A Tale of Two Admission Policies and Three Sets of Ivies

Parents Forum
1

<p>Despite that some schools still need to massage their final admission numbers, there is enough critical mass to draw some early conclusions. So, let's start with the Ivy League. </p>

<p>In overall terms, the total number of applications for the eight Ivies almost reached the historical mark of 150,000, representing an increase of about 10% from 2007. Obviously, the increase of more than 13,000 applications was not matched by a proportional increase in admissions: admissions increased by only a couple of hundreds to reach close to 23,000. This represents an overall acceptance rate of above 15%. Oh, by now, the astute readers of CC know that the 15% is a blend of early and regular decisions ... So, what was the rate of acceptance at the Ivies for RD 2009? About 13.3% is the answer. That does not appear too bad, at least until one starts looking at the individual schools. </p>

<p>A deeper analysis reveals -or confirms- the sharp differences between the schools. First, we have the A list, the one commonly known as the HYP group. The average acceptance rate for the 58,760 students who applied at HYP is below 10%, and the early rate is 21.5%. Here is the real clincher: the regular decision rate is 6.37% at Harvard, 7.58% at Yale, and 8.39% at Princeton. In addition, the quoted rates do NOT account for the several thousands deferred students. Adding those in the mix would drop the rate by another point to about 6.5%. That translates into ONE admission per 16 students. </p>

<p>If one needs to build a case for the value of applying early, looking at Harvard and Princeton should be worthwhile. The advantage of applying early ranges from 300 to 400%, depending how one uses the deferred pool. Without the pool, Harvard numbers vary from 6.37% to 21.38% and Princeton from 8.39% to 29%. </p>

<p>After the A group, let's look at the BCD group, and that would be Brown, Columbia, and Dartmouth. This group attracted close to 48,000 students and close to 6,900 were accepted. The overall rate of 14,40% is a combination of an ealry rate of 27.66% and a regular rate of 12.8%. The benefit of applying early is roughly a 2.2 to 1 at all three schools. </p>

<p>The final group is the PC group. While it does not stand for Poor Cousins, this group does exhibit different dynamics. Since neither Cornell nor Penn ever seem capable to add their numbers in a timely or universal fashion, we'll assume that the announced number of about 43,000 applications is correct. From this number, about 10,300 were admitted for an acceptance rate of 23.80%. However, Cornell admitted 42% of its early students while Penn admitted 34% of its early birds. The regular decision rates were 24% for Cornell and about 18% for Penn. </p>

<p>None of this is really surprising, but it does provide one more confirmation that the colleges DO reward the early applicants. It also confirms that the numbers for admission into the Ivy League cannot be analyzed without paying close attention to the individual schools and admission policies. </p>

<p>In the context of the Ivy League, the early bird still gets the worm!</p>

<p>PS I did not post the details because there is no way to reproduce decent tables on CC.</p>

2

<p>From a post on the Cornell board (not sure if you've seen these numbers yet):</p>

<hr>

<p>CORNELL admits 6,384 of record 24,444 apps for Class of '09:</p>

<p>Apps rose over 17 % with the adoption of the Common App form.</p>

<p>26.1% overall admit rate; 42% ED admit rate; 24.3% RD admit rate</p>

<h2>Wary of the level of commitment of the newly-attracted applicants, the school projects a 2% decline in the overall yield rate, from 50.5% last year to 48.5% this year, as they admitted 250 more applicants than they did for the Class of 2008.</h2>

3

<p>Another interesting observation I see when you break it down by "group" is that "P&C" have noticeably higher admit rates. I grabbed an old reference book and it confirmed a hunch - they both have larger undergrad classes, by far. </p>

<p>Cornell admits a class of nearly 3,000 and Penn close to 2,400. All of the other schools range from 1,000 or so up to Harvard with a high of 1,600. ~40% of the Ivy League is in Cornell and Penn.</p>

<p>At some point, the higher admit rates could be due to the fact that there just aren't more people to apply. From the year I have data, both Cornell and Penn had more applicants than Harvard did. If they had half the size, would they also have half the applicants?</p>

