<p>Side note is that schools like Columbia have EDs so they locked a big chunk of kids for 100% yield. I normally don’t go beyond HYPSM, but for rough comparison, it is good enough to settle the arguments. </p>
<p>You can also see why Chicago or Caltech are always involved in this kind of debate – they have such famous names, but some people don’t consider them prestigous.</p>
<p>In my post, some of the columns were not included in the sort and thus, while the ratio is correct, the yield and admit rate info is wrong. Here is the correct sort:</p>
<p>Yield/Admit Rate , College , Yield , Admit Rate</p>
<p>9.57 , Harvard , 76% , 7.9%
7.90 , Yale , 68% , 8.6%
7.48 , Stanford , 71% , 9.5%
5.96 , Columbia , 60% , 10.0%
5.90 , Princeton , 59% , 9.9%
5.56 , MIT , 66% , 11.9%
4.00 , Brown , 55% , 13.7%
3.70 , U Penn , 63% , 16.9%
3.65 , Dartmouth , 49% , 13.5%
2.22 , Cornell , 46% , 20.7%
2.01 , Notre Dame , 54% , 26.7%
1.98 , Caltech , 34% , 17.4%
1.81 , Duke , 40% , 22.4%
1.52 , Rice , 35% , 23.0%
1.44 , Vanderbilt , 37% , 25.3%
1.38 , Wash U , 30% , 21.7%
1.35 , U Chicago , 38% , 27.9%
1.21 , Northwestern , 32% , 26.2%
1.20 , Johns Hopkins , 30% , 25.4%
1.05 , Emory , 28% , 26.6%</p>
<p>1.11 , UC Berkeley OOS , 19.5% , 17.6%
1.11 , U Virginia OOS , 32.9% , 29.7%</p>
<p>1.59 , U North Carolina-All Students , 54.0% , 34%
(UNC does not break out IS/OOSdata, but for OOS, ratio is almost certainly lower) </p>
<p>0.62 , U Michigan OOS , 26.0% , 42.1%</p>
<p>Do you have the numbers for Ponoma and … what is the other one?</p>
<p>If something is really really high quality, what is the benefit of also having it be widely known as prestigious? The people who matter will recognize the quality. </p>
<p>Universal prestige can also be banal and trite. Most Americans would say a Mercedes is the moat prestigious car and a Rolex the most prestigious watch, but that’s also a boring, banal stereotype of what rich people own. Mass prestige doesn’t necessarily translate to good taste.</p>
<p>Hawkette, do you care to share links for the data above? Many of them are incorrect. Michigan’s OOS yield, if I recall (Michigan does not publish it), is closer to 35%. And most private universities’ yield you provide is for their entire student bodies. In-staters are likely to enroll at higher rates, even in the case of private universities, as students usually prefer staying close to home. Please substantiate your ratings above with links.</p>
<p>Alex,
The U Michigan data came from a link that was on the U Michigan forum in the past few months. Here is the complete breakdown of the admissions data:</p>
<p>29,939 ALL Applicants for Class entering Fall, 2009</p>
<p>14,918 Acceptances
50% Acceptance Rate</p>
<p>6449 Enrolled
43% Yield</p>
<p>11,077 IN-STATE Applicants for Class entering Fall, 2009</p>
<p>6879 Acceptances
63% Acceptance Rate</p>
<p>4385 Enrolled
63% Yield</p>
<p>18,862 OUT-OF-STATE Applicants for Class entering Fall, 2009</p>
<p>7939 Acceptances
42% Acceptance Rate</p>
<p>2064 Enrolled
26% Yield</p>
<p>As for your observation about IS/OOS yields for privates being higher because they have some higher IS interest, the numbers of IS students is much, much smaller than what is found at any of the publics. Only Stanford (42% California) and Cornell (37% New York) have more than 30% from IS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve said this more than once and I’ll say it again. Your analogies do not apply. Unlike Mercedes or Rolex, Harvard (Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc.) are prestigious to not only the “masses” but also the elite. This is what makes their prestige “universal.” The prestige of the Mercedes or Rolex brand name is only particular or contextual because members of the “super-elite” community do not find it especially prestigious. Universal prestige is not the same as “mass” prestige, although the latter is a subset of the former. This is a distinction you repeatedly fail to recognize, which unfortunately leads to the obfuscation of your arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ratio of yield to admit rates can be a fair and reasonable indicator of “prestige,” but by no means serves as a proxy for it. No single statistic can fully explain a sociological phenomenon as complex as “prestige.”</p>
