<p>I do agree with one point Byerly mentions, and that is of international applicants. While it is not "disgraceful," it is rather disappointing that Stanford does not have need-blind admission for international applicants. Hopefully with the $1 Billion dollar undergrad fund raising recently completed, Stanford would be able to provide universal need-blind admission. I also believe that Stanford has enough endowment to keep its athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>You continue to misconstrue my views.</p>
<p>I <em>really</em> don't CARE what Stanford does; it can continue to pour $12 million or more into the nation's largest "athletic scholarship" program just as long as it wants, while postponing improvements in financial aid and faculty resources.</p>
<p>It is hardly surprising that rabid grads like Sam think the current setup is just lovely. (Just as Dartmouth grads pine for the return of the fraternities, and old Tigers resent efforts by Princeton administrators to marginalize the "eating clubs.")</p>
<p>I have been trying to address the point raised by the OP, who couldn't understand why Stanford's USNews ranking is not higher.</p>
<p>It is hardly surprising that my prescription for greater success is unpopular with rabid Cardinal rooters. </p>
<p>They prefer to avoid specific issues such as those I raise, and, apparently, to chalk up Stanford's stall in the rankings to some dark "East Coast Conspiracy" or the needs of a national magazine to "pander" to mysterious and powerful forces who, apparently, do not maintain West Coast offices.</p>
<p>Whatever gives you solace, I guess!</p>
<hr>
<p>I will reiterate the initial "free advice" I rendered in this thread, and call it a day:</p>
<p>Free advice:
Stanford can at least top Penn if it makes some long-overdue reforms in the admissions operation - putting as much effort into recruiting top students as it does into recruiting top athletes.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Adopt the common app. When Yale and Princeton, respectively, adopted the common app, the number of apps received rose 15%.</p></li>
<li><p>Recognize that Stanford is not as selective as some may think, since its stats are skewed by the relatively high app numbers and yield rate in its home territory. Outside the California, Stanford's yield rate is very ordinary.</p></li>
<li><p>Stanford must mount a <em>national</em> recruiting effort to match that by Harvard and - to a lesser extent - Yale, Princeton and Penn.</p></li>
<li><p>By not conducting interviews - and specifically alumni interviews - Stanford misses a prime opportunity to sell the school.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Eagle79,</p>
<p>According to Stanford and many articles, Stanford's funding for financial aid is separated from athletic scholarship. They derived from two different sources. This has already been discussed. Byerly argued that the two sources are really one and it's simply accounting game. But he had no proof of that while the links I put down said specificly where the athletic scholarships come from. He even argued that the alumni would have given donations to the university instead of the athletic department if they weren't "distracted" (sorry for my English but I can't think of a better word) by it. LOL! I had always donated mine to general university and to stay "honorable", I guess I'll make sure to continue to do that and not put a dime into their athletic department even if it sends me a mail (although I've never got anything from them since I finished my MS there). ;) </p>
<p>The truth is probably most schools, like you said, can do more and you can find "disgraceful practice" in all of them if you try hard enough.</p>
<p>In my eyes, admitting anyone based strongly on non-academic factors is a shameful practice. Harvard should be put to shame for admitting a large percentage of the class as legacies and developmental cases. I think I read in a US News magazine that the admit rate for Harvard legacies is around 40 percent or so! Nobody should be admitted to college based upon who their parents were. In addition, nobody should be able to buy their way into college. This type of practice reminds me more of the French aristocracy than it does of the supposedly "American" ideals of merit and democracy.</p>
<p>Stanford shouldn't be let off the hook either. Admitting people based strongly on their athletic prowess is also just as wrong as Harvard admitting people based on money or their family lines. Sure it is a "tad" bit more merit based because unlike legacies or development cases these athletes had to practice hard for their skills. But it's still wrong. </p>
<p>Now I'd like to see Byerly and Sam Lee admit that their schools are indeed adhering to the wrong admissions philosophy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have been trying to address the point raised by the OP, who couldn't understand why Stanford's USNews ranking is not higher.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am sorry if we all misunderstood your good intention. May I point out that Duke's rank has gone up in the past 7 years and it has similar "disgraceful" practice? Many on its basketball team didn't graduate and drafted by NBA. It's athletics seem to help them though. What about MIT? It's ranked all the way to #7 without paying any attention to athletics. Chicago is considered underranked also. Maybe you can divert some of your energy to investigate if anything is wrong with US News methodology instead on what is wrong with Stanford/MIT. Maybe you'd find it's US News, not Stanford, that is wrong.</p>
<p>collegeperson12,</p>
<p>That's why I said if you try hard enough to pass moral judgement, virtually no school can come clean. For example, Harvard pays its professors highest salary in the nation; one can say if it decrease its pay by just 1%, it would help many more low-income (or even mid-income--we all hate loans!) students. What I felt what Byerly was doing was putting up the usual Harvard snobbiness and pick on other schools' dirty laundry without saying a word about its own. His main point was nothing more than "Harvard is more noble".</p>
<p>I don't think there is that much wrong with US News "methodology" - compared to any other ranking I have seen. </p>
<p>My main criticism is that it should not have eliminated yield as a selectivity factor altogether, but rather substituted "RD yield" for overall yield in order to eliminate the skewing caused by early admissions programs.</p>
<p>"They prefer to avoid specific issues such as those I raise, and, apparently, to chalk up Stanford's stall in the rankings to some dark "East Coast Conspiracy" or the needs of a national magazine to "pander" to mysterious and powerful forces who, apparently, do not maintain West Coast offices."</p>
