<p>I am surprised to see more attacking than rational debating. For past decades, Stanford did a great job in many areas. It likes a shining rainbow on the west coast. I have no problem the accept these. I agree that using “Tufts Syndrome” is too strong and not accurate. </p>
<p>The key issue here is that did (or did not) Stanford play the yield protection game? To my belief it did based on three observations:
1) After HP eliminated the early program. Almost all the elite colleges (keeping early program) saw significant increase in their early applicant pools except Stanford.
2) From the accepted/rejected list, Stanford’s process is much more “random”.
3) Stanford’s yield hit record high while others hold steady.
The resource did not show good improvement, but through more “random” process to achieve improved yield. Based on these facts, I believe they played yield protection game.</p>
<p>From all the posts in opposite side, I can not see any convincing defense. Their theories are mainly based on:
- Stanford is Stanford. This argument has no value.
- Stanford has great achievement in last two decades. How can they play yield protection game? Yes, Stanford did great in last decades. But the question is did they play yield game or not. If they rejected the applicant they do not believe he/she will attend Stanford. What the net effects?
- Stanford focused less on number.<br>
- The people posted on the accepted/rejected list only represent a small group of applicants. It does not reflect the whole population. Yes, I agree. Compare this group people with the whole Stanford applicant pool. These samples have bias. But, if we compare this group with the people posted on HY. These kinds of bias have been knocked off.</p>