stanford has a built-in advantage based on its size. take any outcomes-based metric and you will realize harvard dwarfs stanford on absolute numbers. they cite "per capita" when it benefits them, and cite "per capita" when it works against them.tirakon wrote: I realize the model is built on arbitrary assumptions, but I think that on the whole the model still is indicative of something that is true: that Harvard's yield has a built-in advantage.
If it's so easy to conjecture a model of whatever you want, I invite you to create a model where Harvard doesn't have a huge advantage in overall yield because of its non cross-admitted accepted students.
Also, I never suggested it was harder to get into Stanford than Harvard, nor did anyone else in this thread as far as I can tell. I only said that Harvard and Stanford's respective overall yields are completely unreflective of how they performs in cross-admit battles. You are creating a straw man argument.
the thing about stanford's size that works against it is that while it might confer advantages relative to H, it doesn't, relative to Y. given the choice of S versus Y, the overwhelming majority will choose Y everytime mostly because stanford (outside the weather) is a poor man's yale. a different calculus is in play w/r/t y versus h.
