<p>well, i chose UCLA over Berkeley (and USC), despite being in the minority. i felt UCLA was the best fit. if anyone is deciding between comparable institutions, they should weigh the various particular academic, social, and financial differences. at this level, difference in prestige is mostly irrelevant. when comparing competitive schools, it definitely isn’t the best predictor of overall scholarly satisfaction. but, it is nice when people have actually heard of your school :)</p>
<p>Not as laughable as your evidence, for you presented none.</p>
<p>That’s my point. I’m fairly certain that Karabel has some evidence to back what he is saying, lest he be sued for libel. If you find his evidence unconvincing, then by all means, present better evidence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And where’s your evidence, I ask again? Oh yeah, that’s right, it doesn’t exist. So who’s the incorrect one here? At least I’m trying to provide some data on actual cross-admit data here. You’ve provided nothing of the sort. </p>
<p>Whatever you might say, at least Karabel has put himself on the line by placing his own name and reputation on the line. What has anybody else done? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it? The Hoxby study - as you mentioned - is a model. While informative on its own terms, it is not a report of actual cross-admit data. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then do so. In fact, you should have done so already. Like I said, if you have better evidence, then by all means provide it. Otherwise, we will have to go with the evidence that is available. Some evidence - however weak you believe it to be - is always better than no evidence at all.</p>
<p>The Holy War (non Football) between Notre Dame, BC with a little Georgetown thrown in. I know basically 50/50 “into ND and BC” and go one way or another. As with everything, depends who you talk to: I don’t care about rank-BC felt like a “better” school to me. That’s where I’m going.</p>
<p>WUSTL vs. a combination of Hopkins, Northwestern, Rice, and the lower Ivies comes up a lot. </p>
<p>I’m not sure if there are statistics for these schools, but I would imagine that the lower Ivies tend to dominate and its more evenly split for the others.</p>
<p>“Fairly certain” means nothing. All that matters is data that comes directly from the source, or can be verified as such. No one is going to sue Karabel for such a small matter, even if he is incorrect. I’m sorry but you are the one with no evidence, and it thus cannot even be considered unconvincing – please stop trying to present your posts as justified with facts in any way. At least my study has a sample size of thousands, as I previously mentioned; this makes it better evidence than a statement of an author with nothing to back him up whatsoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, what are you on? You provided three quotations from an author, containing nothing but one or two fractions and no citations. I provided a study done by a major news source that was pure data. In what way is that less evidence?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Irrelevant. This can only lead to a non sequitur. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given that you have failed to provide any report, a model is best – again, give us data that is cited or straight from the source. Otherwise, it’s hardly evidence.</p>
<p>Maybe not as “good” as a lot of the schools so far mentioned, but I saw a lot of NYU/BU cross-admits this year, and would assume a lot of these exist every year, as they are two “trendy” city schools and get a lot of cross apps. In my own case, I chose NYU, but a lot of people I know chose BU because of great financial aid (I, myself, got no aid at BU and manageable aid at NYU, so I guess it really depends).</p>
<p>It is baffling to me why anyone would spend so much analyzing this data. Individuals choose one school over another for a variety of mostly very subjective and personal reasons. For example: Student 1 picks school A over B because it is closer to home; Student 2 picks school B over A because if “felt” better after a site visit; student 3 picks school C over A and B because it is in a large city and the other two aren’t; student 4 picks school D over A because it has a specific program that is very strong even though the school itself is not perceived as more prestigious; etc. etc…</p>
<p>I went to high school in Raleigh, NC. I’d say the majority of my classmates did feel that Duke wasn’t worth the money compared to UNC, given that you received no financial aid from Duke (18k/yr versus 53k/yr).</p>
<p>Among those who were accepted to Duke, though, I think about one-third (of the 15-20 students accepted to both) choose UNC over Duke. Those who chose UNC, though, mainly did so for financial reasons.</p>
<p>Yes, there is a big, and largely inconclusive, debate among in-state students on whether UNC or Duke is the better deal. To say that in-state students consider UNC to be of comparable prestige/caliber as Duke, regardless of tuition costs? That’s a [big] stretch.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but I see a lot of Carleton/Macalester crossovers in my school. Most seem to pick Carleton, although I’m not positive which I would pick myself.</p>
