\
  The most prestigious college admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options

Does Yale Top Harvard and all others in cross admits?

The CC thread would certainly suggest so
repapa  05/06/10
Interesting
Nathan Hale  05/11/10
I think we'll have to wait to see the respective yield rate ...
NAFCYN  05/11/10
you're such a fucking loser
.,,,.,..,..,,.,,,.  05/12/10
Wait, so the "loser" is the guy who succeeds at ge...
HLS_Grad  05/20/10
actually idiot i easily beat nycdolt in the prestige race
.,,,.,..,..,,.,,,.  06/17/10
That's still anecdotal evidence
Nathan Hale  05/12/10
Have you seen this update of the "revealed preference" chart?
NAFCYN  05/12/10
Haven't seen it.
Nathan Hale  05/12/10
Yes.
NAFCYN  05/13/10
Here are SOME "hard numbers":
NAFCYN  05/12/10
This is basically the yield rate.
Nathan Hale  05/12/10
Correct
NAFCYN  05/12/10
of course H boosts its yield artificially and controls its
repapa  05/13/10
Keep dreaming.
NAFCYN  05/13/10
No One would claim mychances is statistically valid,
repapa  05/14/10
My chances data seems very similar to the revealed pref. res...
SuperTrader  05/14/10
Incidentally ....
NAFCYN  05/14/10
For the Yale Class of 2013 admit rate, yield rate etc. see:
NAFCYN  05/14/10
Projected yield rate at Yale for Class of 2014
NAFCYN  05/21/10
Analytically flawed
repapa  05/22/10
You still don't know what "open market yield" is.
NAFCYN  05/22/10
Factually Inaccurate
repapa  05/22/10
?
NAFCYN  05/23/10
The answer is no, it doesn't. End of thread.
SuperTrader  05/13/10
Actual crossadmit data for h and y from CC
repapa  06/03/10
You might want to take this discussion to the actual Harvard...
E1Greco  06/04/10
You already copied his post and pasted it on the listserv wi...
NAFCYN  06/04/10
Hi, NYCFan, or Alex. My name is Michael, and no, not ever...
E1Greco  06/04/10
You are not off to a very noble start, however, when you ste...
NAFCYN  06/05/10
Mathacle's theory
repapa  06/14/10
nonsense
NAFCYN  06/15/10
Not so fast
repapa  06/15/10
Huh?
NAFCYN  06/16/10
The CC sample size for HY was 53
repapa  06/16/10
I am confident that the H/Y cross admit pool is larger than ...
NAFCYN  06/16/10
Well, l'm not so sure about the 400+ Figure...
repapa  06/17/10
I don't follow your thinking
NAFCYN  06/17/10


Poast new message in this thread



Reply

Date: May 6th, 2010 5:58 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: The CC thread would certainly suggest so

For three consecutive years Y beats H narrowly and Princeton overwhelmingly in the battle of cross admits. See discussion about cross admits among HYPSM http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/920080-harvard-yale-princeton-stanford-mit-cross-admits-class-2014-a-17.html

Yale won the CC cross admit battle handily in each of the last 3 years (and more important in the combined 3 years overall). The aggregated three year numbers (more than 100 matchups for each of HY and P) are likely statistically significant. The general picture is that Y easily has the highest win percentage against the other 4 (including about 53-47 vs H and 80-20 vs P),and that the other 4 are about equal in overall win percentage.

Could it be that Harvard suffers from Tufts syndrome and employs the former Princeton strategy of shying away from likely Yale admits to minimize the size of its cross admit pool with the other elites and thereby maintain its high yield? Wouldn't be surprising. You ought to read through the whole thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14923470)



Reply

Date: May 11th, 2010 12:02 AM
Author: Nathan Hale
Subject: Interesting

The evidence however, is too anecdotal and unreliable, not that I would be surprised if it were true. Among those more in the know, Yale probably does better, Harvard wins on sheer name recognition with the average joe. Both Y and H destroy every other school for cross admits.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14960198)



