<p>Penn:</p>
<p>Acceptance Rate--16.1%
Yield Rate--66.5%</p>
<p>Documentation:</p>
<p>Penn:</a> Undergraduate Admissions: Statistics for the Class of 2011</p>
<p>Pomona College from their 2007-2008</a> CDS</p>
<p>16% Acceptance Rate
39% Yield</p>
<p>Thanks for the updates. Keep 'em coming.....</p>
<p>na, 68% Princeton
na, 79% Harvard
na, 71% Yale
10% , 70% , Stanford
16%, 67%, U Penn
Caltech
na, 69% MIT
Duke
Columbia
U Chicago
15%, 52%, Dartmouth
Wash U
21%, 47% Cornell
Brown
Northwestern
Johns Hopkins
Rice
Emory
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
UC Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon
U Virginia
Georgetown
UCLA
U Michigan
USC
U North Carolina
Tufts
Wake Forest</p>
<p>Acceptance Rate for students entering Fall 2007 , Yield Rate , College</p>
<p>Williams
Amherst
Swarthmore
Wellesley
Carleton
Middlebury
16%, 39%, Pomona
Bowdoin
Davidson
Haverford
Claremont McK
Wesleyan
Grinnell
Vassar
Harvey Mudd
W&L
Smith
Hamilton
Colgate
US Naval Acad
Oberlin
Colby</p>
<p>While I think that yield is an utterly meaningless data point for students on
this board, I'll play ... for 2011, the final numbers should not be too different from: </p>
<p>TOP 20 LAC 2011 NUMBERS RANKED BY ADMISSION RATES
Admit Yield Schools
16.2% 41% CMC
16.3% 39% Pomona
17.0% 42% Swarthmore
17.6% 40% Amherst
18.5% 45% Williams
19.0% 42% Bowdoin
23.0% 45% Middlebury
25.1% 36% Haverford
25.5% 33% Colgate
27.4% 35% Wesleyan
27.4% 45% WAS/LEE
28.0% 42% Davidson
28.1% 28% Mudd
28.4% 33% Hamilton
28.6% 37% Vassar
28.8% 37% Carleton
31.8% 31% Colby
36.0% 41% Wellesley
40.6% 28% Grinnell
51.8% 38% Smith </p>
<p>TOP 20 LAC 2011 NUMBERS RANKED BY YIELD RATES
Admit Yield Schools
18.5% 45% Williams
27.4% 45% WAS/LEE
23.0% 45% Middlebury
28.0% 42% Davidson
19.0% 42% Bowdoin
17.0% 42% Swarthmore
16.2% 41% CMC
36.0% 41% Wellesley
17.6% 40% Amherst
16.3% 39% Pomona
51.8% 38% Smith
28.6% 37% Vassar
28.8% 37% Carleton
25.1% 36% Haverford
27.4% 35% Wesleyan
25.5% 33% Colgate
28.4% 33% Hamilton
31.8% 31% Colby
28.1% 28% Mudd
40.6% 28% Grinnell</p>
<p>Brown's 2011 data:</p>
<p>Admit: 14%
Yield: 55%</p>
<p>xiggi,
Thanks for all of the numbers. Where do they come from? Are they all for students who entered in Fall 2007?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh, a Harvard EMBA? What's that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Executive MBA. Usually shorter, intensive program for senior corporate officers. It's cheap because the student's company, in most cases, picks up the tab.</p>
<p>Hawkette, all numbers are for the class of 2011, meaning for students entering during the 2007-2008 school year. If not culled from the 2007-2008 CDS forms already released, the numbers are from the admissions' offices, with the exception of Carleton's admit rate number that had to be estimated. Middlebury's numbers include the Winter anticipated admission/enrollment. </p>
<p>While there are almost always subtle differences between the CDS numbers and the numbers announced by the schools, there are few surprises. It seems that more and more schools understand the benefits of releasing accurate information in a timely manner. Of course, there are still schools that prefer to hide official reports behind veils of quasi secrecy. </p>
<p>On that note, reading "admissions facts" and Penn in the same sentence of a previous post is worth a chuckle! While they seem to introduce drastic improvements in their communications, they have a long road to travel!</p>
<p>PS I'll let others contribute the numbers for doctoral universities. :)</p>
<p>xiggi,
Thanks again for all of the LAC data. I was not aware that literally all of them have now released their 2007-08 CDS. Big difference with their larger national university cousins who seem to be slower than normal this year in putting the reports out there. </p>
<p>With regard to the public release of the CDS, I have never really seen much discussion about the reasons why some colleges do not follow that path. Do you have any thoughts on why that happens? What do the schools hope to gain by restricting access to that information (current and historical), particularly when so much of the data is handed over to centralized sources like collegeboard.com and USNWR? Personally, it makes wonder what they're trying to hide....</p>
<p>
Are you alleging that the current numbers on Penn's web site are not accurate?</p>
<p>Penn:</a> Undergraduate Admissions: Statistics for the Class of 2011</p>
<p>And if so, based on what?</p>