<p>Just another thing to consider, especially with how it factors into everybody's favorite magazine's calculation of "rank".</p>

4

<p>xiggi - Taking advantage of your stastical and analytical acumen, but factoring in my concern that future applicant classes might be misled: How much if any of the early "advantage" do you feel is accounted for by the earlies being the stronger pool?</p>

5

<p>I had an interesting conversation with my son about this yesterday. At his international school the plurality of students are Korean, the next largest group are Indonesians, and then Americans. The Koreans, in particular, have been very keen to congratulation him on an Ivy acceptance and WL at MIT. But they always ask why he didn't apply to HYP (his admission was to Penn)...</p>

<p>He didn't apply because of the ridiculous statistics noted. He didn't apply because he could only apply to 8 schools, and these schools are not good "admissions values." He didn't apply because he is neither Val nor Sal at our very competitive school. </p>

<p>But, guess who did apply...almost every Korean and Indonesian student ranked in the top 50% of our school told him THEY had applied to H or Y or both. Why, because their parents made them...because they wanted to play the "what if" game, because of the pride in just saying you applied but of course only 1/16 get in so it is impossible. I don't know why but in fact THEY applied!!</p>

<p>All I am saying is that the uberinflated numbers for HYP are probably at least in part a reflection of the "why not apply" syndrome from kids all around the planet who figure it is worth $50 to see whether or not they might be the 'lucky ones'. I wouldn't guess that the other Ivy schools get nearly as many applications of this sort.</p>

<p>Of course this is all conjecture, no facts. By the way, the Daily Pennsylvanian quoted admit stats for Penn of 16.7% RD, 29.4% ED and 20.1% overall. The numbers varied widely school to school (Wharton being the toughest). After my son was deferred ED the message was 'don't hold your breath, we only take 10-15% of those deferred'- he was among the fortunate ones.</p>

6

<p>Sealocust,
Your point is an interesting one. If the class sizes at Cornell or Penn were more comparable to Brown or Dartmouth, for example, would fewer kids apply. Probably not...I had not thought about it that way..</p>

<p>HYP are stand alone on this, I think. The others, more of a wash...</p>

7

<p>Jmmom, I am afraid that your question contain a statement that is highly debatable. </p>

<p>In fact, the book by Avery, Fairbanks, and Zeckhauser, Richard, "The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite" contradicts that the ED pool is stronger than the RD pool. </p>

<p>Here is a link: <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/AVEEAR.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/AVEEAR.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here is a source of a summary report of the book: ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/.../e1f336568ceb374885256b27006cdbfd/ $FILE/early%20application%20summary%20paper.doc It is better to download the document. </p>

<p>Another discussion can be found at <a href="http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/early-decision.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/early-decision.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I realize that the early pool might be divided different groups ranging from athletes and develpment cases to hyper-qualified students.</p>

8

<p>Most interesting to me on another thread was the fact that the number of kids accepted at an ivy is less than the number of kids scoring over 1450 on the SAT. Sure we have athletes, legacies and URMs, but this data has to be extremely telling. Do we not just have more and more kids who don't stand a chance applying? How many kids do we see here claiming their parents insist they apply to ivies? Marketing pays off?</p>

9

<p>I know I have an Indian friend who says if she doesn't get into hyp she doesn't know what to do because the family pressure is so great. Basically no where else is acceptable (not even lower ivys). I have to wonder how rare/common this is</p>

10

<p>Sealocust, thanks for the viewpoint. </p>

<p>Let's look at the changes in applications at Harvard and Cornell since 1991. While the application jumped at Cornell in 2004-2005, the prior years have been very stable. On the other hand, the application amost doubled at Harvard. </p>

<p>Harvard
1991 13,029 applicants
1995 18,190 applicants
2001 19,605 applicants
2002 20,987 applicants
2004 22,717 applicants </p>

<p>Cornell
1991 20,328 6,240 30.7%
1995 20,603 7,050 34.2%
2001 21,519 5,861 27.2%
2002 21,502 6,133 28.5%
2004 20,822 6,130 29.4%</p>

