[OT] Sarah Hughes and Harvard?

From today's Harvard Crimson:

[www.thecrimson.com]

Well, if her training schedule isn't that rigid, then why not even consider Cornell in the article. I mean last I checked, most of New Jersey was just as close if not closer to Cornell then Harvard. But Columbia the logical alternative? Where's the loyalty? Okay, it is his daughter's decision and maybe they'll just give all the ice time at Bright to her and none to the men's hockey team.

The article mentions a Matt Hughes who attends Ithaca College. Who was the Hughes that was on the hockey team here? And how many children are there in the Hughes family?

EDIT: Found it in an old post titled "Little Used Red Players" The Red player was Kelly Hughes.

And I thought you were committed to a school if you applied early decision, no switching after that.... Well, now we can run into her and Princess Amidala in Harvard Square....

-J

actually it was dave hughes who was the son who played for cornell a few years ago - kelly hughes is simply another hughes on the team from the same year

and actually its Queen Amidala

Harvard's early decisions program has never been binding, as are many other early admissions programs.

Oldest sister - Hahvahd graduate
David Hughes - Cornell '04
Matt Hughes - IC '05
Sarah Hughes
little sister

Something tells me that the guys partied harder than the girls during high school in the Hughes family

little sister = Emily Hughes?

Let's hope she's a little bit more mature. A few years back Queen Amidala threw a tantrum at the door to the Roxy in Boston before a show by Moby. The people at the door didn't want to let her in because she wasn't 21. She used the "Do you know who I am?" routine.

I think that's an urban legend, or at least an exaggeration. I could be wrong, though.

Well, it may be an exaggeration but it comes to me from pretty good sources in the Boston radio scene that were at the show. I'm inclined to believe something happened.

Yep. Another teen skater.

Harvard has a pretty significant historical commitment to skating (Wylie, Button, etc). It's probably the best place for Sarah to go. And she can host Evening with Champions for four years.

Yale is ending binding early decision with the class of '08. I wish they would just ditch the whole early decision BS. Early decision sometimes puts undue pressure on those who are honest about not being sure where they want to go to school.

[www.browndailyherald.com]

And her younger sister is supposed to be just as intense and dedicated as Sarah!!

Chris '02 writes:

"Who was the Hughes that was on the hockey team here?"


Kelly Hughes, he is Canadian. But I have not decided if that's better or worse than Great Neck, LI.

Yale's president has been leading a charge to get rid of early decisions. A lengthy article in The Atlantic made the case that early decisions really helped the chances of kids from good high and prep schools where the counselors pushed their students into applying for early decisions, where admissions criteria is usually not quite as stiff as it becomes in the winter-spring cycle.

Plus, as Marty points out, a lot of kids just aren't ready to make a rational choice at the time early decision applications are due. One big benefit of early decisions for the colleges is that the "yield" is so high, making their nums look better for the silly national rankings that sell newsmagazines. This dog may die a slow death.

Kelly Hughes is still on the roster, but Sarah's brother is David, and he is no longer with the team.

Anyone who has to wait for the financial aid package before making a decision is also at a disadvantage. Aid decisions aren't handed out until April since they are dependent on tax information not available at early decision time. I'm guessing most early decision applicants either know they won't get any aid or they already have a company-sponsored type scholarship.

Getting rid of early admissions also helps disadvantaged students. A lot of them don't want to apply early for fear that they'll get a dumpy aid package (mostly work study and loans, and few grants). Though it meets their financial need, they have to work their butt off even more. These kids would rather wait till regular decisions so they can compare their aid packages.

Unfortunately those stupid college rankings have a huge impact on what college admissions people decide to do. For Cornell, its actually advantageous *not* to admit a significant portion of their class early decision, as they are in danger of dipping down too low into the applicant pool and jeopardizing their ranking. Instead, we wait for the people who get rejected by HYP early and then can't get into anywhere else because that 'early advantage' is now gone.

However, one of the only good things early decisions is good for is bringing kids to the school that REALLY want to be there. Its been my experience that kids who applied here as a reach through early decisions really enjoy Cornell more than some of those who are still kind of upset about getting rejected by other Ivies.

What burned me was that because my cousin is registrar at a selective school we realized that my son was not:

1. An early decision candidate,
2. A recruited athlete,
3. Member of a minority group,
4. Legacy except at CU which he felt was too big for him,

and I think one more category that thankfully I have forgotten.

