<p>At an acceptance rate of 9.82%, 2497 students were accepted. I hope I'm one of those.</p>
<p>^Not so, LW Trojan. Remember the ED group? In the regular round, I'm guessing 1,930 to 1,990 were admitted. In any event, I hope your interest in Columbia creates good luck to you!</p>
<p>By the way, do you know why your thread on application numbers was deleted, apparently by the powers that be?</p>
<p>@pbr</p>
<p>I'm assuming it's because the information wasn't supposed to be released to the public yet.</p>
<p>So what was the ED acceptance rate? Is it possible to somehow figure it out yet?</p>
<p>if they took a similar number of kids as last year, they had a 17% increase in early apps, so that's: 595/(2429*1.17) = ~21%. Seas was ~28% and CC was ~19.5%</p>
<p>Columbia's admit rate is lower than MIT's; but does anyone seriously consider Columbia to be more selective (or even equally so)? Of course not.</p>
<p>ConfidentialColl, don't be getting cocky on me now. In the early 90's, Columbia was ranked 18th. It's come a long way, but it isn't quite ready for prime time yet ;).</p>
<p>well, in the early 50s, it was ranked 1. i don't think bringing up past rankings aren't terribly relevant, especially since they're all a joke anyways.</p>
<p>the exception being, of course, the one time usnews ranked caltech#1 a few years ago.</p>
<p>full disclosure is that pablo was denied transfer to Columbia and is currently at Penn.</p>
<p>further, most selectivity ratings use yield and SAT scores to rank the selectivity of a pool. They do this so as not to disadvantage schools like CalTech or MIT that are more special(ized) and have a smaller applicant pool, but are nonetheless more highly regarded by students and "tougher" to get into.</p>
<p>the only thing an admit rate really says is how many had visions of attending your school that year. it is the popularity contest of selectivity ratings.</p>
<p>SEAS is 14% odd</p>
<p>im screwed :O</p>
<p>It would be nice to see Princeton getting knocked down from its pedestal. But one word of advice to all: don't let success get to your head. More striving, less gloating.</p>
<p>I don't think Princeton can ever be knocked off the pedestal...HYP are pretty much welded there...have been for a hundred years...</p>
<p>
[quote]
HYP are pretty much welded there...have been for a hundred years...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it's only that way to this generation. As was mentioned the rankings were much different 25,50,75 years ago.</p>
<p>yeah, but some ppl here in poland don't even know what columbia or even mit is, but princeton is well well known.</p>
<p>While HYP may represent the "old guard", Stanford and MIT joined the upper echelon only late in the 20th century. Stanford's rise was most rapid, having occurred mostly in the last 25 years. In recent years, Stanford has pulled even in cross-admit battles with Yale, and is winning 60:40 with Princeton. Among Princeton alumni circles, they are already starting to worry that Columbia will be the next school to overtake them.</p>
<p>Columbia's app growth actually has stagnated in recent years (as has Penn's). Harvard, Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth have been growing in apps at a much faster rate.</p>
<p>slipper:</p>
<p>Harvard - Universal and Common App school, we will give you money to attend kind of financial aid, no early decision - hence fast growth in apps.
Yale - Common App school, SCEA which means early is higher that year in terms of growth, but even so the current numbers are comparable, and Yale can admit fewer though because it yields higher.
Brown - 1st year going to common app this year, common app gives a huge bump to the school that goes to it, look at growth rates before this year and they are comparable
Dartmouth - went to the common app early this decade, an exclusive user, and the same sort of commentary about the common app follows</p>
<p>Columbia is the only Ivy to still use its own application. I think for a good reason, think about how many people can just check off schools on the common app and really not think about applying. Columbia might have the highest application numbers for a school that has its own application!</p>
<p>Under this guise, 25K applications and a 9.82% admit rate is actually pretty impressive. It means that 25K students actually went to Columbia's website to fill it out online or print out the application. Yeah we are not quite the big boys, but as James was saying - we are starting to get noticed, like being named the #3 Dream School!</p>
<p>I'm already starting to get nasty PMs from Princeton lurkers on this board! See, I told you they are worried about Columbia! Don't look back, Princeton--someone may be gaining on you!</p>
<p>
[quote]
we are starting to get noticed, like being named the #3 Dream School!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What an honor. NYU was #1 for several years, so you know it's a big deal.</p>
<p>Also, thanks for the ad hominem attack, Admissionsgeek. If it helps you get over your school's inferiority to HYPMSCaltech, then I'm happy to provide that succor.</p>
<p>muerte, it wasn't adhom - you often troll the columbia board to put the school down - and yeah other opinions are helpful, but you are decidedly, repitedly and fastidiously negative. offering full context so that the observer can form their own opinions is important, as i hope people know that i am a die hard columbian hence they should read all my words through that lens. and we have had a long conversation about what adhom is or is not, if you really believe that what i did was an ad hominem attack, then you don't quite know what an ad hom is. the crux of my argument was never founded on the fact that you are in fact reputable, but rather that admit rates are a poor measure of 'selectivity' and therefore under or overvaluing admit rates is a big problem that is often perpetuated by USNews et al. if anything, i was AGREEING WITH YOU, but just disagreeing with your tactics. the critical fact about your status was necessary to contextualize your comments and their negativity, but further to clarify - why is said person who has no relatonship to columbia attempting to denigrate an institution. yeah we can get into semantics about it, but i do hope that by stating you attend penn and were denied transfer (facts you have written on here before) i was not attacking you. more than likely you were just not a good fit for columbia, but from your proud quakerness, my guess is you are where you would like to be. i don't think you like trolls, i don't either. if you want to debate what selectivity means or does not mean, we can, but just coming on here and trying to jab at us and our institution is poor taste.</p>
<p>and lastly, if you cannot tell, i do not have an inferiority complex, nor do i fancy my school to be inferior. such a statement would be an admission or belief that Columbia is not as good an institution. instead i believe it to be better and have often stated it.</p>