Would you turn down Harvard for Brown?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
61

<p>Your speculation is interesting, but I'd rather hear the real story from the mother of the girl involved. </p>

<p>As a New Englander, and as a recruited athlete with a strong chance of getting in wherever she applied, she seems to have been a different sort than the kind of person you are speculating about, and very likely more informed about the schools to which she applied. She seems to have developed a long, specific list of negative sentiments with respect to Harvard - not all of which could have been acquired after admission, one wouldn't think - which is why it is odd that a person sure to have many choices would have included Harvard on her list at all.</p>

<p>Obviously 20% of those admitted to both Harvard and another school go elsewhere. The great bulk of the 400 or so in this category go to Stanford, Yale, Princeton or MIT. Others often go to schools where they get athletic or other "merit" scholarships that are financially advantageous. The numbers choosing Ivies other than Yale or Princeton is very small, and, from what I can gather, often includes those with a particular pull - such a legacy or athletic recruit preferring the coach at the chosen school.</p>

<p>It is no surprise when school A "wins" in head-to-head battles with school B; by the same token, school B may have an equally large common admit margin vs school C.</p>

<p>The academic pecking order is quite rigid.</p>

62

<p>To continue the Byerly-bash, there can be no inference from anything said that Shelf-life's D is not "up to Harvard's unique challenges". (More O'reilly-ism). Furthermore, it is comical that you would consider the now-rejected Core Curriculum and the inbred Final Club social scene as "challenges". (The access to professors issue I leave on the table, as that is a function of student motivation).</p>

<p>And I never said that you urged students to go to this college or that. What I was saying is that students' who read your posts will draw their own conclusions.</p>

63

<p>Byerly, is your intelligence level indicative of Harvard students? That education appears to be failing if you're a product of it. Shelf-life said that<br>
"My post does not state or imply that she learned "horrible things" about Harvard or found out "what a terrible place" it is. I simply listed the factors that tipped the scales against Harvard for this one student. "</p>

<p>It sounds to me like she was informed, chose to apply to both, and when given the choice between to two, used those factors of preference to decide where to end up finally. Has it crossed your mind that admission to NEITHER institution is guaranteed? I am not sure if you are, but I feel like you're implying that if this student was capable of getting into Harvard that she surely would have gotten into Brown and should have applied only there knowing full well she'd get in and she'd rather be there. Isn't it entirely possible that despite the short-comings of Harvard (in her mind), that these two schools fit her best of all others? Is it not possible that Harvard and Brown were not assured admissions, and she'd be happy going to either, hoping that at least one would accept her? Wasn't she simply fortunate she ended up getting into both and choosing her number one instead of choosing number 1.5 (not even number 2, really, but practically an equal to Brown in the decision making process... people often are happy with more than one school they apply to since they know they're not likely to get into them all)?</p>

<p>I mean, all of this is a very simple logical extension. An intelligent reader can understand this thought process is almost certainly present with even less information than what was provided.</p>

<p>Forgetting all that, even if you are "making sure" SINCE we're all "partisan kibbitzers", your language in every post has been borderline inflammatory and takes underhanded shots frequently. Brown "retreated to ED". That's interesting, since there are many schools with ED. Perhaps they just wanted to make the early process about students applying to Brown who actually wanted to be there instead of students applying to Brown as a backup since EA had higher admit rates, or simply applying then to spread out the application work load? I am sure you were in the room or have some kind of personal communications with the Brown Admissions Office and various administrators to know that these ideas were not part of the discussion at all, and that yield was the only factor in making the change (and specifically yield against Harvard cross-admits at that).</p>

64

<p>You have an amusing, but irritating, tendency to respond to arguments I have not made, and to ignore the very reasonable points I <em>have</em> made. I will not respond to your ad hominem insults, however.</p>

<p>On the matter of binding ED as yield-boosting technique - whether intended to focus on "students who actually want to be there ...vs. applying as a backup", or otherwise rationalized - I will leave to the nation's editorialists. As for the motives of those schools relying on the binding ED crutch, I recommend that you take a look at "The Early Admissions Game" by Avery et als, or James Fallows famous article in the Atlantic Monthly, titled (quite appropriately) "The Early Decision Racket."</p>

65

<p>No, Byerly, we are not responding to arguments you have not made. We are responding to the arguments that you make deceitfully and covertly, because it's a disgusting practice that you need to stop, or else you should leave.</p>

