Sidwell Basketball Article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:27, as an economist, I have to say that what you're calling "my market approach" isn't really a market-based approach, except in a derivative way. Market analysts talk in terms of prices and quantities.

13:27 here. I'm certainly not an economist, so I'll take your word for it. But I do think there's some sort of economic analysis underlying the approach I'm trying to describe. Each person has a limited time/money to "spend" on application, and so must choose the best ROI.

Setting aside whether you agree or disagree with my approach, what's the right terminology?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the numbers, Sidwell comes out top in this area in selectiveness and yield. The continuing viability of single sex schools in this area, as well as the strong presence of Catholic schools, perhaps does indicate that it is the "plurality top choice" as opposed to the "majority top choice." I'm not sure why any of this is really controversial, though, other than that the mention of Sidwell gets 'em goin' every time.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of applicants approach may not be perfect, but it's a lot more credible than the odds of admission approach (Curtis' 3% acceptance rate is lower than Harvard's 6% acceptance rate).

Specifically, I have a theory for my position (odds of admissions numbers are largely driven by the number of available slots). But your position, that the raw number of applicants is misleading, seems to be based on your assumption that UCLA, St Johns or Drexel are somehow "less desirable" than Harvard, Princeton or Yale. You make the same assumption, without offering proof, that Gonzaga is less desirable than Sidwell. In other words, your "proof" is based on your unproven assumptions, in circular fashion.

You seem like you want to fight about this. I don't. I don't really care whether Gonzaga or Sidwell -- or Harvard or Drexel -- is more desirable. I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in your most-applications approach.

I suppose it also comes down to what you mean by "most desirable." It seems you mean by "most desirable" that the school receives the most applications. If you want to define desirable in that circular fashion, than your approach is absolutely correct.

Personally, I think an admissions % approach will usually yield more accurate results for comparing schools, because it takes into account each school's size. It's effectively a measure of applications per slot. A person applying to a school is investing time/money in the process, in hopes of getting admitted (return on her investment of time/money). If all schools were equally desirable, then most rational people would apply to the schools that give the greatest odds of admission (i.e., the highest admissions %). But all schools are not equally desirable. So if we look at the schools with a low admissions %, we see those schools where people were willing to invest time/money in applying, even though they expect less ROI.

FWIW, I agree with you that if a school has a very tiny number of slots -- or perhaps a very narrow market focus -- then that can skew the admissions %s to suggest the school is more desirable under my market theory than it really is in terms of consumer preference. That's what's happening with Curtis School of Music, I believe. Also, IIRC, Deep Springs College somewhere out West is often considered the most selective school in the country, because it has only something like seven students admitted every year. At the other end of the spectrum, you might find a school that people consider very desirable, but has a high admissions %, because it has loads of slots available. I suspect you'd see this if you look at admissions numbers for places like Michigan, UVa, or Berkeley.

So I'm not saying the admissions % approach is perfect either. But I think it's better than a most-admitted approach, especially for schools that are not abnormally large or small.

Good analysis, clearly and calmly stated -- thanks!

[Anonymous]

It looks like there are two favored approaches here:

1. Straight up application numbers
2. Admissions rates, which equal application numbers (the first approach) divided by the number of open slots.

So basically, the 2nd approach is equal to the 1st approach, but scaled by class size. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for doing this. In fact, scaling by class size seems like a bad idea, because it introduces biases (the Curtis example). You can try to argue that this scaling by class size somehow captures parental investment of time and money, but that's not what the formula above is actually measuring. To understand parental investment, we'd need to know the application fee, number of essays and play dates, and the rest.

[Anonymous]

Here's a spreadsheet of applications and admissions from 50+ colleges. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArlRBr9Qvz0mdEdLNzNsRnBKT3Z1dDZ5QTFCQVV1NkE&output=html

Group A - The ones with the most applications:
UCLA
UCSD
UCSB
UC Berkeley
UC Irvine
Boston U

Group B - The ones with the lowest admissions percentage:
Brown
Columbia
Cooper Union
Harvard
Princeton
Julliard
Stanford
Yale

Now if I told a high school senior she could choose to attend a school from either Group A or Group B, which Group do you think she'd pick?