<p>We also see a lot of Amherst-Williams overlap here, which is weird since those schools are major rivals, but I’d say the split is about even.</p>
<p>No, until now (after several cross-posts), you had presented precisely nothing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, what are you on? </p>
<p>What you provided was a model. As I have discussed on other threads, Hoxby does not show actual cross-admit data. What it shows is a model of cross-admit data that attempts to interpolate what a certain set of students would have done if given certain choices. What it clearly does not do, as the authors themselves have stated, is discuss what choices those students actually had. </p>
<p>Nor is the study comprehensive, which the authors themselves freely admit. The sample was drawn from a subset of students and is in no way meant to capture the effects of all students. In fact, the authors themselves say that, given more resources, they would like to rerun the model with a more comprehensive dataset. </p>
<p>If you want to discuss this point further, my advice to you is to please read Hoxby first. Read all the caveats. Read carefully what the authors say and especially what the authors say that they did not do. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Utterly false. See above. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Finally - here you have presented the data that I have asked for. Why was this akin to pulling teeth? When I asked you for data before, why didn’t you simply provide it?</p>
<p>But even so, I see only one snippet of information that I find useful from those minutes - that being the 80 vs. 80 Yale vs. Stanford cross-admits. As for the other dyads, those minutes say nothing. They say that 27% of students who are admitted to Stanford and don’t go will choose Harvard. But how about those students who are admitted to both and choose Stanford? Nothing is said at all. Hence, I have no way to determine anything about the Harvard-Stanford cross-admits. </p>
<p>So in the face of continuing lack of evidence, we have to return to what Karabel said, which is: </p>
<p>In recent years, Harvard has attracted more than two-thirds of joint admits to Stanford.</p>
<p>Again, if you have better evidence, then post it.</p>
<p>I presented a model. Better than unsupported words from a book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand this. I understand that it is not actually a model of what choices students made. It is still better than nothing, which is, to use your words, precisely what you presented. The statements in the book were not cited, and therefore meaningless as evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I had to dig it up from the nether regions of this forum. It was a huge inconvenience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Show me where he gets this data point, otherwise it is not evidence. Do you understand the concept of reliable information? This is a statement that should have a footnote or a citation. It does not. It is simply not evidence.</p>
<p><a href=“sakky:”>quote</a>
[Revealed Preferences paper] is merely a model of what people would have done given the choice. It says nothing about whether the choice was even provided.
…
[the RP study] does not show actual cross-admit data. What it shows is a model of cross-admit data that attempts to interpolate what a certain set of students would have done if given certain choices. **What it clearly does not do, as the authors themselves have stated, is discuss what choices those students actually had. **
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but what does that (text in boldface) have to do with your disagreement with poster Baelor, as to whether the NY Times chart with its “estimated data” is predictive of empirical (measured, not modelled) cross-admit data?</p>
<p>I’m headed to Brown and chose between Brown and Columbia. One data point, but I met a fair amount of other cross admits at both schools’ admit weekends.</p>
<p>another big one is probably duke vs penn. i’ve seen a LOT of this one. i’ve seen a lot more duke wins, but that’s probably 'cause i am a duke student LOL. personally i think i’d say the split is pretty even…</p>
<p>it’s close to even, but Penn has a statistically significant edge over Duke…or at least it did in the increasingly dated cross-admit survey that floats around these boards ;)</p>
<p>As others have noted, the NYT matchup that everyone keeps citing is based on the Revealed Preferences ranking, which is something like a decade old. Ten years in the admissions game is a long time, especially the last ten years which have seen admissions deans change at many of the elites (notably Princeton, which then very publicly worked to change the policies the RP study criticized), a financial aid arms race, and changes in ED/EA policies by some top schools.</p>
<p>As far as I’m aware, the most worthwhile numbers come from the Stanford minutes, even though they don’t tell us everything. Here’s one analysis:</p>