<p>So basically Harvard gets a bunch of folks who go for the name? I don't see how that's really a compliment to Harvard. You're just saying its name has more power than Yale's, not that those kids woud be receiving a better education or getting a better deal by attending Harvard over Yale. Also, you're saying that prestige-whores would end up at Harvard. Sorry Byerly, dunno what you learned waayyy back in the day, but there's more to education than prestige.</p>
<p>I think they go there because they want to go there, and they are lucky enough to get in. Pretty simple stuff. I imagine they have a range on motives.</p>
<p>You didn't contradict/rebut my last post at all. Right on.</p>
<p>Well I guess you sure proved YOU weren't a "prestige whore" when you turned down Stanford for Yale.... right, ThisIsCrazy?</p>
<p>I take my hat off to you, kid! As you say, "there's more to education than prestige!"</p>
<p>Whoa, whoa fellas. I didn't mean to start a huge debate on Yale vs. Harvard. It was just a joke meant to be taken lightly :)</p>
<p>Actually, around these parts Stanford's just as and perhaps even more prestigious than Yale, and considering 5 of my friends from last year go there, and considering I've always been thought of as math/science person (which clearly Stanford has a greater reputation for than Yale), I definitely ignored all external opinions to go with what just felt most like "home" to me.</p>
<p>Another bit of info... Pomona was my top choice until I visited (for five days), and had a very bad experience. Then I was left with figuring out some way to pick among PYS. That's the truth. </p>
<p>Still haven't contradicted/rebutted my original post. Right on!</p>
<p>The class of 2006 was accepted in 2002. It is now 2005. Again, thank you for beating us over the head with the same post for the 1000th time. Do you just copy and paste?</p>
<p>LOL! Its a little early for 2005 numbers, which won't be available until next fall, will they? </p>
<p>There do seem to be some early signs: 5 SCEA admits to Yale - regular posters on CC - appear to have defected to Harvard after being admitted RD, and I haven't seen evidence of any contra-flow. </p>
<p>A small sample, to be sure, but an indication that the cross-admit pattern of the past 25 years or so will be unlikely to change.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So basically Harvard gets a bunch of folks who go for the name? I don't see how that's really a compliment to Harvard. You're just saying its name has more power than Yale's, not that those kids woud be receiving a better education or getting a better deal by attending Harvard over Yale. Also, you're saying that prestige-whores would end up at Harvard. Sorry Byerly, dunno what you learned waayyy back in the day, but there's more to education than prestige.
[/quote]
Really?! Thanks for the insight, Sherlock!</p>
<p>Funny, I don't see Byerly even mentioning the prestige of Harvard in this thread! You've fallen into the typical anti-Harvard trap of "if people like it, they must be prestige whores." What Byerly HAS said is that, among kids who have a choice between the top schools, the overwhelming preference is for Harvard. That may be (and is) for any number of reasons - location, academics, oppertunities, OR EVEN MAYBE prestige.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But then again, Harvard students are quick to acknowledge Yale's superiority in certain areas.
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=255288%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=255288
[/quote]
</a>
Hahaha... that's an awesome article. Thanks!</p>
<p>whatever...