<p>Oh, and you never replied to my O'Reilly tirade. I'm gonna take a tool from the Byerly/O'Reilly handbook and just assume that your lack of response means that you agree that you were wrong and that Bill O'Reilly is a huge *******. Thanks so much for your support, I never knew!</p>

66

<p>I love how you edit your posts Byerly to fix mistakes you've made in language or arguments you make that are clearly ridiculous without some clarifying statements tacked on. I wasn't going to respond to you, now I'm definitely done responding to you.</p>

67

<p>Your "responses" aren't worth much anyway. Just a lot of hate speech.</p>

68

<p>Hint: If you egg him on, he will stay. If you ignore him, he will go. Move along, folks, nothing to see here...</p>

69

<p>As I recall, I didn't start this thread.</p>

70

<p>Seems to have a deep-seated need to have the last word. Let's wait and see....</p>

71

<p>Let me state first of all that I am a Brown partisan, and I happen to be married to a Harvard grad. I say this to set the context for what I am about to say. I am aware of the environment in Brown admissions around the time Brown went to ED from EA. The year before the changeover, there was another admissions change that boosted Brown's overall applications up phenomenally in one year, similar to what happened at Georgetown at the time. Brown admissions was swamped, and petitioned the then interim president to transition the school to ED. However, there was a backdrop to this. While Brown's applicant pool increased, it's overlap with Harvard also got larger, and virtually all of the overlaps were choosing Harvard, if they were admitted to both. To reduce this overlap, and the admissions scalphunters that were applying to Brown at the time, the school chose to go ED, and new president Ruth Simmons ratified the decision.</p>

<p>I agreed with the decision then, and I still agree with the decision. As the experience at Penn shows, having a cadre of students who are thrilled to be at your school, and who unmistakedly have your school as their first choice, enhances the spirit and vitality of the campus. Brown is a better school, and and a more vigorous academic community because of the energy of the students who are now there, and want to be there. Brown should never allow itself to be a backup school to anyone at the undergraduate level, and ED cuts down on this. </p>

<p>On a personal note, I've never felt Fan, aka Byerly, to be condescending or negative toward Brown. He points out, correctly, that Brown in an open market for the most talented students tends to lose the cross-admit battles with Harvard-badly. Rather than rue this, the Brown administration should enhance the financial, academic, and facilities resources of the school to add to its prestige so it can compete with Harvard for the best students on its own. Just my .02.</p>

72

<p>Let me state first of all that I am a Brown partisan, and I happen to be married to a Harvard grad. I say this to set the context for what I am about to say. I am aware of the environment in Brown admissions around the time Brown went to ED from EA. The year before the changeover, there was another admissions change that boosted Brown's overall applications up phenomenally in one year, similar to what happened at Georgetown at the time. Brown admissions was swamped, and petitioned the then interim president to transition the school to ED. However, there was a backdrop to this. While Brown's applicant pool increased, it's overlap with Harvard also got larger, and virtually all of the overlaps were choosing Harvard, if they were admitted to both. To reduce this overlap, and the admissions scalphunters that were applying to Brown at the time, the school chose to go ED, and new president Ruth Simmons ratified the decision.</p>

<p>I agreed with the decision then, and I still agree with the decision. As the experience at Penn shows, having a cadre of students who are thrilled to be at your school, and who unmistakedly have your school as their first choice, enhances the spirit and vitality of the campus. Brown is a better school, and and a more vigorous academic community because of the energy of the students who are now there, and want to be there. Brown should never allow itself to be a backup school to anyone at the undergraduate level, and ED cuts down on this. </p>

<p>On a personal note, I've never felt Fan, aka Byerly, to be condescending or negative toward Brown. He points out, correctly, that Brown in an open market for the most talented students tends to lose the cross-admit battles with Harvard-badly. Rather than rue this, the Brown administration should enhance the financial, academic, and facilities resources of the school to add to its prestige so it can compete with Harvard for the best students on its own. Just my .02.</p>

73

<p>Let me state first of all that I am a Brown partisan, and I happen to be married to a Harvard grad. I say this to set the context for what I am about to say. I am aware of the environment in Brown admissions around the time Brown went to ED from EA. The year before the changeover, there was another admissions change that boosted Brown's overall applications up phenomenally in one year, similar to what happened at Georgetown at the time. Brown admissions was swamped, and petitioned the then interim president to transition the school to ED. However, there was a backdrop to this. While Brown's applicant pool increased, it's overlap with Harvard also got larger, and virtually all of the overlaps were choosing Harvard, if they were admitted to both. To reduce this overlap, and the admissions scalphunters that were applying to Brown at the time, the school chose to go ED, and new president Ruth Simmons ratified the decision.</p>

