<p>Please fill out your information IF you were admitted to at least two of HYPSM.
Thank you!</p>
<p>-PS you waitlistees will like it!</p>
<p>BUMP 10char.</p>
<p>H: 11/22 0.5
Y: 13/27 0.48
M: 7/17 0.41
P: 11/27 0.40
S: 4/15 0.27</p>
<p>HYPS because not everyone knows how to have fun at MIT.</p>
<p>There was actually a survey back then of 2000 students who were admitted to top 20 schools. MIT lost in cross admits only to Harvard. MIT> YPS, as I recall.</p>
<p>faraday, you’re my idol–rejecting hyps in favor of mit ^^.</p>
<p>Haha. My reasoning was that the MIT experience was so peculiar/special/intense that it had no match in the US (except for Caltech). And while it may be overwhelming/unhealthy, MIT is really the best for some types of people. I think I fit pretty well among those people.</p>
<p>faraday -</p>
<p>Congratulations on your decision!</p>
<p>Judging from your earlier posts, I knew you would make a well informed decision. Your passion is fairly unique, which will serve you well later on.</p>
<p>I hope you will continue following your passion in the physical sciences; the world needs more scientists.</p>
<p>
This is true in the yield data I’ve seen – the majority of people who turn down MIT (about 70%) do it to go to one of HYPSC. Very few people actually turn down MIT for a state school or an LAC.</p>
<p>Actually the study reported in the NYTs shows Harvard winning the cross admit battle fairly easily, Yale besting MIT 59/41, and MIT in virtual ties with princeton and Stanford. Seems about right.
[The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices](<a href=“The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices”>The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices)</p>
<p>that study is not even based on real admits</p>
<p>I just ran a computer simulation and it said that NYT writers who predict Harvard wins all cross-admit battles have a 100% chance of being alumni of Harvard.</p>
<p>The data summarized in the NYTs chart apparently comes from a study conducted by:</p>
<p>Christopher Avery, Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)</p>
<p>Mark E. Glickman, Boston University - Department of Health Services</p>
<p>Caroline M. Hoxby, Stanford University; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Hoover Institution; Stanford University</p>
<p>Andrew Metrick, Yale School of Management</p>
<p>I havent looked at the hard data, but, in part, the intro to the study claims: “We show how to construct a ranking of U.S. undergraduate programs based on students’ revealed preferences. We construct examples of national and regional rankings, using hand-collected data on 3,240 high-achieving students.”</p>
<p>The NYT chart was not a “study”, just a computer model, with no basis from actual cross admits. Some of it is total BS. Yale has never won any cross admit battles against MIT. Yale’s appeal among science or engineering majors has never been strong. Harvard numbers are vastly inflated.</p>
<p>cellardweller, you’re definitely wrong in at least 1 case (a friend of mine picked Yale over MIT for math). Yale heavily recruited him for their math department, and now he makes phone calls trying to recruit other top math students for Yale. While their department might be lower than MIT’s in the rankings, I think that Yale still probably wins in more than a few of the cross-admit battles…</p>
<p>I think cellardweller means the overall cross-admit battle for the year, not the individual ones. :)</p>
<p>Yes. of course individual cases will always arise. Some student apparently even picked Rose-Hulman over MIT. Everything is possible. Many IMO medalists go to MIT. More than anywhere else. But clearly not all even apply or get admitted to MIT.</p>
<p>I am just stating that MIT and Yale have relatively few common applicants (as oposed to MIT and Harvard, Stanford or Princeton) and very few admitted to both pick Yale if their interests are in the sciences or technology. Yale has never been a science or engineering powerhouse. The areas of strengths of the two universities don’t overlap much.</p>
<p>Perhaps true, but Yale has spent a lot of money upgrading its science and engineering academic and research programs. They even bought the massive Bayer research campus in West Haven (about 5 miles away from the main campus). It will be interesting to see how the economic downturn and budget cutbacks affect the next phase of those plans.</p>
<p>My daughter was accepted to Yale, Stanford and MIT and considered them all before deciding to spend her college years in Cambridge.</p>
<p>Cellardwellar: Dont shoot the messenger because you dont like the message.</p>