[Anonymous]

As an economist, I have to point out that desirability (which we call utility) can be a function of many variables. These variables can include, but are not limited to, the perception of eliteness, proximity to your house, affordability so that you aren't sacrificing college or other savings, athletic program, collaborative vs competitive atmosphere, and much much more. Economists actually build utility curves with multiple variables, no kidding.

As you can imagine, there will be no single definition of desirability that captures all families. Different families will weigh different things as being desirable.

The ratio of acceptances gets to the perception of eliteness, but it doesn't get at these other possible components of desirability that some families may value even more. So it would make perfect sense that 1000 families would prefer Gonzaga to Sidwell because Gonzaga is more affordable and they can pay the mortgage.

[Anonymous]

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1287.pdf

Use something similar to this methodology and Sidwell comes out on top, I'd bet.

[Anonymous]

All I know is that I totally don't want to be an economist when i grow up. wow, what a weird thing to argue about.

[Anonymous]

Talk about apples and oranges - I wonder is there is a single person in this entire region who applied to BOTH Gonzaga and Sidwell.

The schools are about as different as one can imagine - though both have their followings about DC's elite.

[Anonymous]

Talk about apples and oranges - I wonder if there is a single person in this entire region who applied to BOTH Gonzaga and Sidwell.

The schools are about as different as one can imagine - though both have their followings about DC's elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an economist, I have to point out that desirability (which we call utility) can be a function of many variables. These variables can include, but are not limited to, the perception of eliteness, proximity to your house, affordability so that you aren't sacrificing college or other savings, athletic program, collaborative vs competitive atmosphere, and much much more. Economists actually build utility curves with multiple variables, no kidding.

As you can imagine, there will be no single definition of desirability that captures all families. Different families will weigh different things as being desirable.

The ratio of acceptances gets to the perception of eliteness, but it doesn't get at these other possible components of desirability that some families may value even more. So it would make perfect sense that 1000 families would prefer Gonzaga to Sidwell because Gonzaga is more affordable and they can pay the mortgage.

You're mixing up "most desirable" with "most affordable."

According to your logic, the meal people most desire comes from McDonald's. The car people most desire is not a Lexus, an Audi, or a BMW ... it's a Toyota Camry.

And you didn't answer the question -- Group A or Group B?

[Anonymous]

Group C

Anonymous wrote:Here's a spreadsheet of applications and admissions from 50+ colleges. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArlRBr9Qvz0mdEdLNzNsRnBKT3Z1dDZ5QTFCQVV1NkE&output=html

Group A - The ones with the most applications:
UCLA
UCSD
UCSB
UC Berkeley
UC Irvine
Boston U

Group B - The ones with the lowest admissions percentage:
Brown
Columbia
Cooper Union
Harvard
Princeton
Julliard
Stanford
Yale

Now if I told a high school senior she could choose to attend a school from either Group A or Group B, which Group do you think she'd pick?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Group C

Anonymous wrote:Here's a spreadsheet of applications and admissions from 50+ colleges. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArlRBr9Qvz0mdEdLNzNsRnBKT3Z1dDZ5QTFCQVV1NkE&output=html

Group A - The ones with the most applications:
UCLA
UCSD
UCSB
UC Berkeley
UC Irvine
Boston U

Group B - The ones with the lowest admissions percentage:
Brown
Columbia
Cooper Union
Harvard
Princeton
Julliard
Stanford
Yale

Now if I told a high school senior she could choose to attend a school from either Group A or Group B, which Group do you think she'd pick?

Have to agree with group c. You left out a lot of really great schools that my DC actually prefers to your group b, such as wash u in st louis, colgate, williams etc. That is what is wrong with your argument. There are so many great schools to choose from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an economist, I have to point out that desirability (which we call utility) can be a function of many variables. These variables can include, but are not limited to, the perception of eliteness, proximity to your house, affordability so that you aren't sacrificing college or other savings, athletic program, collaborative vs competitive atmosphere, and much much more. Economists actually build utility curves with multiple variables, no kidding.

