14%? What?

[xiggi]

<p>

I recall that Xiggi, a recent CMC grad into general college admissions & stats, commented that CMC’s counting methodololgy was different for the CDS versus what they really considered apps as reported annually on their web site (i.e., link in post above)…not a terribly satisifying explanation to me, as the CDS’s intent in part is to normalize stats across schools to allow apple-to-apples comparisons, and CMC’s internal admit rate (the one with the most public fanfare) is apparently not comparable to everyone else’s who report their CDS admit rate.

</p>

<p>Papa, I must have failed to communicate clearly my point! The differences in the numbers are not unique to CMC. In fact, CMC was one of the first schools to publicly disclose the different numbers; the school remains one of the few that does NOT try to obfuscate its real admission numbers or rely on them for marketing purposes. Dean Vos would be one the first to admit that having a very low admit rate does not really make him happier than in the past as he HAS to reject 5 out of every 6 applicants! </p>

<p>The explanation (at least the one that was offered when I followed such things more closely) was that when schools started to accept the Common Application, two classes of application were created. Since a percentage of students did NOT completed the supplemental essays, some applications were received but considered incomplete for reporting to the CDS. CMC decided to deduct the incomplete applications. Something similar happened to Stanford at the same time. </p>

<p>Now, compare this with the large number of schools that still LOVE to count requests of information and postcards as applications … among the many tricks used to show large a higher selectivity! You know them! </p>

<p>Xig!</p>

[broetchen]

<p>Dick Vos, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, stated on Friday, addressing the accepted students that the admit rate this year was 17%.</p>