Reply

Date: May 11th, 2010 7:18 PM
Author: NAFCYN

I think we'll have to wait to see the respective yield rate trends at Harvard, Stanford, Princeton and Yale. Since these four schools have a far larger cross-admit pool with each other that with other schools, yield rates will be the best evidence of cross admit success.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14966331)



Reply

Date: May 12th, 2010 3:03 AM
Author: .,,,.,..,..,,.,,,.

you're such a fucking loser

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14970933)



Reply

Date: May 20th, 2010 9:08 AM
Author: HLS_Grad

Wait, so the "loser" is the guy who succeeds at getting into HYP and is proud of his accomplishment, not the miserable failure who is resentful of more prestigious people and who keeps spamming an internet message board with penis threads? Which dictionary is your definition of "loser" from?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15037362)



Reply

Date: June 17th, 2010 6:44 PM
Author: .,,,.,..,..,,.,,,.

actually idiot i easily beat nycdolt in the prestige race

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15271363)



Reply

Date: May 12th, 2010 10:12 AM
Author: Nathan Hale
Subject: That's still anecdotal evidence

That assumes someone who gets admitted to one gets admitted to all or one (not a crazy assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). What we'd really have to see is hard numbers on how much of the applicant pool is "shared" (e.g. revealed preferences).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14971832)



Reply

Date: May 12th, 2010 11:17 AM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: Have you seen this update of the "revealed preference" chart?

http://www.mychances.net/blog/2009/12/06/college-rankings-4-college-preference-matchups/2009-college-preference-matchup/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14972077)



Reply

Date: May 12th, 2010 12:42 PM
Author: Nathan Hale
Subject: Haven't seen it.

Not much seems to have changed since the RP study.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14972537)



Reply

Date: May 13th, 2010 12:17 PM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: Yes.

The fact that cross admit numbers have apparently changed so little over 10 years demonstrates two verities:

1. The academic pecking order is relatively static and slow to change; and

2. The "revealed preference" ranking is far harder to "game", since even yield rates can be manipulated via the use of early admissions programs, "likely letters", "merit" aid, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14980849)



Reply

Date: May 12th, 2010 11:35 AM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: Here are SOME "hard numbers":

For the Class of 2013, these are the number of admits who wound up matriculating elsewhere ... ie, the "cross-admit losses":

Harvard: 512 (23.5% of admits)

MIT: 604 (36% of admits)

Yale: 651 (33.2% of admits)

Stanford: 732 (30.2% of admits)

Princeton: 889 (40.2% of admits)

For each of these schools, between 60-80% of cross admit losses are to each other.

NOTE: Harvard and Princeton have open admissions; Yale and Stanford fill substantial fractions of the class via "single choice early action; MIT has an open early action program.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14972159)



Reply

Date: May 12th, 2010 12:43 PM
Author: Nathan Hale

This is basically the yield rate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14972542)



Reply

Date: May 12th, 2010 5:05 PM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: Correct

A school with a 100% yield rate would have no cross-admit losses.

To the extent that the yield rate is lower, cross admit losses will be correspondingly higher, since those who do not enroll have, obviously, been admitted to at least one other school and chosen to enroll there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14974274)



Reply

Date: May 13th, 2010 5:28 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: of course H boosts its yield artificially and controls its

cross admit losses by heavy reliance on its WL - 200+ in 07, 130 or so in 08. That adds a couple of percent to the yield and minimizes cross admit losses. Youve also understated Yales yield by a point or two.

More important, its the absolute number of non-acceptees (i.e. 550 for H vs 630 for Y) rather than the overall yield which is more important in trying to divine the cross admit wins and losses in head to head match ups. The bottom line is there is not any good reliable data to determine what percent of cross admits go where. The CC cross admit data, when aggregated over 3 years, probably approaches reliability and suggests a slight edge for Y over H, though admittedly I would not put much faith in that.

