Yale vs Princeton vs Harvard

Colleges and Universities A-Z Yale University
121

<p>84.3% was the published fraction vs Yale <em>alone</em> in, I think, 2004.</p>

<p>Generally - although not always - Harvard's toughest competitor has been either MIT or Stanford... less often Yale, and never Princeton in the last 50 yrs or so, insofar as I can tell.</p>

<p>For some historic yield rate and cross admit data, see Karabel's 2005 book detailing HYP admissions practices.</p>

<p>As for Yale, I think it is interesting to point out that, statistically, Harvard's large overall yield rate advantage over #2 Yale is due almost entirely to its head to head edge over its rival with cross admits.</p>

122

<p>Byerly-</p>

<p>Your posts have started to become egregious. You have failed to respond to any of my opinions or questions in #101 this thread while continuing to post in it; this suggests you concede my correctness and find my questions as to your credentials, the importance of cross-admit data, etc to be unanswerable. I trust I am wrong in these assertions and that you will subsequently explain why.</p>

<p>Mensa:

[quote]
The common admit data, in the event it could be verified, would be highly relevant.For example, if there were two or three very similar restaurants on the same street, and one of them routinely gets 80% of the diners, doesn't that suggest the food is better? If Harvard routinely gets 80% of the common admits, what's the explanation? It seems pretty obvious to me. No, it's not the food.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is a grave oversimplification that, if taken at face value, would surely result in many unintelligent decisions. Your example suggests that the relevance of the cross-admit data is to determine which is better (because "cross-dining" data ceteris paribus demonstrates the better food.) Measuring a college's quality (i.e., how "good" it is and whether it is "better" than another) is not so simple a task! Restaurants defy rigid quantitative standards as well, but at least it would be EASIER to say "within this price range, this type of food, this proximity to my house + a couple other characteristics" and then compare for purported food quality.</p>

<p>Colleges CANNOT be broken down that way. Harvard, Yale and Princeton all undeniably have different campus atmospheres, and the extent of this difference is noted by students at any of the institutions should he/she bother to spend any amount of time at the other two. For some students, like me, the difference in atmosphere was so notable that it immediately determined what school to attend. </p>

<p>Cross-admit data is stunningly irrelevant because choosing a college is such an utterly personal decision that is only convoluted by a desire to stastically "simplify" the matter. If 84.3% of students spent authentic time at both Harvard and Yale and decided that Harvard was the better fit - EXCELLENT. I hope that this was the way they arrived at their decision; judging based on which school felt more comfortable to them. However, their decisions have no relevance to me since the atmosphere that defines my comfort is incomparable, intangible and certainly not stastically quantifiable.</p>

<p>I think I illuminated on this more thoroughly in post #101 and I apologize for reiterating, but it pains me to see the discussion regress to the assumed idea that cross-admit data is relevant to a student's decision or that it helps answer the question with no answer, the title of this thread: Yale v. Princeton v. Harvard. (For a couple of examples of appropriate thread titles, see the post I made previous to #101 in this thread... post #something-in-the-late-90s.)</p>

<p>I invite, encourage- nay BEG for some refutation of my ideas here and esp. post #101, because in discussion, being brutally criticized is much more helpful in finding the truth than is being uncontested and ignored.</p>

123

<p>I don't pretend - and have NEVER said - that cross admit rates demonstrate anything except the pattern of selection made by the (presumably) talented students who are so desirable (from the colleges' point of view) that they are admitted by two or more elites. </p>

<p>In this sense, for those who are, next year or thereafter, admitted to several elites, cross admit numbers represent "informed choices made by other 'consumers' similarly situated," and may be taken into account along with whatever other advice, and other information or personal observations, may come to the applicant's attention.</p>

124

<p>Egregious, in fairness, was a slight overstatement.</p>

<p>However:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't pretend... that cross admit rates demonstrate anything except the pattern of selection

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
On the other hand, it would be foolish not to consider the informed choices made by other "consumers" - similarly situated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why would it be foolish, then? What relevance does this pattern of selection have for me? I'm not being obstinate, I honestly don't understand, and the analogies in this thread to cars or food have not, in my eyes, been accurate.</p>

<p>EDIT: missed your edit, sorry.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...cross admit numbers represent "informed choices made by other 'consumers' similarly situated," and may be taken into account...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK, this seems more judicious. I'm not sure I can grant "similarly situated" since what is preferable for one person in terms of something as intangible as campus atmosphere might be repulsive for another. Do you mean situated based on possible schools to attend, as opposed to preferred characteristics? In that case, nothing you've said in the post above is disagreeable to me, and the cross admit number is certainly interesting, but its import in making a decision I still believe to be zero, and I hope it does not factor in students' decisions beyond an "oh! interesting" exclamation. </p>

<p>I still want to know why this data isn't published, though. What's so sensitive about it?</p>

125

<p>If the advice makes no sense to you, then you have my permission to ignore it.</p>

126

<p>I'd be interested in cross-admit data but I'd resist allowing it to factor into an "informed choice." </p>

<p>What really bothers me are threads that purport to compare the quality of three schools. I'm fascinated by statistics, though, and am not surprised that Harvard ostensibly has such an edge over Yale - as I've mentioned before, in my experience, it's true.</p>

127

<p>Nothing "ostensible" about it, simi. Fact.</p>

<p>This information is not widely published because it is so sensitive. </p>

<p>You can rest assured, however, that all colleges gather and analyze their cross admit data in minute detail in order to formulate their marketing plans, and to measure their standing vis a vis the "competition."</p>

