<p>^^You could look at it that way, yes…</p>
<p>It can no longer be defined ONLY[ I added for clarification] as a 6.9% accepted, 690-790 SAT, 3.9 GPA, with 96% 6-year graduation rate stats undergraduate school.</p>
<p>These admit rates are a little scary and perhaps a bit sad. I know that insanely low admit rates/extremely high app. numbers is normally viewed as something that marks legit progress of a university, but I don’t if that’s necessarily true. Seems like a giant scramble or popularity contest that has gotten out of control (so many places with sub-10% admit rates is scary). I want Emory to progress, but I think I would feel really bad if our admit rate goes sub-15%. It indicates that the university is hardly accessible to students who deserve the opportunity for a great education. The ranking/perception game screws over lots of students as the admission criteria seems to become more variable and unpredictable as the admit rate drops. One would have to wonder if adcoms just look for a cutoff and then begin flipping coins (say like 7 being flipped at a time and only those who get heads or tails on all of them will be admitted, it’s ridiculous) among those applicants. Luckily, we aren’t so popular that we’ll be going in the very low admit rate direction anytime soon. Hopefully it’ll remain reasonable. Somewhere above 20% even if there is some unexpected increase in interest I bet. This is reasonable to me. For example, Vandy’s apps. have been increasing and their admit rate plummeting over the years, yet their SAT scores (as in of matriculated students) have not changed as much as one would expect based upon all of this increased interest and so called “selectivity”, which is probably why, despite having admit rates now close to some peers like Duke (I think last year, both were like 18% or something), their rank stays the same. Surprisingly, USNWR rankings have clearly not been impressed with sudden surges in popularity. I mean it isn’t like many of these schools (Vandy) have dramatically changed at the academic/socioenvironment level to warrant it. </p>
<p>And we aren’t Columbia or anything like it, so there is really no need to be concerned about (or defend) Oxford, but I will anyway. Despite their HS stats, they do just fine (and often better) when they get to main campus. I mean, they wanted to be affiliated w/Emory for a reason. It and its Oxford entity provide a solid education. If you put those students in an environment with others who want the same experience, they will work hard and manage to do well. Their HS stats (especially SATs) do not make them less bright or capable than the rest of us. I’d imagine the same happens at Columbia. Again the fact that they wanted a different/more rigorous educational experience than what they would normally get with their scores speaks loads to me. Most would probably be self-defeating and say: “I probably can’t even handle something the level of Emory anyway, so I’ll just go to Georgia Southern or maybe even UGA.” These students saw an opportunity and took it. Makes sense to me. More power to them. I refuse to look down upon a university (and students affiliated with it) who does this as long as they are honest. I mean at least Emory recognizes and makes it clear that Oxford is completely separate and has a separate admissions process (also Oxford is essentially like Emory College in terms of curriculum and rigor so I don’t think it can be compared to a school of “general studies”). In general, I think we become obsessed with the actual admissions process and pre-college qualifications and stats to the point that we really think it is the only thing that dictates how and what they’ll do when they are in college. I think you’d be pleasantly surprised by many/most of those Oxford students with stats. lower than main campus and perhaps annoyed by many w/great stats. on main campus. Don’t worry too much about these little details about admission (the Columbia case w/general studies still results in sub-10% admit, right. Still sad/ridiculous), just know that more people will get an opportunity to be well educated at a top school. No real harm done. Obviously, the other “more qualified students” were not interested in general studies, so Columbia made allowances for those who were. Oxford is moreso Emory’s attempt to preserve a strong liberal arts based curriculum/approach to teaching. And of course it isn’t as popular (and thus not as “selective” in terms being discussed here) as main campus if only because of its location. It still has solid students and solid teaching/rigor. The student body is equal to that of UGA’s except they were willing to work harder and wanted a more academic oriented experience. That’s all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>nope, if the 25% Columbia General Studies student stats are added to the Columbia College and Fu Engineerig undergraduate stats, the admit rates for Columbia undergraduate would be way over 10%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>menlo, good point</p>
<p>If the actual number of students is not increasing but the number of applications per student is rising quickly, won’t we see a decrease in yield at these schools? If a kid applies to 20 schools, they can only go to one–so 19 are going to have a kid who does not attend. When most kids only applied to 4-6 schools, the yields must have been higher.</p>
<p>Does anyone have data on how the yield has changed?</p>
<p>Also, with Harvard and some others adding back the EA option next year, is that expected to impact the number of applications to schools where these kids would also be applying? (or is it such a small number that it is nearly irrelevant?)</p>
<p>Perhaps you can explain the 1485 students that Brown expects for the class of 2015 out of the 2692 that were offered admittance. Where do the students who were wait listed come into play ? Thanx.</p>
<p>I think it would be interesting to learn:
What is the trend in hard stats as the # apps keeps rising, i.e. is the bar going up too?
