why Harvard? This is why!

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
81

<p>chicagoboy12</p>

<p>1) you did not say "about 75%" (which leaves the range a bit ambiguous) you said "about 1 in 4" (which implies a number closer to 1 in 4 than to 1 in 3 or 1 in 5)<br>
"about 1 in 4" simply was not correct - "about 1 in 5" would have been the correct estimate
( for this year it looks like "about 1 in 6" will be correct)</p>

<p>As for your "and one of the reasons that harvard has a high yield is their $$.", that would only apply as a partial explanation for this year's expected increase above the already "high" yield you were referencing</p>

<p>Finally, about your point "standing", what exactly WAS your point? </p>

<p>That not every single person who gets into Harvard ultimately decides to go there? Well that would be a pretty pointless point even if that was what you meant to say.</p>

<p>2) the 79% figure you use for Harvard and BY comes from a USNWR study using data from 2006, not last year </p>

<p>Also, BY's acceptance rate according to the study is 70%!!! - meaning that over 55% of those who APPLIED to Brigham Young in 2006 matriculated vs. 5% for Harvard - so you are talking apples and oranges and irrelevancies here. </p>

<p>Yield is only one measure of attractiveness - another is number of applications. BY gets about 2 applications for every seat it has in its freshman class. Harvard gets more than 20.</p>

<p>3) In any event, neither of these school had the highest yield for 2006. That "honor" belonged to the USMA with a yield of 83% (and an acceptance rate of 15%).</p>

<p>4) UChicago's numbers - yield 34%, acceptance rate 38%</p>

<p>5) Projected yields based upon number admits for class of 2012</p>

<p>Harvard - 85%
Yale - 69.7%
Princeton - 62.7%</p>

<p>6) Based upon what I have seen with "my own eyes" over the past 30 years since I was your age, your claims about mediocre students and individuals getting into Harvard by lying about things like their number of volunteer hours or club participation don't remotely pass the smell test. </p>

<p>7) If you don't want to be taken for an angry rejected applicant or a troll, don't come here and act like one.</p>

82

<p>odysseytiger - its very funny how you knock me for using 2006 information, but then you go and do exactly that for chicago.</p>

<p>and how can you already predict harvard's yield this year?</p>

83

<p>^
1) Is reading a problem for you, too?</p>

<p>1a) I did not "knock you for using 2006 information". You inaccurately claimed you were using 2007 information. I noted the specific study and year (2006) that the information came from and corrected your claim.</p>

<p>1b) I then shared more info from that study. Obviously this was also 2006 information and I made no claim whatsoever that I was using any information not from 2006 until I got to this year's numbers.</p>

<p>2) Each school has a target class size. Each school has admitted a certain number of students. Dividing the first number into the second number gives you the projected yield based on the number of admits.</p>

84

<p>ACTUALLY i was using 2007 information. but not that it really matters, because i said 79% when it was really 78%.</p>

85

<p>^</p>

<p>Wrong again bucko, :) last year's yield was 79.2%. </p>

<p>As for this year initial yield is apparently "around 78% - same as last year". The final number is expected to be bumped up by the 150-175 students to be admitted from the wait list.</p>

86

<p>So, wasn't I correct with 79% to begin with? The only reason I switched it to 78% was because I read the harvard article that stated this:
"Harvard's yield for the Class of 2012 will remain about the same as last year—around 78 percent"</p>

<p>Well, I guess I shouldn't have trusted the crappy harvard crimson. Anyway, we've beaten this thing to death. Later ya'all.</p>

87

<p>It doesn't seem so much a matter of trusting the Crimson as much as it is a matter of learning how to read, no? </p>

<p>Reading the first sentence of an article does not constitute "reading the article". If you HAD bothered to read the entire article you claim to have read, you would have found it specified:</p>

<p>"While Harvard and Princeton dropped early admissions this year, Yale and Stanford maintained their early programs. As a result, Fitzsimmons initially calculated that dropping early admissions would ding Harvard's yield by as much as seven points, an effect that ultimately did not take place. Last year's yield came in at 79.2 percent. "</p>

<p>The only thing you've beaten to death is your credibility.</p>

88

<p>"So, wasn't I correct with 79% to begin with?"</p>

<p>you "began" with this:</p>

<p>"And piccolojunior - Brigham Young and Harvard actually tied last year with a yield of 79%"</p>

<p>and no, you were not correct. (pretty much as you have been universally incorrect) LAST year's yield was 79.2%. The year before, according to last year's Crimson, it was 79.8%.</p>

<p>"In percentage terms, this year's 79.2 percent admissions yield matches up with last year's figure of 79.8 percent, continuing to hover near 80 percent as it has for the past few years, according to Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons ’67."</p>

<p>The 79% figure that you cite for Harvard and BY comes from the USNWR study:</p>

<p>"So which colleges do students really want to go to? One way to find out is to look at a school’s yield, the percentage of applicants accepted by a university who end up enrolling at that institution in the fall. The figures in this table are from the fall 2006 entering class and show the admit yield and overall acceptance rate. ...</p>

<p>U.S. News Rank School Acceptance Rate Yield
79 Brigham Young University—Provo (UT) 70% 79%
2 Harvard University (MA) 9% 79%
..."</p>