128

<p>Byerly, notwithstanding the fact that you now say that cross-admit information is simply another piece of interesting data that can be used by a student, you have often crowed that cross-admit data shows that Harvard is a better school. For example, on May 21, 2006, you made the following statement:</p>

<p>"Year after year, the best students overwhelmingly prefer Harvard, even when ardently courted by its 'rivals'.
The result, inexorably, is to make Harvard the best school for bright, ambitious students, whose presence helps to attact an extraordinarily distinguished faculty. "</p>

<p>What about the following statement that you made in 2005?</p>

<p>"Anybody would have to be out of his mind to ignore the informed judgement made by earlier 'customers.'
You say you 'believe' students make their decision based on whether a school has "the right vibe". Oh??? What survey told you that?
The best evidence is that top students are drawn to schools which already have a critical mass of top students. They want, for the most part, to be among their peers.
Like it or not, its a 'winner take all market' and the academic pecking order is fairly rigid."</p>

129

<p>It is certainly true that the best students are drawn to their peers. and that by any measure, Harvard has more than its share of the best students. This may or may not mean Harvard is a better school per se, but it certainly serves to attract other bright students and the faculty that wants to be associated with them.</p>

<p>i posted a link to the new survey earlier, in which top students were asked what factors influenced their college choice. Apparently you missed it.</p>

<p>The notion that education is a "winner take all" market when it comes to admissions is widely recognized, and is certainly not not unique to me.</p>

<p>SEE this article by Professor Frank of Cornell:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0001s.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0001s.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And THIS article by Prpofessor Hansmann of Yale:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

130

<p>The "winner take all" model may explain why Windows monopolizes desktop operating systems and why until recently there was usually only a single local telephone company. But it has virtually no relevance to the competition between HYPS. (If the Yale Princeton and Stanford were populated by dummies because Harvard got 85 percent of the top students, then it might apply.) The "Winner Take All" article cited by Byerly has virtually no relevance to cross admit data or preference among HYPS. Plus, it's pretty boring.</p>

131

<br>


<br>

<p>i, for one, resented being sent forms from the schools that i turned down, asking where i decided to attend and for what reasons. i didn't especially care to assist their marketing efforts.</p>

132

<p>Princeton probably has the best party scene.</p>

133

<p>Oh, and although it probably doesn't mean anything, Princeton Review rated Harvard a 94 (on a 100 pt scale) in it's academic rating, and I 'think' rated princeton and yale higher. By the way, what school did he choose?</p>

134

<p>Obsessive Compulsive Debating over HYP(SM). </p>

<p>Has anyone ever counted the number of threads or posts on this topic? It is staggering. And one thread almost is exactly the same as another.</p>

<p>I'm curious for those who are involved in this latest iteration: has reading or posting in it been useful to you? Have you looked at the other threads on the same topic previously?</p>

135

<p>"84.3% was the published fraction vs Yale <em>alone</em> in, I think, 2004."</p>

<p>This is not true (and of course, Byerly says "I think", admitting that his sources are worthless). Byerly's assertion comes from an article, in an unauthoritative source written by some freshman college student, that was published more than five years ago and is now completely outdated. As we all know, Yale is now more selective than Harvard, and has been for two of the past three years. </p>

<p>In fact, Byerly's figures are all completely incorrect and outdated, and none of them take into account that the fraction of students who are admitted to both Harvard and Yale, relative to their classes as a whole, is extremely small. Interestingly, because of Harvard's larger class size, there are actually more Yale rejects at Harvard than vice versa.</p>

136

<p>"As we all know, Yale is now more selective than Harvard, and has been for two of the past three years. "
Not true. Does the word "cross-admit" have any meaning to you? </p>

<p>"none of them take into account that the fraction of students who are admitted to both Harvard and Yale, relative to their classes as a whole, is extremely small."
Also not true. It's significant. </p>

<p>"Interestingly, because of Harvard's larger class size, there are actually more Yale rejects at Harvard than vice versa."
Also not true. 350 more students can't make up for a 80-20 cross-admit loss.</p>

<p>Okay, let's assume that everyone who applied to Harvard also applied to Yale, and vice versa. The cross-admit pool is say, 700, a conservative estimate, and that all are going either to Yale or Harvard. 560 of those are going to Harvard, 140 are going to Yale, assuming an 80-20 breakdown. So then Harvard's class of, say, 1600, 1040 of them are Yale rejects. And Yale's class of say, 1300, 1160 of them are Harvard rejects. </p>

<p>And that is assuming a cross-admit pool of 700. We could also look at the phenomenon of Yale SCEA admits getting to Harvard RD and choosing Cambridge over New Haven, and how Harvard just KILLS in the RD round. </p>

<p>Interesting argument, but it doesn't work.</p>

137

<p>Indeed. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the huge overall yield edge Harvard enjoys over Yale is due, in substantial measure, to its even larger edge with cross admits. In other words, if Yale enjoyed the dame cross admit edge over Harvard, the yield rates at the schools would be nearly equal. This is a variation on the "winner take all" phenomenon.</p>

138

<p>If the H > Y > P cross admit data was so overwhelmingly in favor of Harvard, they'd release it. The fact that they don't means that it's not.</p>

139

<p>Who, exactly, would release it?</p>

<p>Yale and Princeton wouldn't.</p>

140

<p>"... The only reason Harvard stays competitive (in football) , according to (recruiting coordinator) Westerfield, is that it’s Harvard. Three out of four students who get into Harvard and either Yale or Princeton choose Harvard, and it’s no different with high-scoring athletes. “Typically, if I want a kid, I get him,” Westerfield says. “I didn’t lose any kids last year...."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article.aspx?ref=349217%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article.aspx?ref=349217&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>