<p>Here is a link/address for many of acceptance rate stats as of April 1st. (New York Times)</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> and Duke Accepted How Many? Colleges Report 2011 Admission Figures - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/admit-stats-2011/]Stanford”>Stanford and Duke Accepted How Many? Colleges Report 2011 Admission Figures - The New York Times)</p>
<p>darthmouth was 9.7%</p>
<p>@researching4emb</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Speaking from ignorance, exactly how reliable are the acceptance stats?
It seems like you have the set number of freshman openings and the college will offer acceptance to more students than needed based off of what criteria?
If a college offers a low number of acceptances but places a large number of students on the waitlist wouldnt that skew the percentage to an artificially low number? Will the real percentage only be available in August?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jym, thank you for demonstrating the point I made earlier about misleading announcements and carefully chosen titles. Despite the arguments offered by some that Columbia is correct by presenting its numbers separately, it remains that most people stick to headlines. </p>
<p>When comparing numbers, most people look at global statistics and not at Columbia minus a few colleges, not at Penn minus Wharton, not at Duke minus Trinity, etc. </p>
<p>On another issue, stay tuned for the press releases by Columbia that will address their final class of 2015, including the impact of admitting students from the waiting list. Not holding my vated breath to see that happen anytime soon!</p>
<p>Ahh- good catch, xig!
Missed that “little detail”! Funny how they also compared their scores to last year’s admissions stats at the other top schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When viewed individually, the numbers are reliable. Given that schools rely on different crutche, the comparisons are only valid when all the numbers are tallied. For instance, last year, Stanford admitted 40 students of the WL but Princeton well above 160 to reach 2311 admits. Harvard annouced 2110 in April but admitted 2205 students through the summer. Duke ended up with 592 ED admits and a total of 4207 admitted students --numbers that are quite different from the earlier press releases.</p>
<p>In the meantime, getting timely information is much better than the alternative to have to wait for the USNews delayed listings. As we know, the numbers we discuss here will only be tabulated by Bob Morse in 2012 and released in the Best College Edition of 2013. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, at least, they did not stoop to a low of using Harvard’s final number, which was 7.23 percent. How generous of them!</p>
<p>For starters convince him that going to law school is an absolutely terrible idea unless he wants to be $200,000 in debt with no job. do the reading, lawyers are being laid off left and right. An absolutely horrible profession to go into.</p>
<p>Thanks for answering Xiggi.</p>
<p>I wonder with the trend of students applying to more colleges which affects the admitted student percent figure directly correlates to the yield rate across the board or is it affected more for colleges considered match and safety schools. (I would think top schools would be less affected) If the admitted student percentage is low which makes a school more desirable in terms of status but their yield is also low, doesnt give them much to crow about in the end. Maybe I am not seeing the whole picture?</p>
<p>This seems so multi faceted when judging and determining data on schools.
Do the yields vary greatly from year to year? Are their stats for this?</p>
<p>The following factors need to be looked at to formalize the selectivity notion:</p>
<ol>
<li>% of class accepted as part of the ED</li>
<li>% of class given acceptance </li>
<li>% of yield </li>
</ol>
<p>The following number are from Class of 2008.</p>
<p>University ------------------Rank - Acceptance — Yield
Harvard University (MA) 1 9% 79%
Stanford University (CA) 4 10% 70%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 12% 69%
Yale University (CT) 3 10% 69%
Princeton University (NJ) 2 10% 68%
University of Pennsylvania 6 16% 66%
Columbia University (NY) 8 11% 59%
Brown University (RI) 16 14% 56%
Dartmouth College (NH) 11 15% 52%</p>
<p>Now if you take into account the ED/Yield you can show the actual acceptance rate for Columbia at all will be much lower than they compute.</p>
<p>So if I understand and boil this down, Yield seems to be more of an indicator of selectivity then admittance percentage rate does…?</p>
<p>**A little more on the undergraduate student program at </p>
<p>“Columbia University in the City of New York”**</p>
<p>Columbia School of General Studies<a href=“2,000%20Columbia%20undergraduate%20students%20-%2025%%20of%20all%20Columbia%20undergraduate%20students”>/U</a></p>
<p>[FAQs</a> | General Studies](<a href=“http://www.gs.columbia.edu/admissions-faqs]FAQs”>http://www.gs.columbia.edu/admissions-faqs)</p>
<p>*“GS students take the same courses with the same faculty, are held to the same high standards, and earn the same degree as all other Columbia undergraduates.”</p>
