Acceptance rate jumps 4%!!

<p>I think there must be truth to this story because the Penn newspaper wouldn’t straight up lie in a news story. Also interesting is the fact that they changed articles in a day from this year’s admission statistics to last year’s.</p>

<p>well take 22% of 22,000 applicants or whatever… and u have just under 5000 acceptances. i dont know the ED acceptances off hand but if someone does we could add together the total # of acceptances and figure out if it even makes sense to be admitting that many people RD…</p>

<p>or we could just wait til Tuesday.</p>

<p>Penn’s apps BARELY went up. If you look at a chart, penn is the only ivy that stayed FLAT while others increased a lot. Plus in this economy, they need to accept more, since it is more likely that people will NOT attend due to financial circumstances. Plus Wharton apps plummeted. Acceptance rates will be higher. Shouldn’t you be happy? :P</p>

<p>ok I’m using numbers from last year since the numbers are similar this year</p>

<p>class size=2,400 ish
ED admits=1,147 (last year)</p>

<p>kids enrolling through RD to round out class=1,253</p>

<p>66ish% yield</p>

<p>so 1898 RD admits</p>

<p>3045 admits total divided by 22,000 applicants</p>

<p>=13.8% acceptance rate</p>

<p>ETA: if the yield is lower this year than last year (as you all predict) then that number will go up up</p>

<p>well ED for a lot of schools are significantly down this year due to criticisms of the ED system. (Or so I hear) That is why Stanford only accepted about 16% and same with Yale.</p>

<p>I think that it wouldn’t be a necessity to edit that article unless there was truth to it. The newspaper writers probably used an Ivy League database that encompasses all 8 schools and accessed some info a few days before the public was to hear about it. Its too close to the date of admissions for it to not be plausible, also numerous factors like new residential colleges and dorms, low yield rates last year, poor economy etc. may lend some truth to this. In the end who knows though at least you’ll hopeufully feel slighlty happier over the next 3 days? Overall I would say,
Good News Everyone!</p>

<p>4%!!! Are you serious?! This better be true…Good News!</p>

<p>Interesting. I wonder what happened? Given that Princeton also went up significantly, I wonder how this will play out for the rest of the Ivy League schools.</p>

<p>Assuming this is real, I think y’all are ignoring how much of the 4% was already absorbed by the Early Decision round (the early acceptance rate went up a few percentage points) which is fairly important considering that half the class gets selected early.</p>

<p>Yes, ED went up, but since the overall number of applications remained steady, the overall acceptance rate was expected to do the same. This leap is gargantuan. It takes YEARS to erode that number, and this kind of setback could be bad for the university’s rankings.</p>

<p>check this out</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/middlebury-college/677889-class-2013-admissions-stats.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/middlebury-college/677889-class-2013-admissions-stats.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>if middlebury had an acceptance rate increase of about 3% this year, it makes sense the same would happen to Penn.</p>

<p>Didn’t Middlebury post a significant decline in applications though?</p>

<p>Yeah, everyone, this is actually incorrect! The numbers chosen were arbitrary, they were from the 2002 admissions season, and they were chosen specifically so people would read the article.</p>

<p>I know this for certain now, don’t ask how. Just don’t worry too much about it.</p>

<p>WHAT THE HECK? Why would they do that ;_;</p>

<p>How can they do that? That’s falsifying data</p>

<p>@ muerteapablo </p>

<p>you are so wrong. I just emailed margaret and she confirmed it.
She did not mind about the spilled beans because there is nothing that could be done now. </p>

<p>Even if the data is wrong, why would they mix old data with wine tasting news?</p>

<p>whose margaret?</p>

<p>lol muerteapablo is spazzing out</p>

<p>I believe Margaret is the original writer of the article (Maggie Rush).</p>

<p>haha idk, just a guess…we’re all going crazy here</p>

<p>Come Tuesday, it won’t matter. Either you’ll be in or you won’t (or you’ll be in limbo, aka waitlist). Plain and simple.</p>