system
February 16, 2006, 8:30pm
54
<p>Yes, Byerly, I saw this:</p>
<p>
I am one of the authors of the book, so perhaps I can clear up some of the confusion. We sourced our data from two sources. First, we got full access to the databases from 14 of the 20 most selective schools in the country. We were able to run regressions to show the effect of applying early action/decision while controlling for all relevant factors. But we agreed to protect the anonymity of the schools in exchange for access to the data. To validate our findings and to provide school-specific data, we then conducted surveys of several thousand seniors during their senior years. the students in the pool were selected from students in the top 10% of their high school class. As a result, the admission rates cited in the thread are higher than the rates for the pool of 1600’s as a whole, because these applicants were also top classroom performers. Hope that helps to explain the difference.
First of all, that doesn’t explain the issue with Brown that I discussed, which is illustrative of the general problems with these numbers. Secondly, you’re missing my main point: these are estimated chances, not actual statistics like you initially claimed.</p>