I am hoping to forget the whole damn process, but I doubt I'll live long enough to allow this to fade into the recesses of what's left of my mind.

But there are also a group, though I hope a small group, who will apply to an Ivy (meaning any Ivy) as an early decision candidate hoping to get into one Ivy or another at any cost. Big time facetimers! Eh?

You may recall that Emily Hughes skated between periods a few years back. She was 11 or so at the time. Wore a Charlie Chaplin outfit. Sarah did the same thing a few years before that. IMHO Emily's Lynah performance was way better than Sarah's. She'll be the one to watch in another year or two.

But there is also a group, and at some high schools it is a large group, of students who know where they want or prefer to go to college and therefore benefit from the early admissions/decision process (but most particularly the early decision process) because they don't have to compete with other students who are applying to the school merely as a safety school, or just for the "facetime" element of getting accepted here, there and everywhere.

This is the classic car sales routine. Possible customer (high school student) cruises the lot. Salesman (college) says "so, are you serious or just wasting my time?" (offers early decision). Customer says sure he's serious or he wouldn't be here, and tries to lowball salesman (asks for as much aid as possible). Salesman counters by trying to scam customer into taking the most expensive deal (least aid, gussied up with all sorts of fancy language). When they reach a bargaining point, ultimately in the salesman's favor (he has far more customers than the customer has choices), then the salesman uses the pressure tactic "hey, if you want to take your chances that the deal will be here tomorrow then shop around (wait for other aid packages to clear), but I can't promise anything" (early decision trap closes).

Yes, a very savy customer might get out of this situation with his skin, but for the most part it's a scam for the salesman. And nothing I have observed in the workings of Cornell or any other university over the years has led me to believe they are any higher on the ethics chain than your average car salesman.

Two problems with your example. First, the salesman (college) is compensated (graded by US News and the public) based on the percentage of shoppers who actually buy the car (accept the offer), so he has an incentive to only make offers to those likely to accept. By playing games with the early decision/admission process, the college is driving more applicants into the general pool, resulting in lower admission rates among accepted students.

Regarding it being a scam, as far as I know, the university doesn't get rewarded for giving out less in financial aid than it has available. So it doesn't have an incentive to give the applicant pool in general less aid. And in any case, it does have a limited amount of aid available each year, meaning that giving the best aid packages to those who apply early decision/admission could leave it short when the unknown number of general pool applications come in.

The major issue, in my book, is the further disadvantage it causes for already disadvantaged kids. We need to put fewer obstacles in their path towards advancement, not more.

I don't think a economically challenged applicant is at a true disadvantage when applying early decision. What stops this candidate from applying to Cornell early decsion, and applying to other schools as well? He can accept the Cornell offer, and when other acceptances and financial aid packages arrive, he can wave them at Cornell and request they reconsider his package.

This will help if peer institutions have determined that the family contribution expected by Cornell is higher than at these peer institutions.

If the problem is the mix between grant, loan, and work study, the historical distribution of aid in these three categories is known for every institution. A Cornell candidate seeking financial aid should be aware of this ratio, and can question Cornell if the ratio in his/her aid package differs from the Cornell norm.

The issue, Neil, is that if you're going to school in Harlem or Watts or Dorchester, you're less likely to be made aware of early decision, while, if you're from a Summit, NJ, or Greenwich, CT, school, you certainly will be. And early decision is when the admissions bar is lowest, and when the slots start getting filled.

Al,

I take a slight exception to characterizing early decision as "when the admission bar is lowest"

I think it can be fairly presented as another desirable component of an applicant's profile. In the same way as being a star athlete, a legacy, or an under-represented minority, an applicant expressing his/her committment to Cornell via early decision is another desirable quality that should be valued appropriately and considered when constructing the freshman class.

I accept the fact that the student from a disadvantaged background - urban, rural or suburban - without adequate guidance from his/her high school might have less access to the resources required to make an intelligent "early decision" decision. I expect that this same disadvantaged background will also be a factor in Cornell's admissions decision, be it regular cycle or early decision.

IMHO concern about equal access to early decision is a problem to be worked, not a reason to eliminate early decision.

What are the consequences, if any, when an early decision admission backs out later?

Is there a chance that come April a school would hand out a crappier aid package (not overall funding, but the mix) to an early decision student, knowing that the student might take it anyway since the school is their first choice?

Neil Shapiro '83 wrote:

I take a slight exception to characterizing early decision as "when the admission bar is lowest"

Well, like it or not, it's a fact.

