Not quite troll of the year but of at least of the day. |
Princeton's yield is in 60% while Harvard's is in the 85% range. |
Not quite. Princeton is 70%, Harvard is 80% |
Hmm, neither reading nor the world are strong interests of the Yale wannabe? |
Don't be so sure DS gave up Yale for Emory. |
This is so true. Our generations (X and millennial) benefited from that brief meritocratic period so we see those schools through rose-colored glasses. |
Yeah. That was the era. Sure you still had athletic recruiting, legacy and donor tips but much lower URMs and no first gen. It was totally meritocratic as a result. How do you know? It was still like 65% white. |
43% of Harvard’s white admits are legacy, student athlete, or related to donors. If you really want to go that route, pure meritocracy would have these schools being 40% Asian and 60% everything else |
+ 1 |
-1 especially the "great global citizens" part for Yale, which makes it sound like a second-rate high school IB "programme." Also overkill with the "harsh weather for some" line. Why isn't that also the case for Cambridge? Boston can get pretty damn cold, too. |
+1 I have kids that have attended two of these schools and think these are fairly accurate generalizations. |
Harsh weather in the middle of "nowhere" is not the same as harsh weather in the middle of "somewhere" (proximate to an urban core). Yale emphasizes service more than any other Ivy league school. This is consistent with "great global citizens". Why do you hate Yale? |
What luster? It's another overpriced school in a bad city with questionable admission practices...unless you are rankings/prestige obsessed or can write checks for 320k it's not worth it. |
Please share examples of schools: *that are well-priced *in a good city *with great admission practices |
It'd be 50% Asian, 30% Ashkenazi Jew, and 20% everything else. This is why colleges had quotas against Jews before the current quotas against Asians. |