<p>I agreed with the decision then, and I still agree with the decision. As the experience at Penn shows, having a cadre of students who are thrilled to be at your school, and who unmistakedly have your school as their first choice, enhances the spirit and vitality of the campus. Brown is a better school, and and a more vigorous academic community because of the energy of the students who are now there, and want to be there. Brown should never allow itself to be a backup school to anyone at the undergraduate level, and ED cuts down on this. </p>

<p>On a personal note, I've never felt Fan, aka Byerly, to be condescending or negative toward Brown. He points out, correctly, that Brown in an open market for the most talented students tends to lose the cross-admit battles with Harvard-badly. Rather than rue this, the Brown administration should enhance the financial, academic, and facilities resources of the school to add to its prestige so it can compete with Harvard for the best students on its own. Just my .02.</p>

74

<p>I just don't think that attracting Harvard students to Brown makes Brown a better place. I will not "rue" that we lose cross-admit battles with Harvard, nor would I say that we don't. What I do think is important is what you said-- Brown is not and should not ever be considered a backup, and if and when it is, that student doesn't belong here. Brown should look to enhance its financial, academic, and facilities resources to ensure that Brown students continue to have the best academic experience in teh country as an undergrad that they could be provided with. This means choosing students who specifically will flourish in Brown's atmosphere, who are seeking for something that Brown specifically offers, and who end up impressed with how completely Brown was able to provide them with what they were looking for in an undergraduate education.</p>

<p>The point in this thread is not Harvard vs. Brown. It's not what percentage of people make what choice. It's far more about priorities, and what's important in choosing a school. It's about assuring someone that it's perfectly normal to be attracted to a unique quality or set of circumstances that one place can provide against the other. It's about telling someone that prestige is not the singular factor, or shouldn't be the singular factor, in choosing where you go to school. And you know what? Byerly, or Fan, or you, Pinderhughes, or even the original poster may think that prestige is the single most compelling factor-- that's fine, and that's something that Harvard provides beyond what Brown does at this moment (to what degree and in what circles and why is quite debatable, but that there is a "mystique" in the form of prestige that surrounds Harvard is undeniable truth). </p>

<p>So, to the original poster, who is the only person who matters in this thread, choose what school gets you excited about learning, excited about attending. Choose the place that will get you where you want to go in life, or even better, the place that can best shape who you are and where you're going in life. Everyone is unique and their experience will be unique, however, part of who you are can certainly make one place better for you than the other. The question you have to ask is not other people's decisions, not their priorities, and not the percentages or the different BS that people are going to tell you about what you need to do in life. The question is where are you going to be happy? Where do you fit? What's the right place for you? WHerever that is, that's where you should be shooting for. That's the basket in which you should place your eggs. The only answer in this thread that's right is this one-- people choose to go to certain colleges for their own reasons, you need to decide what your priorities are and where your feelings are leading you. Where are you going to be your best? Go there, so long as you gain admissions-- and good luck on that, any school at this level is going to be hard to get into, and many completely qualified students are turned down. I wish the best of luck to you in finding happiness, and try not to get caught up in these dumb debates that don't really mean all that much.</p>

75

<p>well said Modest</p>

76

<p>The concept of "fit" and the notion that most 17-yr olds know what college environment will make them "happy" at 21 are much overrated. I agree that debates on such topics are "dumb, and don't meant very much." as the prior poster declared.</p>

<p>My advice, invariably, is to matriculate at the best school to which you gain admission. Studies show that most college students are "happy" wherever they end up enrolling.</p>

<p>And studies also show that, increasingly, early applicants are less motivated by "love" for the college in question than they are by a calculation the it is the best school to which they are likely to gain admission, and the best place to "spend" the admissions edge an early application affords them.</p>

<p>This is fine, and I can understand the views of those - like Pinderhughes - who think this Faustean works for the benefit of the the schools relying on the ED crutch: "Surrender your future to us, forsaking all others, and, if we like you, will accept you at a rate twice as high as for those unwilling to make a similar commitment."</p>

<p>Still, that doesn't make it right, either for the minors lured into this dubious bargain, or for the colleges having all the power. Sort of a "heads we win, tails you lose" deal.</p>