<p>That is a complete and patently dishonest representation of my views.</p>
<p>I didn't say those either.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, he's mocking my views made on the Harvard board (see the thread about Harvard's biggest competitor) concerning the USNews ranking.</p>
<p>Hey guys, if Stanford is under ranked, less ppl apply for prestige and more people who want it get in, do!</p>
<p>It seems that this thread is about done . . . I would like to say I agree with Byerly on the methodology of USNews on selectivity. USNews should change their selectivity criterea to RD Yield provided that those students applied as RD students, not deferred ED, EA and SCEA students. </p>
<p>The colleges do not break out the deferred/accepted numbers. I suspect that the yield rate for the ED, EA and SCEA students would be close to the same as for the ones accepted under those programs.</p>
<p>Finally to summarize my position:</p>
<ul>
<li>Merit scholarships are fine, including those for athletics.</li>
<li>Priority should be given to funding 100% of financial need.</li>
</ul>
<p>Applied to specific schools:</p>
<ul>
<li>Stanford should do more to more completely fund financial need.</li>
<li>Harvard should provide academic, athletic and musical merit aid. Right now athletes choose to go elsewhere, soon more academics will also due to the economic inducements.</li>
<li>As Sam Lee points out, we can find things we would like to improve at every school.</li>
</ul>
<p>people
it doesn't matter
stanford is a great school
students are happy
everyone is happy
now everyone go out and get a life</p>
<p>Actually, I think I have to agree with Byerly in post #122. The question is, do you guys want Stanford to get better or not? Crying and whining about insidious East Coast cabals isn't going to help anybody. I think Byerly's suggestions are perfectly valid. I still don't understand why Stanford won't adopt the common App, won't run alumni interviews, and (especially) won't engage in a strong national marketing campaign. </p>
<p>That's not to say that the other schools are perfect. Indeed they are not. However, the steps that are suggested will not only help Stanford's USNews ranking, but more importantly, will help Stanford's academic quality, because it will raise the quality of the student body, and that's always a good thing. Yes, other schools have problems too, but just because one guy jumps off a building doesn't mean that everybody should go jump off a building. Put another way, if Stanford fixes its problems and the other schools don't fix theirs, then Stanford will be better than those other schools.</p>
<p>Yeah I agree Stanford should conduct alumni interviews. That's a perfect opportunity to sell the school. I don't agree that Stanford should do a mass-marketing campaign like some other schools do. That only boosts the number of low achieving students to apply to the school even though they have no chance. It's not exactly a nice thing to do, and it seems to me to be a manipulative practice. I think I read in a magazine somewhere that a Duke admissions officer admitted that the mass-marketing only attracted more bottom tier applicants. What's the point in doing that unless you just want to artificially boost your own numbers? Besides, I think Stanford, Harvard, et al have a hard enough time with the applicants who apply "just for the hell of it."</p>
<p>I don't think any school should offer merit aid to attract students--the most infamous one is perhaps schools like Duke and WUSTL. That's just a flat out declaration that these schools can't compete head to head with the big boys.</p>
<p>But yeah, Stanford does have some areas it should improve on. What I want to see the most is a need-blind policy for international students. That's my number one priority. Then I want to see a no-loans policy for financial aid. Eventually, if the alumni keep pushing for that (which I think they do), then these policies will probably come into effect in the near future.</p>
<p>collegeperson12, are you kidding me? Stanford does NOT need alumni to itself!</p>
<p>Even the latest Princeton Review Best Colleges does it. I was leafing thru the 2006 edition and it states there are 2,900 applicants to Stanford with a 57% acceptance rate. Who edits that book?</p>
<p>^ LOL I heard about that massive typo. It would be funny if the number of apps skyrocketed this year because everyone thought they could get in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't agree that Stanford should do a mass-marketing campaign like some other schools do. That only boosts the number of low achieving students to apply to the school even though they have no chance. It's not exactly a nice thing to do, and it seems to me to be a manipulative practice. I think I read in a magazine somewhere that a Duke admissions officer admitted that the mass-marketing only attracted more bottom tier applicants. What's the point in doing that unless you just want to artificially boost your own numbers? Besides, I think Stanford, Harvard, et al have a hard enough time with the applicants who apply "just for the hell of it."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I certainly didn't envision a mass-marketing campaign the way you just described it. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "mass-market". I was more referring to a campaign to convince the very best students to apply and, more importantly, to go to Stanford once they've gotten in. My real point is, if Stanford wants to raise itself to the next level, then Stanford has to slap Harvard around on its home turf - meaning that Stanford has to give those non-West Coast students, and especially those in the Northeast, who got accepted into Harvard a compelling reason to turn it down to go to Stanford instead. If you want to be seen as being better than Harvard, then that's what you have to do. </p>
<p>That's how you win the game. You can't just pussyfoot around. Harvard is not going to just hand you the crown. If you want the crown, you're going to have to take it from them, and that means convincing the best students from everywhere to prefer you to Harvard.</p>
<p>I would agree with you if what you say is actually possible. But the best students probably aren't swayed by PR campaigns. The best way to beat Harvard is not by beating them at the advertising game. It's by actually beating them in reality. </p>
<p>And the first few steps Stanford can take is to 1.) Become need-blind for international students 2.) Adopt a no loans financial aid policy 3.) Conduct alumni interviews</p>
<p>That's not to say Stanford isn't great. I already think it's the greatest school in the world that more than holds its own against Harvard. But if there are areas where Stanford can improve, then I'd like to see the school work towards it.</p>