half the peple here arguing fervently for either school haven't even gotten in yet. get over it. they're both good schools.</p>
<p>Don't misunderstand me. I am not anti-Harvard, I am trying to show that Byerly's 75% statistic is no sign that Harvard is better than Yale (I am not trying to show that Harvard is worse than Yale either, in case you decide to accuse me of that, too). For sure many, many of those 75% of cross-admits picking Harvard over Yale are picking it for reasons other than prestige. But the point is, Byerly has been lording that fact like it's proof that Harvard is so much better than Yale. It's not proof, because we can't know how many of those kids picked Harvard just because of some illusion of prestige, and how many picked it for other reasons. I didn't say that everyone who picks Harvard is a prestige-whore, I said the prestige-whores, and there may be any amount of them, I don't know, would end up at Harvard since according to Byerly's statistics and everything else he spouts, Harvard is more prestigious. </p>
<p>Does that clear it up?</p>
<p>And yes, cambridge is nicer than new haven-that helps.</p>
<p>though new haven has benefits over cambridge that even a true crimson would realize</p>
<p>both are unearable</p>
<p>Byerly: If you are going to post threads touting Harvard's "name brand" appeal, you have to be prepared for people to begin questioning the motives of those who choose Harvard over other elite institutions. </p>
<p>While the oft-repeated 75 % rate may appear overwhelming, you have to consider how small a pool of cross-admits we are dealing with. According the 2005 US News and World Report, Princeton, for example, admitted 1601 applicants to fill a class of somewhere between 1150-1200 students. There is no solid evidence that these 400 + students who chose to attend another school were the "best" applicants, or that the majority of them went to Harvard. Some of them likely chose scholarships at state schools, top LACs, other Ivies, or even (gasp!) Yale, Stanford, or MIT, begging the question of how many cross admits Princeton and Harvard have in a given year.</p>
<p>Byerly implies that the cross-admits are the "best" students simply because they are the most sought after. This is not necessarily a logical assumption. An URM or athelete with a high rank and scores from the mid 1400s and up on the old SAT would have a good chance of being accepted at almost any school to which he applied. While such students are certainly qualified for admission at any one of the top schools, only their status as a member of a particularly sought after group distinguishes them from any other aceptee. A similar standard might also apply, to a lesser extent, to other groups, for example, residents of underrepresented states or female engineering majors. So, when you come down to it, how many of these cross admits are actually the "genius" students? Do they fall into the 75 % choosing Harvard, the 25 % choosing Princeton, Yale, MIT, and Stanford, or somewhere in between?</p>
<p>The cross-admit students are, I submit, among the "best" applicants by definition - because two or more elite schools want to have them. Often they may be among the brightest, but they also may be desirable for other reasons: an unusual talent, leadership ability, a highly sought-after URM etc etc. I fail to see how you can argue that this is not a logical assumption.</p>
<p>As has been observed, Harvard gets more than its fair share of this highly desirable pool. I am not arguing that it is for this reason or that: indeed, no two applicants will ever choose for precisely the same reason. There is evidence that the Cambridge/Boston location is a plus; there is a widely-held assumption that smart kids want to go where they perceive the other smart kids are going, and that no doubt helps Harvard. Many studies have shown that this latter factor may be by far the most important. Few college applicants prefer to attend a school where they sense most students will be less capable than themselves.</p>
<p>Finally, do not underestimate the size or the significance of the cross-admit pools. True, the elites try to reduce the size of the ovelap as much as possible by filling half their classes from early applicant pools to which they assert "exclusive" negotiating rights via dubious one-sided "contracts".</p>
<p>But of the applicants in the RD pool who are "in play", an astonishing fraction of the admits at HSYPM are also admitted to one or more of the "competitor" schools. There is a fairly rigid pecking order that changes very slowly, if at all, by which applicants either prefer one school heavily over another, or split more evenly.</p>
<p>This is reflected not only in cross-admit data but in yield numbers generally. That the cross admit pool disproportionately represents some of the most academically talented (at least as measured by SAT scores, etc), is born out by data reported in "The Early Admissions Game" and the "Revealed Preference" study.</p>
<p>It is often instructive to compare - where it is possible to do so - the SAT median for admitted students with the SAT median of the matriculating group. Where there is a larger disparity, you are looking at a school which loses the battle for the most academically talented cross-admits. See, for example, <a href="http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html</a></p>
<p>Nice data, Byerly. Excellent point. Do any other university's publish this kind of data?</p>
<p>My argument isn't that these students aren't the most desireable, it is that they aren't necessarily the most qualified. A URM with a 1520 SAT in the top 5 % of his class with decent extracurriculurs would be a highly desireable applicant, for example, but would not be more qualified than other " average excellent students." Two or more elite schools might also agressively pursue an athelete with otherwise unexceptional scores. Yet, the school who gets him has gained nothing more impressive than a more respectable basketball team - not one of the criteria widely used in determining school quality, I assure you.</p>
<p>You are attacking a straw man, Icargirl. </p>
<p>I suggest you read the RP study and the other links provided to understand how different schools - including specifically Princeton - have occasionally adjusted their admissions practices in order to increase yield rate, sometimes at the expense of quality - as measured by the SAT scores of those in the applicant group.</p>