Good luck trying to bring all secondary school counseling departments to an equal level. Not many "legacies" in the neighborhoods I mentioned above.

Unless things have changed significantly since 1984, when I was applying to colleges, there is no way that the early decision/admission period is when the "admission bar is at its lowest". Schools were much more selective as to admissions in December, as opposed to April. This is, of course, understanable, since they do not want to fill up too many slots in their freshman class until they see the greater applicant pool and know what is available in each category.

Fine Al,

but I think that is no more potent an argument than:

1. The admission bar is lowest for legacies

2. The admission bar is lowest for under-represented minorities

3. The admission bar is lowest for varsity athletes.

adding

4. The admission bar is lowest for students who have promised to come to Cornell if admitted

is just creating another preferrred class of applicant, and Cornell is as justified in creating class #4 as it is in creating class #s 1,2, and 3.

From my recent relearnings of the definition of "early decision" and "early action"...
"early decision" is like a binding contract so if you get in, you go, else you pay...how much, I"m not certain, but it's definitely not the full four years.
"early action" is not a binding contract. you get in but you still have the option to say...umm...let me think again...and say no if you want.

So with Cornell, if you apply early and get in, I think you're bound by the contract to attend...so what I'm wondering is...if you do want to go to Cornell but want to get a better financial aid package, what good would waving the other acceptance letters in their face do?

Its not "waving the other acceptance letters" that matters, but "waving the other financial aid packages". Specifically, if you can show that other peer institutions have determined that your contribution is substantially less than Cornell's estimate, then the Financial Aid office will review their assessment.

I know that Cornell has let applicants (ok, an applicant that I know of) out of the commitment if the student presents valid evidence and Cornell cannot adjust the package.

CUlater '89 wrote:

Unless things have changed significantly since 1984, when I was applying to colleges, there is no way that the early decision/admission period is when the "admission bar is at its lowest". Schools were much more selective as to admissions in December, as opposed to April.

Do some homework. That simply isn't the case.

Feel free to look at it however you wish, Neil.

[Q]The issue, Neil, is that if you're going to school in Harlem or Watts or Dorchester, you're less likely to be made aware of early decision, while, if you're from a Summit, NJ, or Greenwich, CT, school, you certainly will be.[/Q]

Point 1:
How do you plan on holding the university accountable for ignorant portions of the population to current policies/practices?

[Q]And early decision is when the admissions bar is lowest, and when the slots start getting filled.{/Q]

Point 2:
As for all times in the application process, the relative standard of admission depends on, in no particular order, your quality of application, major, reliability of past acceptants attending Cornell, race, special talent (athlete, musician, dancer, actor, artist…), status (legacy?), letters of recommendation, activities, grades and SAT’s, and lastly where in the country you are applying from, and how you compare to the people from your area. The determinants for relative competitiveness for one student from a particular area are different from that of another student from a different area unless they end up in the same final pool of applicants. The bar is not actually a bar; it is more of a selective filter. The rate of filtration stays relatively constant. The quality of the applicants accepted is solely determined by average quality of the pool.
Take my senior class in high school as an example. I know of 9 people that were excepted to Cornell (2 early decision and 7 regular), and 6 are attending. I know of 6 students that applied early decision (including myself). The 4 students that did not get in got flat out rejected (thankfully not me). Of the other 4 that got in on regular decision they were statistically less competitive that the 4 early application rejects. This supports my point. The early applicant pool is sometime more competitive than the regular decision pool. Students have to evaluate the relative risk they are willing to take when they apply.

Well, this interview (copyrighted 2001) with Yale's admissions director, Richard Shaw, is excerpted from the Yale Herald, which (I think) is an internal Yale news vehicle:

"He [Shaw] adds that he doesn't know if early acceptances are the place to look for diversity, since the early decision pool is traditionally very homogeneous. Don't worry, he says, we'll get the minorities in the next round.

"This initial lack of diversity is self-selected, the result of students who need to weigh financial aid offers and avoid the binding early decision process. But as Yale consistently accepts students at a more generous rate through the early process [my italics], Shaw acknowledges students may feel "compelled to commit.""

I'd say this is likely better information than your sample, Adam.

With that, I'll get off my soapbox. Anyone really interested in this topic should read the article in The Atlantic.

Hey Al! You want to give us a link to that article? No? OK, I will.

The follow up is online also.

