<p>When will these be posted? I haven't seen an official talley yet....</p>
<p>Here you go:
Undergraduate</a> Admission - A Princeton Profile</p>
<p>I love how it's always:</p>
<p>African American : 8 percent
Asian American: 15 percent
Latino/a: 8 percent</p>
<p>Was not lucky enough to get into that 15 percent :3</p>
<p>On April 8, 2007, I posted the following about the impact of single decision:
"I predict a 10% rise in applications to just under 21,000, an increase in acceptance rate from 9.5% to about 10.2%, a decline in yield from a projected 69.5% to about 60%, more likely letters and use of the wait list."</p>
<p>Actual numbers:
Applicants 21,370
Admission rate: 9.9
Enrollment rate: 58.7</p>
<p>If I could come that close, I would assume that the University had a very good idea what would hapen when Princeton went single decision.</p>
<p>It's FAQ time again. Figures that are comparable from one college to another for ENROLLED classes are NOT out yet. </p>
<p>CURRENCY OF COMMON DATA SET INFORMATION </p>
<p>Each school year the colleges officially count their new freshman class AFTER the school year begins. (One college admission officer told me near the beginning of the school year that his college counts on the tenth day of class in the new school year, which I think is industry-standard practice.) Sometime around the turn of the calendar year (that is, in January during the school year) a college's figures for that freshman class begin to be posted on the College Board website. So what you see today (September 2008) on the College Board descriptions of colleges is mostly information about the entering freshman class that entered in fall 2007 (that is, new college students from high school class of 2007), and that is the MOST RECENT information you have to go on as you apply for colleges yourself in fall of 2008, as a member of high school class of 2009. It is always like this--there is always a built-in lag between the year you can look up and the year you are living in as a student.</p>
<p>Are there any statistics for admitted students (class of 2012) who took only the ACT -- not the SAT?</p>
<p>Hey Pdaddy can you provide a link to where you got those statistics?</p>
<p>It's FAQ time again. Figures that are comparable from one college to another for ENROLLED classes are NOT out yet. </p>
<p>CURRENCY OF COMMON DATA SET INFORMATION </p>
<p>Each school year the colleges officially count their new freshman class AFTER the school year begins. (One college admission officer told me near the beginning of the school year that his college counts on the tenth day of class in the new school year, which I think is industry-standard practice.) Sometime around the turn of the calendar year (that is, in January during the school year) a college's figures for that freshman class begin to be posted on the College Board website. So what you see today (September 2008) on the College Board descriptions of colleges is mostly information about the entering freshman class that entered in fall 2007 (that is, new college students from high school class of 2007), and that is the MOST RECENT information you have to go on as you apply for colleges yourself in fall of 2008, as a member of high school class of 2009. It is always like this--there is always a built-in lag between the year you can look up and the year you are living in as a student.</p>
<p>The link had been provided earlier in the thread:</p>
<p>So the yield went from 68% for Class of 2011 to 58% for Class of 2012?!?!?!</p>
<p>When Princeton and Harvard dropped their early admission programs, the lower yield was expected. Most of us had anticipated this though the magnitude was greater than I had guessed. With peer schools maintaining their early programs those schools would stand to gain either by locking in their early pool at 100% matriculation (as in the case of early decision) or having nearly the same effect with early action through the identification of those who have made a particular school their first choice and then accepting them at a much higher rate. </p>
<p>Without the yield-boosting effects of these early programs, both Princeton and Harvard anticipated lower yields and got them. Princetons dropped about 10 percentage points this year (prior to the use of the waitlist) while Harvards dropped about 4 percentage points (again, prior to the use of the waitlist). Harvard had earlier stated that it expected a 6 to 7% point drop but that was before the announcement of a very large increase in financial aid that improved yield significantly.</p>
