mallard wrote:

It is absolutely out of the question that Haribo would "logic fail." She certainly didn't in this situation.

Imagine that the schools are much smaller. 55 students attend H from 80 admits; 20 students attend S from 45 admits; and 25 students attend Y from, let's say for the sake of convenience, 25 admits - a 100% yield.

Y is very hard to get in to. So let's assume, again contrary to fact, that everyone who gets in to Y gets in to S and H as well.

We see from this that H and S have actually lost exactly the same admits. H has a much higher yield rate, but its yield rate is identical to S's among non-Y admits.

Now, these are fake numbers, but it's almost certain that a phenomenon like this obtains in the actual stats. It's unlikely that it accounts for the entire gap, or even as much of it as Haribo suggests. But you need to think harder before saying "logic fail."

No, I understand her point about the effect on the general yield rate. What I don't understand is how that point relates to the specific question about the performance of HLS and SLS when it comes to

retaining YLS cross-admits. HLS could theoretically have a general yield rate of 1% and still outperform SLS in the YLS cross-admit battle.

Also, if both Stanford and Harvard lose 20 students to Yale, but Harvard likely has more cross-admits thanks to a far larger class size, it still suggests that Harvard performs significantly better than SLS when it comes to wooing students away from the almighty YLS.