<p>Looks to me that some of this is due to desired freshmen class size. BC is apparently increasing the freshmen class by 6%, while USC is decreasing by 2%. USC applications rose almost 24%, while BC’s rose 3% that would explain the situation. If BC had the same class size as prior year the admit rate would have dropped. BC is great school; I wouldn’t treat variations in admit rates as something to worry about on the quality of education at BC.</p>
<p>Dear sirlaxalot : Applying the arithmetic, we see that the additional number of admittances would be (0.2882-0.2798)*30000 = (about) 252 additional acceptance letters.</p>
<p>Remember, that this assumes a constant number of applications (30000) between the two years. If there was a decrease in the total number of applications, that would have also adjusted the admissions rate upwards.</p>
<p>Assuming a yield in the range of 35%, the number of anticipated additional attendees would be about 88 students. This minor variance could account for free space in the previous year’s enrollment or anticipated decreases in this year’s yield rate. The target number per year on AVERAGE remains 2250 or a total of 9000 undergraduates.</p>
<p>In summary, drawing conclusions from the single 0.84% difference is impossible in isolation.</p>
<p>I also think colleges are still diddling with how to estimate yields, since the economic downturn of the past several years has changed the ability of some students (who may have historically selected a school like BC) to select less expensive options. Since the assumptions behind the secret formulas are changing, and since the formula is based on historical data that is no longer completely valid, it will take some years to settle out. This is also driving the fact that BC shut off the aid spiggot big time 2-3 years ago, but now is (anecdotally) giving aid a bit more liberally. Finding that sweet spot will take some back and forth.*</p>
<ul>
<li>This is all my own conjecture and, like just about everything else on the internet, should be assumed to potentially be completely wrong.</li>
</ul>
<p>AND>…
0.84 percent difference means a lot when you see colleges dropping 3-5 percentage points across the board… im not necesarrily bashing BC for not denying more people. im just wondering why this is happening…</p>
<p>ie:
USC
Ivy schools
UMich.
etc…</p>
<p>SO… Scottj, there is some “conclusion” to be drawn man…
pulling the arithmetic card on me… HA
all schools with 3-5 percentage points dropping in admit rates…
while BC goes up almost 1 percent</p>
<p>There are a million reasons why the acceptance rate went up by .85%. The most likely explanations are probably a change in estimate of yield or an expansion of class size…</p>
<p>1.) Yields are likely dropping because more and more people are going to college in our ever growing human capital based economy. Thus, more competition = lower yields</p>
<p>2.) Expansion of class sizes are likely occurring because BC has shown time and time again that it desires more and more revenues (just look at the BC Dining ordeal). Evidence of this is already seen with the rising sophomore class having some members living not on Lower, not on Co-Road, but Gonzaga on Upper…</p>
<p>Keep in mind, we are talking about a less than one percent fluctuation. Big deal? I think not.</p>
<p>Dear sirlaxalot : Replaying my original discussion point, you cannot consider the acceptance rate in isolation from the application count. Let’s show you why.</p>
<p>Part I : The target class size is 2250 on average. (Due to a lower than average class in one of the last two years, this year’s target will be slightly higher than 2250.) Now, if one assumes a 27% yield (anticipating aid based rejections) and a class size of 2350 for this year, you have a target acceptance count of slightly less than 8700. (Again, these are all estimates to show how you work backwards from the class size to get to your desired acceptance rate, not top down.)</p>
<p>Part 2 : Now, what factors could change the acceptance rate if there was no underlying change in acceptance standards? A difference of only 1,000 applications could explain the difference in acceptance rates to maintain the acceptance pool level to generate the needed targets from Part 1.</p>
<p>Conclusion : Whether these numbers are completely accurate will ultimately come out after the full numbers are posted. Certainly, these numbers do not match the NY Times article, but the argument holds.</p>
<p>Dear sirlaxalot : Looking at the draft data in the NY Times article, it is suggested that there were 9,800 acceptances in 2012 and 9,227 in 2011. If the 2011 calculated yield holds, we see that (9800-9227)*.25 = 143 which might well be the anticipated number of additional spots available.</p>
<p>Yield is also dependent on financial aid, which in BC’s case, is good, but not Ivy-generous. And interest financial aid is growing due to the economy. Financial situations could also impact transfers-out.</p>
<p>‘SC is generous with need-based aid, and offers merit aid to boot, including an automatic discount for NSMF’. Thus, I have no doubt that college yields are impacted by the economic downturn as families make better financial decisions for their situation today.</p>
<p>fwiw: a caution to sirlaxlot…don’t believe everything you read in the press. It is frequently incorrect.</p>