[www.theatlantic.com]

[www.theatlantic.com]

Also, bearing in mind that I haven't read the articles yet, you write (and highlight) the phrase [q]Yale consistently accepts students at a more generous rate through the early process [/q], and use it as evidence that the bar is lower during the early decision period.

That may be true, but your logic is faulty. A "more generous rate" could be the result of at least two things: a lower bar (as suggested by you) or a more talented applicant pool (as suggested by Adam). Of course, I do remember that when I was in high school, my peers thought of early decision as a way to get in to your "reach" school when the bar was lower (or by "lowering" the bar by showing a commitment to the school).

Thanks for the links, bra. Saved me from going to the library to reread Fallowes's piece. Yes, when I was in high school--long ago, I regret to say--early decisions was the route to an easier admissions hurdle, and used primarily by those for whom financial aid was immaterial.

The original article is clearly worth reading if this issue is of interest to you. I haven't yet read the follow-up.

Neil, you listed the same four preferred groups that frosted my behind when my dear son was making applications last year. Since he refused to lie himself into group number four he was at a disadvantage. I thank god that the admissions people saw him for what he was and accepted him.....but how about those that get screwed by telling the truth and admitting that they aren't sure where they want to attend school.

To attempt to claim this game is a noble cause rather than the foolish chase it has become is !

Maybe I'm confused, but I was under the impression that with Early Decision (as opposed to Early Action), once you've applied and been accepted, you're committed to attend that school, and if you even apply to other schools, you forfeit your acceptance to the school to which you applied Early Decision.

Well, foreit or not, I was rather pissed in HS when I applied ED and got deferred and someone else that applied ED got accepted, only to bail on Cornell and go to Emory instead. Add to that the 3 or so people that got in to Harvard and kept their Cornell app's active even after sending checks to Harvard "just to see if they'd get it" and I got shafted by people taking up admissions slots from my HS that never intended to go to Cornell.

The process to get into Cornell ought to be the same as for hockey season tickets. First come, first serve, and you need to camp out several days for it.

If you want to be an:

AAPer--You'll only be seen on line really really late at night.
Aggie--You'll show up way early to tend to the land around the field house.
Artsie--You'll start filling out job applications while waiting on line...4 years early.
Engineer--You'll come up with a way to manipulate the ticket computer, thus never actually having to show your face in person.
Hotelie--You'll want to wait in line, but instead find a nice 5 Star resort nearby.
HumEcer--You'll bake cookies and bribe your way to the front of the line.
ILRie--You'll sign a contract with the guy next to you to stand in line for you, so that you can go read somewhere quiet.

Extras:

Frat Boy--You'll just cut. And then have your ass firmly booted back to Lawwwng Island.
Sorority Girl--You'll "bake cookies" and bribe your way to the front of the line.



:lants tongue firmly in cheek::

They aren't going to do anything. What can they do? It's more of like a word type of contract. I applied early decision, however, I had to wait for my aid package. Since I had also applied to UMich on a rolling admissions type of basis, I knew I had already been accepted to that school. But I was still planning on going to Cornell had I been able to pay. I also still went ahead and applied to three other schools. You don't really have to withdraw your applications. What are you going to do if you find out your aid package sucks? (like I did.) People might say that I shouldn't have applied to the other schools, but if Cornell really wanted me to attend, knowing it was my first choice, they should give me enough money to go. (I ended up with only loans, lots o' them.

I did my homework on this one last night, Al, albeit through anecdotal evidence, since one of my parents has been a high school math teacher, program coordinator, coach of the NYC math team and annual writer of numerous letters of recommendation for many, many years. And from what I've been told, although you may believe that the percentage of candidates extended offers may be higher in December than in April (and that guy from Yale may have said something to that effect), generally speaking the quality of candidate to whom the December offer is made is higher than the quality of the April candidate to whom an offer is made.

All homework is welcome, CUlater. This is excerpted from Jim Fallowes's article in The Atlantic:

"The real question about the ED skew is whether the prospects for any given student differ depending on when he or she applies. Last fall Christopher Avery, of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and several colleagues produced smoking-gun evidence that they do. The authors analyzed five years' worth of admissions records from fourteen selective colleges, involving a total of 500,000 applications, and interviewed 400 college students, sixty high school seniors, and thirty-five counselors. They found that at the ED schools an early application was worth as much in the competition for admission as scoring 100 extra points on the SAT. For instance, a student with a combined SAT score of 1400 to 1490 (out of 1600) who applied early was as likely to be accepted as a regular-admission student scoring 1500 to 1600. An early student scoring 1200 to 1290 was more likely to be accepted than a regular student scoring 1300 to 1390.