<p>The study says it’s based on data from 3200 students. You say it’s “just a computer model.” Not much of a “basis” for your conclusion that it’s “total BS.” This study was done by some apparently qualified folks, and is apparently based on a sizeable sample. And you have what, exactly, to support your position either on the accuracy of the study or the the underlying issue of who wins the battle for cross admits? [On the latter, MIT admissions doesnt even know who turned them down for Yale. they just know they were turned down. they have somewhat better data on what schools their own students turned down because they ask as part of a registration process, which increases the liklihood of some type of response. But even as to that half of the analysis, they really dont know.] Again, not agreeing with the result of the study reported in the NYTs is not a basis for criticism.</p>
<p>Also, what’s the basis of your sweeping statement that Yale has never won the cross admit battle with MIT? On its face, that seems ridiculous.</p>
<p>mia:</p>
<p>I am just stating a fact that the report is not based on some statistically significant survey of admitted students. </p>
<p>** It is actually not a cross-admit study at all: it is a preference study among high school students who have not even applied to the respective colleges, let alone been accepted to any of them. **</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They basically asked counselors at selected high schools to pick some student who were sent questionnaires to rank their personal preferences. </p>
<p>The study does not even claim their results to be accurate. The paper’s purpose is to show how a preference model can be constructed. </p>
<p>That is completely unrelated to the question of determining choices among cross-admits. For that you would need students who actually intended to apply and were admitted. </p>
<p>I can certainly accept that more top students “prefer” Yale to MIT for instance, as far more apply to Yale than to MIT. But the vast majority of those will not even apply to MIT in the first place and may not even be admissible to MIT. </p>
<p>My personal information comes from the admissions office at MIT as an EC. They try to keep tabs on where students end up, from return cards and phone calls. It is far from 100% acurate but since the number of students that actually turn down MIT is fairly small, the data they have is pretty accurate. They obviously want to know who their main competitors are. I believe Mollie worked one year in the admission’s office collecting that data and they must have people doing something similar every year. According to the office, they only lose students in any significant numbers to Harvard and Stanford and to a lesser extent to Princeton. (That does not even mean they lose the cross-admit battles, simply that the overlap is high). Yale does not even show up on the radar screen. </p>
<p>Even on CC, which is highly self-selected group, the annual self-report only show a couple of MIT-Yale cross admits. (I think this year it shows 2-2). In that limited sample, based on actually admitted students, MIT does not lose a single cross-admit battle, not even against Harvard. </p>
<p>Even as a preference study, the Avery study is pretty worthless. It appears to indicate that more students prefer Caltech to MIT. The fact is, MIT loses very few students to Caltech even though the overlap in applicants and admits is extremely high. The Caltech yield hovers at around 30% compared to 70% for MIT. This is despite Caltech giving merit scholarships to top applicants to prevent them from losing even more students to MIT.</p>
<p>Mia, before quoting some random study, maybe you should read it first.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As cellardweller mentioned, that is total nonsense. The NY Times chart summarizes the entirely hypothetical predictions of a statistical model used in the Revealed Preferences study. I doubt the authors of the study would stand by the table as predictive of real admissions decisions; it is just a highly indirect aggregation of real decisions by many applicants.</p>
<p>The cross-admit “probabilities” in the table are, essentially, the parameters of the statistical model. Those parameters were estimated from actual data (for 3200 students, the list of schools accepting and enrolling them), but have a somewhat nebulous relationship with cross-admit data. For instance, Caltech, which is trounced by MIT in cross-admit tournaments, wound up ranked higher than MIT and second overall, after Harvard. I don’t recall if Caltech is in the NYT chart, because the model predicts that it would win cross-admit tournaments against all schools but Harvard!</p>
<p>This comes up frequently on the CC boards, because the New York Times did a terrible job explaining what that chart was and was not about.</p>