<p>Not remotely, though we did have one of the top 2 growth numbers last year, we’re still behind where I think we should, and would be, if we made a few smart choices.</p>
<p>
Perhaps my error when reading the paper a couple of years ago was changing, in my mind, the goal of the model to fit what it actually predicted as opposed to what it was claiming. I always think of the cross-admit chart not as a model of movement, but a model of preference.</p>
<p>
Of course this is a huge problem. I never applied to Harvard or MIT despite the fact that 80% of Siemens National Scholars attended one of those two institutions when I was applying to college. I knew had I gotten in, I would have gone to Brown anyway so I didn’t waste time on those applications and instead focused on Brown.
That being said, I was just commenting on the fact that the two of you appeared to interpret “popular” differently than the other posters in this thread, based on the evidence you guys were using (and conclusions) versus others.</p>
<p>
Thanks. Pretty interesting stuff. This afternoon, if I have time, I’ll run the IPEDS numbers from 2005. Just curious where the trend is starting with my freshman year as a reference point.</p>
<p>
Besides the fact that we get the most people into Cornell year after year, inexplicably, the state side of Cornell is the main reason it’s the most popular place to apply at my former high school.</p>
<p>“>…the two of you appeared to interpret “popular” differently than the other posters in this thread, based on the evidence you guys were using (and conclusions) versus others.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure which two you are referring to, but I just addressed why there might be more applications, and identified it as such (post #8), as that aspect had been raised by others prior to my post. The connection between that and the ephemeral concept of “popularity” was never uttered by me on this thread, to my recollection.</p>
<p>And if I am one of the two, I don’'t know who the other is. The only person I recall agreeing with on this thread is IBclass06 (post #17-18). Is that who you mean? </p>
<p>I hope that you, and everyone following the discussion to this point, agree by now on at least one thing: that the New York Times chart is far from a viable guide to what happens in actual cross-admit pairings. At best, it is loosely correlated. Even so, that model predicts nonsense like Caltech trouncing MIT, Princeton (or your favorite, Brown). As reported by both admissions offices, we know that MIT has for years beaten Caltech more than 3 to 1 in cross-admits. Nor do I think most joint applicants to Caltech and Brown are treating the latter as a lesser backup. The NY Times left Caltech out of the chart, suppressing a clear anomaly that would have tipped off many readers that something was odd in the model. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Revealed Preference study not only excludes that information, it gets it totally wrong.</p>
<p>Had you expressed a bit more relative preference for Harvard or MIT by applying there, but still picked Brown as your first choice over those, in the RP calculation this would have incorrectly lowered Harvard and MIT’s ratings (since they would lose another battle). It would also have incorrectly raised Brown’s rating, since Brown, although less preferred in the alternate scenario where it does compete with Harvard/MIT, would have beaten two more schools. </p>
<p>By the way, what are Siemens National Scholars and where can one read about this scholarship? I ask because a web search didn’t produce clear information, but one link seemed to say that this award accesses the raw AP exam scores on a 100 to 150 point scale, not the standard 5-point AP scale, which is unusual. Or did you mean the national finalists for the Siemens science project competition? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly application numbers are clear evidence of popularity, and are not accounted for in pure yield or cross-admit analyses.</p>