As you can imagine, there will be no single definition of desirability that captures all families. Different families will weigh different things as being desirable.

The ratio of acceptances gets to the perception of eliteness, but it doesn't get at these other possible components of desirability that some families may value even more. So it would make perfect sense that 1000 families would prefer Gonzaga to Sidwell because Gonzaga is more affordable and they can pay the mortgage.

You're mixing up "most desirable" with "most affordable."

According to your logic, the meal people most desire comes from McDonald's. The car people most desire is not a Lexus, an Audi, or a BMW ... it's a Toyota Camry.

And you didn't answer the question -- Group A or Group B?

I was blurring the issues, because most folks here wouldn't get it, and it's not crucial. But just for you: a person "maximizes utility subject to a budget constraint." Happy now? Yep, I didn't think so. This is another way of saying that price (what I called "affordability" in my post above) is a key factor in decision-making, because, for many families, Gonzaga is affordable, but Sidwell is not. To expand on this, what we've been calling "desirability" here would be referred to by economists as a function of all the variables that are important to this particular person when choosing a school. These variables may, or may not, include price, perception of eliteness, athletics, Catholic education, teaching methodology, location, and whatever else this person feels is important in a school, all weighted appropriately for this person. (Now I know you're really sorry you asked!) The key point, which I think economists share with psychologists, is that "desire" is a complex mix of many different factors, and that a single factor (like perception of eliteness, aka admissions ratios) doesn't fully explain what we've been calling the "desirability" of a school or why Gonzaga gets 1000 applications. In particular, price plays a much bigger role that many here seem to be acknowledging.

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you're implying that if we waved a wand and made all the Gonzaga families into millionaires (so that price becomes irrelevant), all the Gonzaga families would transfer to Sidwell (assuming there's room for them at Sidwell). And all the McDonalds customers would start dining at the Ritz. And all Camry owners would switch to BMWs. But I think you can see how we have absolutely no way of knowing these things. You can think of 100s of reasons why none of this would happen, for example, many Gonzaga families place a high value on sports and a Catholic education, many McDonalds customers just love their greasy Big Macs, and many Camry owners appreciate the cars' low-key reliability. It's like saying, "If Oberlin was in Los Angeles and cost half as much, it would get as many applications as UCLA." Really, how would we know that? We don't know and, really, nobody cares about useless speculation like this! Therefore, we're left with the facts that we have, rather than speculation on counterfactuals about what schools families would choose if only they were richer. And as I said above, price is clearly a factor in how people make real-life decisions about what they "desire" (as we've been calling it), given their budgets.

You need to re-read my first post carefully. I was trying to stay out of this, but the answer is in there. Here's a tip, though: if you "maximize utility subject to a budget constraint," you are going to get a quantity, not a ratio to something like class size. I'll also mention that scaling by class size skews numbers in unpredictable (and therefore unjustifiable) ways, and ad hoc solutions (let's toss out Curtis because we feel like it, but keep another school because we feel like doing that) only confuse things instead of helping.

I have no connection to either Gonzaga or Sidwell, FWIW.

[Anonymous]

19:13 here again. Now I notice the Group A and Group B lists, and it's true I didn't answer. Here's another vote for Group C, because you'll never get useful results by polling DC residents who participate in a private school forum, in terms of anything that could be generalized to a broader population. Here are some of the problems with this poll:

1. How many of us live in California and get in-state tuition for all of the schools in Group A except BU?
2. How many of us live outside California but are concerned enough about tuition to think that out-of-state tuition at some pretty good UC schools is more affordable than the Ivies in Group B?
3. How many of us want to study engineering, which could be done at many of the schools in Group A but, to my knowledge, in Group B only at Columbia's SEAS (i.e. not even in the general liberal arts school of Columbia). Or architecture, which I believe you can major in in a few places in Group B (although not at Harvard or Cooper Union or Brown) while many of the schools in Group A have separate architecture schools.

I'm sure there's more, but I need to move on. Hey, if you guys want to go ahead and think your admissions ratio stat is dispositive, go for it! Be my guest, absolutely. Just know that there are a few of us out here who think you're way off base.