or two higher. Whatever. Princeton should be a spot lower. (in my opinion) Cry about it, and then move on. :)</p>
<p>Filmxoxo17: Princeton a spot lower? Oh please, don't be so jealous. Princeton has continuously been ranked #1 for six years in a row now and years before that. Any school who has been consistently ranked lower has been ranked lower for good reasons.</p>
<p>Well that's my opinion. I don't see how I can be jealous of Princeton, because 1) it's a school and I'm a person, and 2) I'm applying to Princeton (and Harvard and Yale, so no biases). I guess the way that we differ is that I don't hold the US News rankings as the be all and end all, I think that there is some wiggle room.</p>
<p>"Any school who has been consistently ranked lower has been ranked lower for good reasons." That's completely fallacious considering Stanford's, and to a lesser extent, MIT's, position in the latest "standings."</p>