<p>Further, there is little correlation the size of the available pool and the number of applications. The difference has to be charged to different degree of selectivity. </p>

<p>Apps Acct Rate Schooll
24,444 - 6,384 - 26.12% Cornell
22,796 - 2,074 - 9.10% Harvard<br>
19,448 - 1,880 - 9.67% Yale
18,823 - 3,912 = 20.78% Penn
18,120 - 2,250 - 12.42% Columbia<br>
16,908 - 2,463 = 14.57% Brown<br>
16,516 - 1,807 - 10.94% Princeton
12,615 - 2,149 - 17.04% Dartmouth</p>

11

<p>"Most interesting to me on another thread was the fact that the number of kids accepted at an ivy is less than the number of kids scoring over 1450 on the SAT."</p>

<p>Something you have to be careful with is that most reporting of # of kids with a certain SAT score is based only on single sitting scores, while most colleges consider the highest combination. On top of that, most top kids are going to be taking the SAT multiple times to optimize one score and then the other.</p>

<p>Still an interesting statistic, of course, but it might not be as telling as it looks.</p>

12

<p>"Most interesting to me on another thread was the fact that the number of kids accepted at an ivy is less than the number of kids scoring over 1450 on the SAT."</p>

<p>There are a number of problems that invalidates such a conclusion: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>One needs to account for the fact that the acceptances do not represent UNIQUE candidates. Since many candidates apply to several -if not all- Ivies, there is considerable overlap in applications and admissions.</p></li>
<li><p>There are much more higher SAT scores when one considers that scores are combined from various administrations. </p></li>
<li><p>A percentage of students present their ACT scores.</p></li>
</ol>

13

<p>Xiggi:</p>

<p>Interesting data, isn't this fun!</p>

<p>First: Cornell is clearly not as selective as Harvard, and even having half the class size likely wouldn't be - I'm curious, not crazy ;)</p>

<p>But, looking at the data, while Harvard had a HUGE jump from 1991, how do things change if you compare H 1995-2005 to C 1995-2005?</p>

<p>Harvard found 4,606 applicants and Cornell found 3,841. While most of Cornell's came from this year's jump, it's still a different way of looking at it that swings the argument around a little.</p>

<p>In the end, not very important, but highly entertaining :)</p>

14

<p>It would be very interesting to see what percentage of all high school seniors who score above 1450 on the SAT I apply to ANY Ivy. One very striking thing I have noticed in my town, in which there is a TV station that every Monday profiles one or more "Academic All-Stars," is that many of the highest-scoring students in my state don't make applications to Ivies. (I was an example of that myself, in my generation, but that was mostly because I didn't understand that list price for an Ivy school is discounted for applicants who have financial need. I knew FOR SURE that I couldn't afford to pay list price.) </p>

<p>For reference, here are the College</a> Board's figures for the number of test-takers who had single-sitting scores of various levels on the SAT I. Note that all the top colleges give applicants the benefit of their best split of scores, if they have taken the SAT I more than once, so the total number of applicants who could report having a 1600 for college application purposes is greater than the number of single-sitting 1600 scorers. Thousands of applicants outrank a 1450 scorer, and sometimes that is one thing that a strong college applicant is up against.</p>

15

<p>Thanks Xiggi, I was also taken by the info that so few students had over 1450, but your points are good. Let's take, however, thoughtful candidates, such as those with great counseling that don't apply randomly to ivies. Top prep school kids who generally have extremely well thought out applications and counselor support. I'm starting to unserstand what seems like unbelievable success isn't that at all. It really is that so few applictions are overall well considered. Agree?</p>

16

<p>"Of course this is all conjecture, no facts. By the way, the Daily Pennsylvanian quoted admit stats for Penn of 16.7% RD, 29.4% ED and 20.1% overall."</p>