<p>Hawkette, if you are going to breakdown publics into IS and OOS figures, you have to do the same for private universities. </p>
<p>And Cornell and Stanford are not the only universities with large In-State populations. Rice is 55% in-state, Caltech is 35% in-state, Columbia is roughly 30% in-state, as is Emory.</p>
<p>Sorry, you’re right on Rice and Caltech being more than 30%. </p>
<p>As for the need to break the top 20 privates down, I couldn’t disagree more. These are national universities and nearly all have significantly higher numbers of OOS students. Worrying about the IS/OOS data for places like Brown (5% OOS) or Dartmouth (4%) or Wash U (10%) even U Penn (13%) or Duke (13% OOS) is a waste of time and everybody knows it.</p>
<p>hawkette, did you mean to say in-state in your above post?</p>
<p>Alexandre, Caltech being 35% in-state takes on a different significance when you realize that CA contains 12% of the US population, and probably (not sure where to look it up) 16% of the US population of age 18…</p>
<p>You sure about that? It’s more like 12%.</p>
<p>I know Dunnin, but Caltech is tiny. stanford is 42% OOS and USC is 65% OOS.</p>
<p>Hawkette, IS vs OOS is a meaningless metric when different states have different populations. Being OOS in Rhode Island and being OOS in California are two entirely different things, when 99+% of the US population is OOS for Rhode Island and only 88% of the US population is OOS for California. A school in San Diego could draw students from as far away as the Ca / Or border and it counts as “in-state,” but a school in Rhode Island can draw kids from 5 different states who still live closer in. There is nothing magical about state borders. </p>
<p>Either normalize the calculation by the size of the population within a certain distance of the school (say, within a 200 mile radius or whatever), or it needs to be normalized by the population of that state. Otherwise, it’s all misleading.</p>
<p>
Try telling that to the bursar’s office.</p>
<p>Ok, good point 
But I mean if you’re trying to talk about national reach.</p>
<p>PizzaGirl:
If you’ve only read and understand what I wrote, I think it’s very clear that familiarity of the school is just one of the 6 criteria for prestige. In my opinion, prestige is a relative thing. You’ve got to be familiar with the subject for you to be able to say it is prestigious, for how can you comment on something that you don’t know anything about? Is Villa San Michele, Florence prestigious? I bet it isn’t for you. </p>
<p>
It is not important for me per se. I was only saying that it is one of the criteria for prestige. That makes Harvard more prestigious than Brown, or Berkeley than Brown, although Brown can certainly make a claim that it is a more desirable school than either Harvard or Berkeley for undergraduate education. But we are not talking about school desirability here; we are talking about prestige. </p>
<p>
Personally, partially, I feel better if anyone would recognize how expensive the clothes I wear, or the car I drive, or the village where I reside in, etc, etc… It may not be my main motivation for aspiring to become successful, but it does sure feels good when the general public recognizes what I’ve earned and what I have. </p>
<p>
The criteria I gave were MAINLY for colleges/universities. Andover and Exeter are high schools. High Schools would have their own set of criteria, which are different from colleges/universities’. </p>
<p>I personally find Andover and Exeter prestigious. But that’s because I’ve heard of them. What if I have not? Then they would not be prestigious for me, no matter how prestigious they are for you. Now, would you say Andover is more prestigious than Harvard?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
One million percent agree!</p>
<p>Hunt, do you understand what it means when you say, “universal”?</p>