<p>All I know is that the Naval Academy and Military Academy are the two hardest LAC's to get accepted to (14% and 16% respectively) and they have very VERY high yield rates, which I don't understand why the service academies take a back seat in almost any elite college discussion because the numbers are there folks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you alleging that the current numbers on Penn's web site are not accurate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I am not alleging anything about the current numbers for Penn. Actually, I wrote that it seems that the office has made drastic changes. In the meantime, Penn remains a school that considers most information regarding admissions --including the still nebulous removal of Lee Stetson-- to be on a need-to-know-basis. </p>
<p>Indeed, considering their past performance in disclosing non-manipulated, verifiable, and timely data, officials at Penn have a long road to go to regain a modicum of trust. </p>
<p>Disclosing information is only hard when the numbers do not add up.</p>
<p>GoNavy, it is only because USNews likes to adhere to the Carnegie classifications that we now have the academies listed among the LACs. </p>
<p>Right or wrong, you can expect most observers who track historical data to continue excluding the academies from their analysis, as such schools should be in a totally separate category.</p>
<p>And, although it does not really matter, one can decide to look at the applications differently, and exclude the non-nominated or non-physically apt applicants. </p>
<p>In this vein, 1305 admitted over 2039 qualified applicants and 3746 nominated is quite different from a number using the gross numbers of applicants files started. </p>
<p>Class of 2011 at West Point
Detailed Applicants Men Women Total
Applicant Files Started 8,658 2,180 10,838<br>
Nominated 3,161 585 3,746<br>
Qualified (academically
& in physical aptitude) 1,734 305 2,039<br>
Admitted 1,080 225 1,305</p>
<p>Applicants and Nominees - Class of 2011</p>
<p>Applicants (includes nominees)........................ 12,003
Number of applicants with an
official nomination....................................... 3,827
Nominees qualified scholastically,
medically and in physical aptitude................ 1,893
Offers of admission.......................................... 1,419
Admitted.......................................................... 1,202</p>
<p>
<p>Indeed, considering their past performance in disclosing non-manipulated, verifiable, and timely data, officials at Penn have a long road to go to regain a modicum of trust.
Having been a fairly close observer of Penn and its published admissions stats for some time now, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "drastic changes". I also don't know what you mean by Penn's "past performance in disclosing non-manipulated, verifiable, and timely data" as it relates to admissions. In fact, other than not disclosing admissions data broken down by each individual undergraduate school, I'm not aware of Penn's failing to disclose on its web site any admissions data of the type usually disclosed by its peers.</p>
<p>Care to elaborate with specific examples?</p>
<p>Here are the admissions stats from another site -</p>
<p>2007</a> Admissions Outcomes for Top U.S. Colleges and Universities</p>
<p>Some schools which saw a significant decline in acceptance rates:</p>
<p>NU – 24.7%
UC – 34.9%
JHU – 24.2%</p>
<p>
[quote]
Executive MBA. Usually shorter, intensive program for senior corporate officers. It's cheap because the student's company, in most cases, picks up the tab.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Harvard does not offer an executive MBA. It offers executive courses, but no actual executive MBA. Hence, that's why I ask what people mean by a nonexistent "Harvard EMBA".</p>
<p>45Percenter, since you claim have been a close observer for some time of office formely led by Lee Stetson, I am surprised you prefer to remain oblivious to their past preferences to "release" questionable statistics, especially via the once gullible students' newspaper. </p>
<p>After all, the good ol' Stetson himself admitted that Penn would not survive an audit of the numbers his office discloses. </p>
<p>Funny how things change when the day of reckoning approaches.</p>
<p>xiggi, to my knowledge, Stetson never said that, and was never quoted as saying that--it's a myth. If you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it here.</p>
<p>Also, I've learned not to rely on the Daily Pennsylvanian--or ANY newspaper for that matter--for the utmost accuracy in reporting statistics. I rely on the official information posted by Penn itself on its web site. Again, if you have any hard evidence that Penn has, at ANY time, falsely or erroneously reported official admissions data on its web site, please share it here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hence, that's why I ask what people mean by a nonexistent "Harvard EMBA".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha...then just call 'em out on it in the first place, if you already know the answer...</p>