<p>Roby, I agree that there is a lot of conjoncture and no facts ... especially when it comes to Penn. Penn has developed a nasty habit to report inconsistent and contradictory statistics. For instance, one quoted figure for ED is 1170 admitted out of 3420. Obviously, that does not make 29.4%. Further, the school has steadfastly refused to make their CDS forms public. Coupled with the fact that a Dean at Penn has publicly declared that the school could not withstand an audit of its admission numbers, one has to really wonder what happens at a school famous for teaching "numbers". </p>

<p>It does not really matter, except for underscoring the cities where games are played!</p>

17

<p>Sealocust, choosing the best terrain for a battle is half the victory. :)</p>

18

<p>Maybe the answer to this question is in this thread somewhere:</p>

<p>When they say applications, how does that equate to actual number of students...as xiggi pointed out...</p>

<p>For instance, if in the past the average # of schools a student applied to was 6 and now it 9, that could account for the huge jump. Even just one more application per applicant would make for a huge increase. You have this group of students applying to many of the same schools. </p>

<p>SO the stats, unless the overlap is taken into account, are very misleading. Having more applications in the overall process does not mean more students. Are those numbers available? Because, if in fact a large number of students increased their number of applications by 3 or more, it would be possible to have LESS total applicants, just doing the math </p>

<p>So, before people start freaking out about all the applications, the number of students is a more reliable figure. Its this frenzy of more applications to each school, so in turn, kids apply to more schools out of fear, and then the cycle repeats itself....the colleges love looking more exclusive, so these kind of reports are favorable...for students, they feed into the whole application paranoia....</p>

<p>We need much more in terms of numbers. Are the colleges supplying that, or just applications, two very different sets of numbers.</p>

19

<p>Xiggi - good post, but it takes more work to see what it means.</p>

<p>My own figures suggest, as I think yours do, that at HYP, the chances of a financial aid applicant (who is not Pell Grantee) gaining admission are approximately one-fifth or one-sixth what a full-freight candidate is. I think one can reasonably assume that roughly 90% of the ED applicants, and the same percentage of ED admits are full-freight customers (and contain the bulk of legacies and developmental admits.) There will be the exceptions of course (the recruited football quarterback, etc.) Putting the applicant quality question aside (because we already know we disagree, and I think your argument is circular), to move from 300-400% to the 500% I posit only requires that full-freight customers have a relatively small advantage in the RD round, part of the advantage of which will be made up by legacies (and deferred full-freight customers who make it in RD), and the need to please GCs from private feeder schools.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to compare the stats of the full-freight customers ED and RD - but I'm sure we'll never be privy to same. Nonetheless, I would suggest that the main advantage, all other things being equal (they never are), does not lie in applying ED, but in having chosen the right parents.</p>

20

<p>"Putting the applicant quality question aside (because we already know we disagree, and I think your argument is circular),"</p>

<p>Humm, I would love to answer to this statement ... I know that we disagree on many subjects, but in this case, I am not sure which is the circular argument you refer to. If it pertains to the strength of the ED versus RD pool, I simply follow the conclusions of Avery. Otherwise, I am at a loss to identify my circular argument. </p>

<p>Mini, my purpose in looking at the information was not to find great secrets or discover the deeper meaning of the admission process. I approach this with a pragmatic eye for I am more interested in finding the "niches" that could be worth examining further. It is in this spirit that I look at the ED results versus the RD numbers. One of the constants on CC is that the same candidate could do as well at Harvard as at Smith, Wellesley, or Mount Holyoke -just to take a geographical comparison. To push it further, a number of very astute members of CC support with great enthusiasm the notion that the schools on the "second" list provide a comparable or better education or experience. Those are statements that I do not dispute. Well, with that in mind, if I was a female candidate interested in engineering -again as an example- I would love to know that I could end up taking classes at Princeton after enrolling at Smith via a "grueling" ED process that rejects less than 20% of applicants. Not a bad deal! </p>

<p>Lastly, you may be right about the advantages of people able to pay full freight and apply ED. However, I still believe that the "victims" are not the Pell grantees, but the very large middle class that is neither poor enough to qualify for Pell grants and rich enough not to have to compare financial packages. People who expect a full financial aid package -via a ZERO EFC- should not hesitate to apply ED.</p>