<p>Stanford's mascot is a TREE?! </p>
<p>seriously.</p>
<p>He actually said "Almost 100%." I'm not sure if he's right about his hypotheical situation, but perhaps he is. Like you said, tihs doesn't matter that much- this model isn't too meaningful, althought I do agree with his basic idea, "I think the cross-admit battles exaggerate the university's differences . . . Does that mean there is a large gap between the quality of the two schools? No."</p>
<p>The flaw in the situation is there, but it is only present in your first point (of three) from your original post.</p>
<p>Your third original point might follow from assuming your second point is true, but my point is that these things, different (and sometimes trivial) values and unknowable assumptions, happen in real life. That they happen in v's situation does not mean anything special here. I'm just saying that they're a part of the hypothetical situation does not mean anything special because they are also a part of the reality of the situation, what happens in real life. You pointed them out as if they make the hypothetical problematic, but they also make the actual yield/cross admit stats problematic. It's a wash.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You pointed them out as if they make the hypothetical problematic, but they also make the actual yield/cross admit stats problematic. It's a wash.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Drab, if you agree that my second / third points make V's hypothetical argument problematic, then you should agree that V's hypothetical argument is full of holes = flawed logic. Period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford's mascot is a TREE?!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See what I mean?</p>
<p>If, in V's world that hypothetical situation existed (i.e. X = Y in all things academic, but X has better food) then people would begin looking at other things to make a decision (e.g. school color, mascot, name, etc.) i.e. there would be other things that some would deem more important than better food -> yield would not equal 100% (or almost 100%).</p>
<p>Basically, it's a dumb argument.</p>
<p>what a mockery!</p>
<p>What a pointless argument. Students from both attend grad programs at the other.</p>
<p>I was thinking of Eric Schmidt. So I stand corrected.</p>
<p>And guys, you can argue until the cows come home, but it's where you went that counts in the final analysis in your own scheme of things.</p>
<p>As for prospective students, the choice is entirely yours, each dictated by your own circumstances that likely go beyond reputation based on third party accounts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you can argue until the cows come home, but it's where you went that counts in the final analysis
[/quote]
</p>
<p>my point exactly. which is why cross-admit yield numbers matter.</p>
<p>the_prestige, they make his argument potentially problematic, but they also make the actual reality potentially problematic. They also make actual yield/cross-admit battles potentially problematic.. If it's problematic for his situation, is not for reality as well? Your first point actually makes his argument problematic, and does not apply to the real life situation.</p>
<p>Knowing why something is wrong is important, as is knwoing that it is wrong. Whether one is more important than another is a different discussion. You proposed v's situation was wrong for three reasons, but two are irrelevant because they are also potentially (and in some cases, at least to me, seem to be prevalent) in real life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for prospective students, the choice is entirely yours, each dictated by your own circumstances that likely go beyond reputation based on third party accounts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what if third party account are actually or in a great part what tips the scales? I'm not sure how likely it is that students go beyond this, even if some think they are- some things are in the culture. For example, Harvard as the example of higher education.</p>
<p>Go start a different thread about why or why not yiled rates and cross admits are the best figure to consider quality. Let this thread go back to at least in general where the op intended it to go.</p>
<p>However, in my book a higher cross-admit yield number does not equate to "better" nor "more well-known".</p>
<p>
[quote]
I turned down Harvard, Princetone and Stanford (to name a few) for Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, once again sansai turns to outliers instead of the bulk of data to support her claim.</p>
<p>I'd be roasted alive if I did that in my statistical work.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/10/07/news/10999.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/10/07/news/10999.shtml</a>
<a href="http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/5/30/admitYieldIncreasesBy2Percent%5B/url%5D">http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/5/30/admitYieldIncreasesBy2Percent</a>
<a href="http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2002/8/1/stanfordReactsToPrincetonyaleAdmissionsScandal%5B/url%5D">http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2002/8/1/stanfordReactsToPrincetonyaleAdmissionsScandal</a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=255144%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=255144</a>
<a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/01/07/news/9373.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/01/07/news/9373.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxx/2000.11.16/features/front.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxx/2000.11.16/features/front.html</a></p>
<p>I second UCLAri; Stanford views HYP (and vice versa) as its main rivals as far as admission and cross-admit battle goes. Note how HYPS admission never mention Berkeley, LOL! Berkeley people should be comparing themselves to JHU, Northwestern, Cornell, UChicago which all actually have higher average SAT scores than UCB. UCLA is UCB's biggest rival. I understand how comparing with Stanford would make one "look" better though. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the Class of 2008, the university admitted 2,486 students; 1,665 accepted the offer of admission and arrived at the university last month. Of the 821 students who declined admission and filled out a form that indicated where they were going instead, 28 percent said Harvard, 20 percent said Yale, 13 percent said MIT and 8 percent said Princeton. All other universities that were mentioned did not represent more than 2 percent [each], and no more than 1 percent indicated that they would attend a Pac-10 school, according to the figures provided by the admission office.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just what kind of outlier sansai represents? "no more than 1 percent".</p>
<p>Since when has this topic of this thread been what do some of the writers for the Stanford Daily, the Daily Princetonian, the Yale Herald, and the Crimson think or report about? I thought we were talking about "Which is more well known Stanford or UCBerkeley?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley people should be comparing themselves to JHU, Northwestern, Cornell, UChicago which all actually have higher average SAT scores than UCB. [and HYPS]
[/quote]
I would be interested in seeing the others factors about the students at each- for instance, wealth has a huge correlation with SAT score. I'm not implying that everyone at HYPS is rich or that everyone at UC Berkeley is poor, but I'd be interested in data that correlates to SAT score such as income to see how much is explained by such information.</p>