Keep in mind that Y, as some CC poster noted, may lose more to AWS and similar schools than H does, since Y is seen as more of a liberal arts bastion than H.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14983120)



Reply

Date: May 13th, 2010 5:42 PM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: Keep dreaming.

http://college.mychances.net/tools/college-choice-matrix.php?list%5B%5D=342&list%5B%5D=544&list%5B%5D=3&list%5B%5D=1737&list%5B%5D=1519&list%5B%5D=165&list%5B%5D=1034&list%5B%5D=319&list%5B%5D=361&list%5B%5D=762

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14983236)



Reply

Date: May 14th, 2010 10:34 AM
Author: repapa
Subject: No One would claim mychances is statistically valid,

and cc goes the other way. Just check penns matchups on my chances - Obviously overstated. The bottom line is there are no good data.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14989214)



Reply

Date: May 14th, 2010 10:45 AM
Author: SuperTrader

My chances data seems very similar to the revealed pref. research, which was statiscially valid. While its correct to say there is no way to authenticate the data, it appears reliable. CC on the other hand is even less reliable. Just my 2 cents.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14989275)



Reply

Date: May 14th, 2010 11:04 AM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: Incidentally ....

The mystery behind the delay in release of the preliminary yield number at Yale is partially solved: they are apparently filling in as many slots as possible from the waitlist before a preliminary announcement - probably trying to beat last year's preliminary yield number.

See the CC thread where waitlistees are currently being called and quizzed as to whether they would "like to come to Yale."

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/896344-wait-list-statistics-yale.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14989411)



Reply

Date: May 14th, 2010 10:54 PM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: For the Yale Class of 2013 admit rate, yield rate etc. see:

http://www.yale.edu/oir/cds.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14994549)



Reply

Date: May 21st, 2010 12:05 PM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: Projected yield rate at Yale for Class of 2014

There were 1,940 admitted initially, including a record 732 from the early pool.

If there are zero waitlist admits, and the matriculating class is the same size as last year (1,307), then the yield rate will be 67.3%

If there are 30 WL admits in order to achieve a matriculating class of 1,307, then the projected yield rate will be no higher than 66.3%, down slightly from last year.

Under this scenario, assuming an historically equivalent 88% yield on the early pool admits, 1,326 will have been admitted from the "regular" pool and 663 will have matriculated. for an "open market" yield rate of exactly 50%.

Of course, the projected class size may be higher (originally 1,320 last year before "summer melt") or the number taken from the WL may be higher or lower than my projected number of 30.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15045282)



Reply

Date: May 22nd, 2010 3:09 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: Analytically flawed

No admitted student is required to attend Yale, and therfore it's final yield and open market yield are one and the same. Moreover Yale's early round yield is not 88 percent, but 80 percent. And it's 2014 early round accepances was not a record.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15054312)



Reply

Date: May 22nd, 2010 8:11 PM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: You still don't know what "open market yield" is.

In a true "open market" situation, circumstances must be exactly the same with respect to all applicants - ie, they must have immediate opportunities at competitive institutions. This is demonstrably not the case when applicants are invited to apply early only on the condition that they are barred from applying early elsewhere. Indeed the opposite is the case - which is exactly the advantage the SCEA school seeks!

The whole purpose of such a device is to (hopefully) gain a competitive advantage - particularly at the expense of arguably more selective schools.

The scenario is that (1) "School H" attracts the top students-who will only apply there, or will choose it if admitted to both "School H" and "School Y"; "School Y" attracts and keeps the applicants who it would normally "sign" anyway; BUT - (3) "School Y" also attracts and keeps a certain number of early applicants who, having gained admission, no longer see the marginal utility of a "regular" application to "School H" where the odds of such admission are quite low for the "regular" pool. This is true even where - all things being equal - a "School Y" admit in group (3) might originally have opted for "School H" if given a contemporaneous choice.

"School Y" anticipates (and indeed relies on) this inertia in order to snare a few high quality admits who might otherwise have applied to, and been admitted by, "School H".

The success of the gamble is demonstrated by the fact that "School Y" (and "School S") have an SCEA yield rate that is only very slightly lower than the yield rate with the ED device they previously utilized.