"The equivalent of a 100-point increase in SAT scores makes an enormous difference in an applicant's chances, especially for a mid-1400s candidate. Indeed, the difference is so important as to be a highly salable commodity. A gain of roughly 100 points is what The Princeton Review guarantees students who invest $500 and up in its test-prep courses. The Avery study's findings were the more striking because what admissions officers refer to as "hooked" applicants were excluded from the study. These are students given special consideration, and therefore likely to be admitted despite lower scores, because of "legacy" factors (alumni parents or other relatives, plus past or potential donations from the family), specific athletic recruiting, or affirmative action."

Now I suppose we can discount the Avery study because of the institution at which it was conducted, but it appears to be more than anecdotal.

That is very interesting, Al, thanks. I wonder if the same holds true for "early action" candidates.

I would also be interested to know how they determined whether any two particular candidates were equivalent, so that they could conclude that the only differences were SAT scores and time of application. As we all know, high school grades across the country are not based on equivalent standards and students from certain high schools are looked at more favorably despite having lower test scores or grades (often, these are the very schools that push hard for students to apply early decision/action).

Effectively, what the article and this Avery study are saying is that an ED candidate is making himself a "hooked" candidate. It gives anyone a chance to be looked at as favorably as the legacy, athlete, and under-represented minority candidate. This seems to allow a student, who through no fault of his own is un-remarkable, to level the playing field.

I don't know the controls the study used, but with a large sample size, I would imagine that it is a reasonable assumption that the peripheral numbers of the typical 1200SAT/early-decision applicant are the same as they are for the typical 1200SAT/regular-schedule applicant.

Well, if you really want to check the methodology, you can go here:

[ksgnotes1.harvard.edu]

I'll confess I haven't read it--and probably won't.

You mean unlevel Neil. Or at least that is how many of us view what you are trying to justify.

And just for the record all four preference categories are given different weights and of course vary from school to school. The law suit that is being fought by the University of Michigan has forced some of their criteria to surface and nothing but nothing is anything but uneven.

Al,

I think you need to read the paper with a fine-tooth comb.

[Q] By contrast, at ED schools, the credentials of early applicants are nearly equal on average to those of regular applicants. Early applicants and regular applicants were within 10 points in average SAT's at 6/10 ED colleges. Across the ED schools, early applicants averaged 9 points less on the SAT (1329 vs. 1338) and 0.3% lower on class rank than regular applicants (90.1% vs. 91.4%).[/Q]

Later in the article…

[Q]A comparison of Admission Office ratings suggests that EA receive higher Admissions Office ratings than regular applicants with the same SAT scores and class ranks. If EA are systematically more attractive than regular applicants in non-academic or other unmeasured attributes (some of which are captured in the Admissions ratings), then the classifications based on SAT scores and class ranks will underestimate the percentage and number of EA who would have been admitted at regular decision standards.[/Q]

Also, when you have the ability to define your own rating criteria it is much easier to filter out portions of a population because they do not meet a criteria you have set, or exclude/include particular criteria in an equation that makes your statistical analysis a sure bet. Statistics are nice and all, but they never show you what they didn’t use. Hell, if you gave me the numbers, and enough time, I could tailor some evaluation system that counters nearly every point in this paper.

Or perhaps you should.

If, as the first paragraph you cite states, "...at ED schools, the credentials of early applicants are nearly equal on average to those of regular applicants," then why is the acceptance rate so much higher for early applicants?

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making with the second quote, but I hope you noticed the big If in the middle of it. Perhaps the EA applicants are "systematically more attractive" to Admissions Office staff simply because they applied early, or perhaps even because more early acceptances means higher yield, which means a higher USN&WR ranking. [Worth reading on that topic is the Thompson article cited in the references at the end of the Avery et al paper.] You also conveniently didn't mention the immediately following paragraph, suggesting "quite possibly there is a significant bias cutting in the opposite direction."

Regarding the third point, if, for whatever reason, you don't want to accept what they've concluded, then don't. Matters not at all to me. Sounds like you think the principal investigators had an axe to grind.