<p>Edit- that document is not necessarily meaningful. What gives one any inclination to believe it's a representative portion of the students?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of the 821 students who declined admission and filled out a form that indicated where they were going instead,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I love the omission of that number who filled out a form indicating where they were going instead.</p>
<p>Woah, I never said it in such a light, either.</p>
<p>Keep a few things in mind Sam. First off, even though the overall average at Cornell and JHU are a bit higher than Cal, that's largely due to the (my term) "public 25th percentile". The vast majority of the student body at Cal, however, is not that group and is easily comparable to Cornell and most other top 25 schools or so.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that the rivalry is at least partly based on sports. That's not a big deal and is perfectly fine, no matter what the perceived academic "gap" may be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford's mascot is a TREE?! </p>
<p>seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, MIT's sports mascot is the Engineers. Yep, the "MIT Engineers". Come on, pebbles, you gotta admit, that's a pretty lame mascot name.</p>
<p><a href="http://mitathletics.cstv.com/%5B/url%5D">http://mitathletics.cstv.com/</a></p>
<p>Well, if we are really talking about which school is "more known", maybe UCLA is better. A lot of Americans watch basketball and they would know UCLA. Didn't they win like 10 NCAA championships? ;)</p>
<p>Before i started my college search, i'd never heard of uc berkeley, swear to god. Stanford, yes. I'm from New York state, though, and globally berkeley probably is more well known.</p>
<p>Stanford wins for americans because there are movies/tv shows with it (i.e. orange county)</p>
<p>11, actually. It was 10 under Wooden. </p>
<p>But the original crux of the debate wasn't necessarily which school was "better," but which school was "better known."</p>
<p>They're not necessarily mutually dependent.</p>
<p>Oh, sakky, that's so fitting. I never knew. Thanks for the info. :)</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uc_berkeley%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uc_berkeley</a> (Click on "references in pop culture")</p>
<p>Thanks DRab for filling in for me...I was in class all day.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, assuming that two schools are IDENTICAL except for the food. Not only is this totally unrealistic -> it basically throws the entire debate out the window - i.e. this basically changes the entire debate from an academic one -> food tastes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said it was an academic debate? A student chooses a university based on a lot of factors, such as food. Besides, what if I had said that the universities were identical except for one professor who is better? Would that have made the hypothetical situation more valid? Actually, it wouldn't mattered because the point is still the same: minute differences can have a large impact in yield.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, even if we take this unrealistic, ridiculous assumption (i.e. two totally equal schools except one has slightly better food) -> the school with slightly better food will NOT yield 100%. You are making numerous unknowable assumptions even from that point, for a small example:</p>
<ul>
<li>you are assuming that every single person cares about the food
[/quote]
</li>
</ul>
<p>I didn't assume that. Every single person could care very little. But if university #1 = university #2 except university #1 had better food, what reason is there to go to university #2, even if you don't care that much about the food? I don't see any.</p>
<p>Think about advertising. Companies give out flyers and free stuff at promotions, and people go crazy at them. Do people really need one more low-quality pen? Not really. But it's certainly a better situation than no pen. Similarly, people who don't care about the food would probably still take the better food over the worse food. Given everything else is the same, why go for the worse option?</p>
<p>
[quote]
- you are assuming that there is a definitive food "winner" here (i.e. that one can actually judge "which food is better")
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. This is a HYPOTHETICAL situation. It's not meant to be realistic, just practical in explaining certain concepts. Besides, there certainly could be a definitive food "winner." I bet Cornell's food (hailed to be one of the best in the nation) is better than my cooking. I bet 99.9% of the students, if not 100%, would choose Cornell's food over my food.</p>
<p>
[quote]
- you are assuming that all food "tastes" are the same (which they are most definitely not)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never made that assumption in my post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
- this goes on and on to the point of absurdity
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not that absurd. For example, let's say one student looks at two universities, Cornell and Berkeley. He doesn't care about the location at all. He looks at engineering and both are in top 20, and TO HIM, that's the same. He doesn't care about the differences. He happened to have the same number of friends at both schools, and know them both about the same. They are both large. TO HIM, the only real difference between the two schools is that Cornell has better food. Is that so hard to believe? So he chose Cornell because of the food. That doesn't sound THAT absurd to me.</p>
<p>Now assume there are 100 students who feel like this. Maybe they like Berkeley's weather better, but like Cornell's Ivy League status, so it evens out, and when everything is averaged out these 100 students like these two schools almost exactly the same, except Cornell has better food. Is that so hard to believe?</p>
<p>Now assume a study is done and it happened to be conducted on these 100 students, who all picked Cornell, pretty much because of the food. Now, the cross-yield for Cornell would be 100%. Does that mean it's a really really good school and Berkeley = community college? No. That's my point. Cross-yield can over-exaggerate differences between two schools. And I used a hypothetic situation, which was not meant to be realistic but practical in explaining my theory, to demonstrate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The two school ARE NOT EQUAL. That is the point. In the real world, cross-admit yields between two schools is the single most telling statistic (if you HAD to pick one stat) as to which school is superior. Plain and simple. Numbers simply do not lie. If year after year, more students who get into BOTH Stanford and Cal -> pick Stanford in higher numbers, it's plain to see that Stanford is a better school. Or are these students (year in and year out) just plain stupid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe it's useful in telling you which school is better (and not 100% of the time...say one school is slightly weaker but in a great location, and another school is slightly stronger but in a really bad location, and the cross-yield comes out to be 51-49), but my point is that it doesn't tell you much about how MUCH better one school is over the other.</p>