This scenario has been analyzed in papers demonstrating (indirectly) why Harvard could afford to drop the early admissions crutch, while Yale could not, and (previously) why Yale was forced to move from ED to SCEA as its number of early applicants dropped relative to the competition.

Very interesting stuff!

See: by Chade, et als (2009)

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:E0an3cnxmysJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=40000000

And, by Avery et al: (2009)

http://www.nber.org/tmp/86710-w14844.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15056731)



Reply

Date: May 22nd, 2010 11:16 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: Factually Inaccurate

By the time H abandoned SCEA, Yale had a (much) larger SCEA pool than H and a much lower early admit rate. There has been speculation, including Levin's comments in a Harvard publication, that H moved away from scea because it was losing the early round battle to Yale, and its cross admit advantage had all but disappeared (owing to the fact that Yale had switched from early decision to scea, freeing its early admits to trophy hunt as Harvard early admits had already.

H does not monopolize the best and the brightest. Its gets its fair share, but keep in mind that Yale has been the most selective school in the country (measured by SATs and HS transcripts) in 3 of the last 4 years. Y does not need to play games to compete effectively with H. Keep in mind the data on CC suggesting that in cross admit battles among HYPSM, the big winner is Yale. That data, consistent over 3 years, is at least as good as any other bandied about on these threads.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15058571)



Reply

Date: May 23rd, 2010 11:38 AM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: ?

Harvard admits generally don't consider a Yale admission a "trophy"!

But speaking of the little world of CC, did you notice that there are 10 CC Yale admits still hanging on, hoping to get in off the Harvard waitlist?

Of course, maybe they don't REALLY want to get in, but just want a "trophy", eh?

Further, it seems 5 other CC Yalies who sought admission from the Harvard waitlist have already been denied. The 5 Harvard WL admits on the CC site so far came from Columbia, Princeton, Chicago and MIT (2).

16 CCers report having been taken off the Yale WL so far, and the report is that "there will be a second round of WL admissions after May 25" when the number of defectors to WL invitations elsewhere may be clearer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15061475)



Reply

Date: May 13th, 2010 6:44 PM
Author: SuperTrader

The answer is no, it doesn't. End of thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#14983771)



Reply

Date: June 3rd, 2010 10:15 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: Actual crossadmit data for h and y from CC

Interesting- over the last 3 years years Yale defeated harvard 28-25, winning 53% of the cross admit battles reported on college confidential. The sample size is probably large enough to be representatve of what's truly happening in the hy competition for cross admits. I would conclude that it's a fallacy that h wins the dominant share of crossadmits from yale.

My conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Yale also fares far better than h in combined winning percentage against the top five-hypsm. That sample pool is approximately 200 on cc. How does h maintain the highest yield when it has serious cross admit problems with y and some of the other super elites? Could it have a case of Tufts syndrome sighing away from the high energy, more dynamic types likely to gain admission to yale, etc

?



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15156793)



Reply

Date: June 4th, 2010 2:22 AM
Author: E1Greco (elite, mysterious, elusive, prestigious)

You might want to take this discussion to the actual Harvard, and Yale communities, Repapa.

That way, current students and community members can actually join and participate in your discussion: http://www.harvard.listserv.org/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15159628)



Reply

Date: June 4th, 2010 4:58 PM
Author: NAFCYN

You already copied his post and pasted it on the listserv without attribution to him. Pretty sleazy stuff. Is everything else there stolen or "borrowed" material as well?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15163514)



Reply

Date: June 4th, 2010 9:11 PM
Author: E1Greco (elite, mysterious, elusive, prestigious)

Hi, NYCFan, or Alex.

My name is Michael, and no, not everything is "borrowed." I have a fulltime roster of 11 staff that are working with me to solidify the community. The registrations so far for just Harvard have exceeded 200 students, staff, and alumni.

I think it's going to be an excellent way to build up the communities within each of the ivies, and other top schools. Being able to directly participate in these cross-discussions will only be a benefit for everyone.