Are the # acceptances going up as much as # apps? to a fairly focused group of applicants? if so, the wait lists will have to be used, and may have to get larger over the years, which would make it much harder for the AdComms to sculpt classes. Or are the acceptances getting spread out among a larger group of applicants?
Anyway, it is just getting tougher for everyone all around.
Should we start a pool to bet on acceptance rates and application increases in 2012= lol!
Best of luck everyone</p>
<p>as the mother of junior, these stats surely depressed me. I thought the peak of the baby boom was the class of 2009. This should be getting a bit easier not harder. Who can afford 20 applications anyway? At $50+ a pop, that is a lot of money!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that would be a 1485/2692 = 55% yield</p>
<p>last year Brown had a 53% yield</p>
<p>if only a 53% yield occurs for Brown for the class of 2015, then Brown would find itself 58 students short of what you claim it expects to add for he Class of 2015, which would come from the waitlist</p>
<p>my guess is that much of the lower rate of acceptances is caused by an increased number of applications per student. If this is the case, then you will see yields starting to drop for the colleges, with more kids being admitted from the waitlist than previous years.</p>
<p>A case in point might be the substantial increase that Columbia had this year in applications, leading to their lowest ever acceptance rate for the combined Columbia College and Fu Engineering schools. The increase was caused by Columbia adopting the Common Application format this year. It is my belief that much of the increase was caused by HYPSM students that would not have applied to Columbia otherwise and want an added blanket of security. </p>
<p>This will immediately cause a significant drop in yield for Columbia and force it to add over 300 kids from the waitlist, increasing the final acceptance rate. The only problem is that Columbia, in it non-transparent ways, will never adjust the final acceptance rate for the increased wailist enrollees.</p>
<p>[note: Amazingly, as of today, Columbia is still claiming a 9.16% acceptance rate, disregarding the 75 kids that it added to the Class of 2014 from the waitlist, which would increase the acceptance rate to 9.44%.]</p>
<p>japanoko,
OOC what impacts, if any, do you see coming next year with Harvard and Princeton (and UVA) bringing back EA? Could it change the # of applications at at the tippy tops?</p>
<p>performermom, as been written already, the Princeton and Harvard SCEA for the Class of 2016 will bring some sense and peace back to the wild and crazy college admissions process for the HYPSM schools, which in turn, will allow to calm down the next tier of schools, and so on and so on. We are, of course, talking about only about 1,000 to 1,200 students here.</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - What college is right for me (College girl answers)](<a href=“What college is right for me (College girl answers) - YouTube”>What college is right for me (College girl answers) - YouTube)</p>
<p>^^^interesting…I think she means well</p>
<p>lets see how it turns out and how she answers the questions about college posted on the youtube site…</p>
<p>This makes me so nervous-acceptance stats. I gotta apply next year.</p>
<p>Xiggi can you put up the acceptance rates for RPI, Northeastern, and American please?</p>
<p>Is Xiggi or anyone else compiling these numbers somewhere or is it freestyle where we will need to just look through all the pages?</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Again, the thread was meant to be a platform for members to share news as it became avaiable. For that reason, it started with the press releases from the big name schools. </p>
<p>There are two sources worth consulting for a tabular format. The first one is a listing of the admit rates. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1115323-initial-acceptance-rates-class-2015-a.html#post12339174[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1115323-initial-acceptance-rates-class-2015-a.html#post12339174</a></p>
<p>Most of the numbers are borrowed (just as a few in this thread) from Jacques Steinberg’s blog at the NYTimes. The link is easy to find (posted above) or simply google TheChoice NY Times. Except for a few minute errors, they do a great job in getting the colleges to cooperate. Ultimately, the informational gatekeepers )no pun intended) are the colleges. Some do believe in disclosing information, some do not care at all. And, some to believe in disclosing misinformation.</p>
<p>While a lot needs to be done, we are MUCH more informed than we were 7-8 years ago.</p>
<p>I’ve thought yield was a useful datapoint, but have been told numerous times that it really isn’t much of a variable other than perhaps as a measure of popularity. Hence, even the big bad USNews doesn’t pay it no nevermind, as they say in the south…</p>