<p>“In general, the Admissions Committee is looking for at least a 3.00 GPA. It is important to note, however, that the Admissions Committee also takes into account standardized test scores, the autobiographical essay, recommendations, and high school performance. Some applicants may also be asked to interview.”*</p>
<p>Columbia’s undergraduate schools AS PER COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY:</p>
<p><a href=“Columbia OPIR”>Columbia OPIR;
<p>4,475 - Columbia College
1,459 - Fu School of Engineering
2,000 - Columbia School of General Studies
7,934 total Columbia undergraduate students</p>
<p>yet</p>
<p>Columbia only used the Columbia College and Fu School of Engineering to report the admissions stats, SAT Stats, GPA stats, Class Rank stats, student/facuty ratio and 6 year graduation rates.</p>
<p>here they are reporting the undergraduate admissions stats, but use only those for 2 of their undergraduate schools:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/admissions_all.htm[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/admissions_all.htm</a></p>
<p>what happened to the other 25% of the Undergraduates?</p>
<p>what is happening here?</p>
<p>artrell: I think that the selectivity remains the same no matter what the yield. I think that the yield is more of an indicator of the popularity or perceived quality in the eye of the applicants. </p>
<p>Japanoko: interesting about the Columbia General Studies program. I wonder if it’s similar to the Emory Oxford College situation…</p>
<p>"The School of General Studies is the college at Columbia University for nontraditional undergraduate students. Nontraditional students include:</p>
<pre><code>Persons whose education since high school has been interrupted or postponed for at least one academic year
Individuals who for personal or professional reasons need to attend on a part-time basis"
</code></pre>
<p>SO GS students are those who did NOT apply to Columbia directly from HS. Or are adults who are attending Columbia part time. Or are transfer students. Most [ 78%] are transfer students according to this-</p>
<p>“The School of General Studies welcomes applications from transfer students. In fact, 78 percent of our 2006 entering class transferred credit to Columbia. There is no separate application procedure for transfer students.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.gs.columbia.edu/admissions-faqs[/url]”>http://www.gs.columbia.edu/admissions-faqs</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>menlo,</p>
<p>correct, and these very students, a full 25% of Columbia’s undergraduate populaton share the same facilities, faculty and classrooms as the “other” 2 undergraduate groups, the Columbia College and the Fu Engineering school.</p>
<p>so when you are applying to Columbia for undergraduate school, you deal with the 25% of the undergraduates as much as the other 75%.</p>
<p>Yet Columbia, when describing its wonderful undergraduate education, fails to include admissions stats, GPA’s, SAT Scores, graduation rates and other statistics of these 25% undergraduates…</p>
<p>why is that?</p>
<p>Cornell, for instance, is fully transparent as it includes in its admissions stats the 5 non-traditional schools, which bring the overall stats at Cornell down…</p>
<p>Why is Columbia not doing this?</p>
<p>because they do not complete DIRECTLY for admission with students applying from HS. Acceptance to CS is on a rolling basis.
All colleges break out their transfer students acceptance rates and other data from newly matriculated freshman on their CDS data . Columbia just happens to take a lot of transfer / and other “non traditional students”, most of who probably do not live on campus, but commute, as they are working older, have families, etc. They take the same classes, pay the same tuition rates and help fill up classes and add to the bottom line.</p>
<p>USC is another fine private U that takes a LOT of transfer students- almost 1000 a year. Each graduation class has a LOT more students than matriculated 4 years before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>menlo, let me help you out a little with the figures for Undergraduate General Studies students and “transfers” at Columbia:</p>
<p>2,000 students - Columbia General Studies students
123 students — Columbia Transfer Students admitted last year</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and that is EXACTLY the point</p>
<p>the quality of Columbia undergraduate student body has to be adjusted to account for 3.0 GPA 550 SAT part time commuting students that make up a very significant 25% of the whole undergraduate student body and use the same facilities, professors and classes as the other 75%. It can no longer be defined as a 6.9% accepted, 690-790 SAT, 3.9 GPA, with 96% 6-year graduation rate stats undergraduate school…</p>
<p>Now you know why it is not beneficial for Columbia to supply the Common Data Set that the majority of the best schools in the country provide every year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>menlo, BINGO…</p>
<p>and that is why Columbia should be compared more with schools such as USC, NYU and the State Schools, than HYPSM.</p>