<p>I really think Brown would survive without relying on this device. Indeed, for what its worth, Brown's USNews ranking, and <em>relative</em> selectivity ranking, have declined since it moved to binding ED. If Princeton can do it, Brown can too; Brown's RD yield rate is not that much lower than Princeton's.</p>

<p>For these reasons, I respectfully disagree with the views expressed by Pinderhughes.</p>

77

<p>I just don't think that attracting Harvard students to Brown makes Brown a better place. I will not "rue" that we lose cross-admit battles with Harvard, nor would I say that we don't. </p>

<p>Some students at Harvard are not cut out for Brown's academic program. It's not a one-way street. I wish all of the students at Harvard well in their endeavors but I would not want to be one of them. </p>

<p>The issue SHOULD be about how do the prospective students fit into Brown's institutional identity. NOT how can we fit Brown's identity toward prospective students choosing between Harvard and Brown. That's merely conventional cowardice. Not leadership. I would hope that Brown continues to aspire to more than a few cross-admits from the other side of the Charles.</p>

<p>From Brown,
Fred</p>

78

<p>It's not about attracting the best, most interesting students to Brown to merely "compete" with Harvard. It's about attracting the best, most interesting students, period. It just so happens that many of these students also apply to Harvard. Our society is a market driven society. It's capitalistic and based on competition. While on one level I applaud ModestMelody for her idealism, the fact is, Brown is competing with other educational institutions, among which is Harvard, for the most talented students. More than facilities and noble laureates on the faculty, it's the quality and talent of a school's student body that is the ultimate determinant of the educational richness of a school's academic environment. At the present time, there are only four Liberal Arts Universities who are more successful than Brown in attracting the type of students I just alluded to. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. This is quite extraordinary. What I am saying is that I want to see Brown in a position to realistically attract as many, if not the majority of the talented kids who might also be attracted to Harvard. It's called competition, and I want Brown to go for the win.</p>

<p>While I have a great deal of respect for Byerly's acumen vis a vis elite college admissions, I do disagree with him about Brown's utilization of ED. Brown's slide in the U.S. News rankings has nothing to do with Brown going ED. It's about Gordan Gee's disastrous short presidency, in my opinion. While Harvard was undergoing the very successful capital campaign with Rudenstine, and while other competing universities were doing something similar, Brown stagnated financially, and it's institutional resources became relatively less competitive. Remember, the nebulous faculty resource rank is one of the elements of the formula that Penn apparently pimps so well to it's rankings advantage.</p>

<p>As far as the quality of the students since Brown has gone ED, Byerly your position couldn't be farther from the truth. From 1986-2000, Brown's share of the most prestigious fellowships in aggregate has placed it well among the top seven universities in the country. It's share of seats at Harvard and Yale law schools has consistently be among the top seven universities for well over 30 years, nothing has changed. In fact, the students at The University don't have to take a back seat to any college or university in the world. </p>

<p>I just believe that in a competitive marketplace situation, and higher education is a competitive marketplace, you do what is ethically and morally appropriate to win the competition.</p>

79

<p>I'd pick Brown over Harvard. I don't like Harvard (ewwie).</p>

80

<p>Even if one could define the "best school to which you gain admission" this is not necessarily good advice. To take one example, the presence of a large proportion of IMO medalists at Harvard might be a very good reason for a future math major NOT to go to Harvard. After all, only some of the students are goind to be among the better students. If making the olympiad team is common among honors grads, and you did not come close, maybe you are better off somewhere else.</p>

<p>More obvious problems with the best school strategy: It assumes homogeneous value systems for all applicants. Even if one could determine (for example by revealed preferences methodology) the ranking that would be generated by applicants in aggregate, this is most useful to people who share average preferences. If a rural location is more important to you than to most people, then the mean preference will not be a good proxy for your preference. </p>

<p>If you want to major in engineering and your best school does not offer it, then you will be better off elsewhere. Same problem if you plan to spend your free time playing jazz in the Village, then you had better be close enough to Manhattan to do that. </p>

<p>If you want to play football, then your college had better have a team. It had better be good enough for your level of play, but not so good that you cannot start or even make the team.</p>

<p>It is easy to overstate the competition rhetoric. The goal of the college should be first to provide the best education possible for the students who enroll. Even if one agrees that having talented classmates is one important factor in education, enrolling ever more capable students cannot be the primary goal of a college.</p>