You've long been known to be staunch advocate for dispensing the proper information to the appropriate audience, which is why the Harvard listserv would be the more appropriate medium for this to occur, as the college audience on this site is by-and-large, dead.

Michael

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15165397)



Reply

Date: June 5th, 2010 10:56 AM
Author: NAFCYN

You are not off to a very noble start, however, when you steal materiel from other sites without attribution, pretending that they are new posts exclusive to listserv. I suggest you moderate your approach, Michael.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15169166)



Reply

Date: June 14th, 2010 10:00 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: Mathacle's theory

Looking at the cc data in which Yale outcompetes hpsm for cross admits in a three year period, mathacle implies that a reason h nevertheless winds up with a higher overall yield than y is that a higher percentage of y admits than h admits are cross admitted at the other hypsm schools. The cc data do seemto support that theory.

Any thoughts on this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15248491)



Reply

Date: June 15th, 2010 9:36 AM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: nonsense

1. They don't "support that theory";

2. The "cc data" collected by ewho/mathacle are not representative in any event;

3. The admitted purpose of any early admissions program is to reduce the size of the cross admit pool with top competitors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15252023)



Reply

Date: June 15th, 2010 8:04 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: Not so fast

Statitically, a sample size of 53 - the number of hy matchups reported on cc - is definitely large enough to be a reliable sample unless the polled group is not representative of the larger group of hy cross admits. On what basis do you believe the cc cohort is not repreentative of the larger group? Is it ethnically different, more geographicallly concentrated, more independent/prep school based?? Just wondering.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15255932)



Reply

Date: June 16th, 2010 11:00 AM
Author: NAFCYN
Subject: Huh?

The latest "sample size" of Harvard/Yale cross admits who chose one or the other in the Ewho/Mathacle thread is 24, with 12 opting for Harvard and 12 for Yale. Hardly large enough to generalize, when the total number of H/Y cross admits almost certainly exceeds 400 this year.

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064998706-post306.html

Furthermore, I have no idea whether the CC posters are a "typical cross-section" or not, but I suspect NOT. Finally, the tiny sample is not randomly selected, or scientifically selected, but rather SELF selected - which is a no-no when you want to make a projection.

By way of comparison, the "Chances" site utilizes the chess-ranking formula applied 10 years ago by Avery, et al, and can rely on data from 50,000 responders and 250,000 applications.

You might want to read THIS where the developer defends his formula:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1431540

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15260490)



Reply

Date: June 16th, 2010 5:16 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: The CC sample size for HY was 53

over a three year period - i.e. classes of 12, 13 and 14. That would likely constitute a meaningful statistical sample, particularly where the rank order (Y followed closely by H) is the same as is seen in the larger three year tournament of HYPSM in the aggregate (i.e. Yale beat Harvard, and it also beat all others within the group). There were approximately 200 such matchups over the three year period.

BTW, it would suprise me if there were as many as 400 y/h cross admits this year or in any year. Are you aware of any such data?

Finally, the Chances site provides no info on how many direct H/y matchups it has and whether its sample size was smaller than, comparable to or larger than the CC cohort. Its huge confidence limits suggests the number is quite small.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15262538)



Reply

Date: June 16th, 2010 8:34 PM
Author: NAFCYN

I am confident that the H/Y cross admit pool is larger than that, and that there are at least 400 from the pool who opt for one school or another.

The CC mini-sample is not only non-representative, non-random and unscientific, it is also far out of line with reality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15263993)



Reply

Date: June 17th, 2010 5:10 PM
Author: repapa
Subject: Well, l'm not so sure about the 400+ Figure...

Since the total number of admits to Yale is roughly 2000 (including WL admits), that would mean the acceptance rate of Y admits to Harvard would be at least 20% compared to H's overall admit rate in the low 7s, and basically vice versa. I suppose it could be the case (a Yale admittee on average is probably better qualified than the average applicant to H), but Im not so sure.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15270652)



Reply

Date: June 17th, 2010 6:07 PM
Author: NAFCYN

I don't follow your thinking

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1304735&forum_id=1#15271101)