It is not at all unreasonable that the universities view the ED with higher regard. This is a type of reciprocal relationship; The student commits to only applying to their number one choice, and in return the university reciprocates this action with possibly an easier eye, or a more favorable view of a student that REALLY WANTS TO GO TO THEIR SCHOOL. Also, it is most likely that students that apply ED have higher quality application as a whole. This may not seem like much because we usually think of the larger aspects of the acceptance process. I know someone that works in an admissions office that said, “I read through applications cover to cover with a red pen marking all grammar and spelling errors. I tabulate the total number of errors, and write that number on the first page of the application.” Lets just agree to disagree. Although the SAT scores may be higher in the spring pool, that is not an indication of the quality of the person/student. In fact, the SAT is only correlated with present knowledge base, although it is supposed to be correlated with potential to learn. It is not highly correlated to future academic, personal, or professional success. With that said; the SAT is CRAP. Why don’t they just make everyone take an IQ test?

Adam '04 wrote:

Also, it is most likely that students that apply ED have higher quality application as a whole.

I'm delighted to agree to disagree.

Adam '04 wrote:

In fact, the SAT is only correlated with present knowledge base, although it is supposed to be correlated with potential to learn. It is not highly correlated to future academic, personal, or professional success. With that said; the SAT is CRAP. Why don’t they just make everyone take an IQ test?

Not quite true. The SAT is NOT designed to predict how smart you are, how well you will do in life or what sort of work ethic you have. Maybe it has changed as they recentered the scores, but historically, the SAT *DID* correlate with academic performance during the 1st 2 years of school. (And If somebody busts out with correlation =! causation, so help me god I'll come to your house and smack you upside the head with a large trout.)

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, this is how MIT justified lowering their standards and admitting women with SATs that were 150-200 points lower than otherwise comparable male applicants. They were able to rationalize it by showing that, at least in their sample, for men, an SAT score of X correlated with a freshman GPA of Y, while for women, an SAT of X-150 correlated with the same GPA Y, or so I was told by a feminist engineer at MIT while discussing gender quotas in the MIT coffee house.

Sorry, haven't had a chance to chime in - you know work and all. Well I never saw this debate coming But we haven't even debated variations in admission criteria across the colleges and specific majors and how that varies with early decision and regular admission.

Tom Pasniewski '98 wrote:

Sorry, haven't had a chance to chime in - you know work and all. Well I never saw this debate coming But we haven't even debated variations in admission criteria across the colleges and specific majors and how that varies with early decision and regular admission.

I'm getting a real headache.

SAT to GPA correlation has an r=0.64.

Adam '04 wrote:

SAT to GPA correlation has an r=0.64.

Well, to a chemistry type, that sucks. As a biology kinda guy, I'd publish that. And I've seen social science type publish stuff between .2 and .4.

That's funny Al because I get a much bigger headache when the debate has to do with who should be rated where in the polls and who should play more and who will win this or that........)

With all due respect Marty, this *is* a hockey board... well kinda

-Fred

appletinis work wonder for back pains haven't tried them on headaches yet though... of course, this would have to be made by a bartender that probably isn't located in ithaca since they don't seem to give you any alcohol in a so called "mixed drink"

But there are surely a large supply of apples!

judy '01 wrote:

appletinis work wonder for back pains haven't tried them on headaches yet though... of course, this would have to be made by a bartender that probably isn't located in ithaca since they don't seem to give you any alcohol in a so called "mixed drink"

Yeah, they must not, because every time I see you and Melissa at Dunbar's, you're both stone cold sober.

Try a carbomb or four. I think that will solve your alcohol issue.

[Q]Well, to a chemistry type, that sucks. As a biology kinda guy, I'd publish that. And I've seen social science type publish stuff between .2 and .4.[/Q]

That is my point. Some of the regressions used as support in the social science are laughable at best. I wouldn't put my name on anything with r=0.64 after graduation.

Dunbar's is one of the FEW places that actually puts alcohol in those drinks...

My personal favorite is white russians at the Chariot. I have no complaints about how they're made, and they're served in pint glasses!

Anne '85 wrote:

My personal favorite is white russians at the Chariot. I have no complaints about how they're made, and they're served in pint glasses!

Although they've apparently lost their Irish Wake recipe.

Completely OT anecdote: while at my favorite Richland, WA (don't ask) watering hole, I had a guy belly up next to me and tell the World's Best Evil Barmaid he wanted that drink with, you know, vodka and Kalhua in it, and she made him a White Russian. After he had gone, I asked WBEB how she knew he didn't mean a Black Russian, and she replied that he was an idiot who didn't know what he wanted. (I'm not sure what the moral of the story is.)