<p>My bet is that both schools are happy with the results. Though Princetons yield dropped, it got a better class in the way it had hoped. The male to female ratio was a perfect 50%, the percentages of minority students and international students increased, there was a noticeable jump in the percentage of low income students matriculating and SAT averages increased slightly. Overall, the class is more diverse both ethnically and economically, better balanced by gender and smarternot a bad outcome.</p>
<p>Another significant change was that, without early programs, more of Princetons applicants also applied to Harvard (and more of Harvards to Princeton) and there was a huge jump in the overlap between the two schools. Since both schools had previously had early programs, their successful early applicants were unlikely to apply to the other school (in the case of Harvard) and were not able to do so (in the case of Princeton). While the exact numbers havent been released for this overlap between Harvard and Princeton, some reflection of what happened can be seen in the numbers reported by Stanford. </p>
<p>Stanford (like Yale) kept its early program and actually increased its matriculation rate this year. The interesting change, however, occurred in the overlap pools. Princetons overlap with Stanford increased dramatically and Princeton was second only to Harvard in the choice of Stanford admits who chose not to attend. At the same time, Stanfords overlap with Yale and MIT decreased and Stanford did better against them in the battle for common admits. As Stanfords Dean of Admission stated in June of this year:</p>
<p>"Last year Harvard took 27 percent of those that didn't enroll [at Stanford], Yale 19 percent, MIT, 15 percent, and Princeton 7 percent These are consistently our top competitors." </p>
<p>Then Dean Shaw showed a table for this year's group. The percent of non-enrolling students choosing Harvard remained at 27%, rose to 18.2% for Princeton, but dropped to 12.5% for Yale and 11% for MIT. </p>
<p>"This is not official yet, but I think it's important. Remember that Harvard and Princeton eliminated their early [admissions] programs. So we're seeing more overlap [now] with Princeton. Harvard is still first, [now] followed by Princeton [which jumped up two places over Yale and MIT]. Yale, then, is next. I don't know why I take some joy in the fact that now it's 80 (going to Yale) vs. 80 (going to Stanford). That's substantially changed over the last couple of years. We're making real headway in terms of our competition with the best institutions in the world." </p>
<p>(Stanford</a> Faculty Senate minutes - June 12, 2008 meeting = June 2008 Stanford Faculty Report ) </p>
<p>This year, Stanford drew even with Yale in the cross-admit battle. It did not do as well against Princeton or Harvard since the overlap pools of admitted students this year contained so many more for whom Harvard or Princeton were actually their first choice schools. Of the approximately 640 admitted students who decided to turn down Stanford and go elsewhere, Stanfords losses were as follows:</p>
<p>173 = chose Harvard
117 = chose Princeton
80 = chose Yale
70 = chose MIT</p>
<p>If these patterns hold again next year, I believe that both Princeton and Harvard will be happy to remain without early programs. Other schools may consider the change as well. Yales President Levin had at one time urged the elimination of all early programs but then changed his mind last year. I find SCEA to be less problematic than ED but even the former has its drawbacks. </p>
<p>Other schools (including Yale) which are continuing with early programs, are now finding that more than 50% and in some cases nearly 60% of their final classes are coming from the early pool. This year Yale increased the total number of students accepted from its early pool by 25% to 885 students. If the yield on these admits remained about the same as last year, they would constitute nearly 60% of the class and this does not count those who were deferred in the fall and then accepted in the spring.</p>
<p>Each of these schools sees wisdom in its own decisions regarding admission policies. Perhaps what works best for one school is not what works best for another.</p>
<p>So how did Yale's yield turn out for the Class of 2012?</p>
<p>While Stanfords yield increased this year, Yales (like Harvards and Princetons) dropped. Yales drop was about 1.5% so there wasnt a large change. On the other hand, Yale greatly increased both its early admission offers (by about 25%) and its financial aid (by about 50%). Both of these typically help increase matriculation rates. There are 1,320 students in Yales Class of 2012 out of 1,952 offers of admission and thus Yales yield was about 9% higher than Princetons, about 9% lower than Harvards and about 4.5% lower than Stanfords. Were all things equal, these comparisons would have more meaning. Financial aid packages are now similar at these four institutions but the use of early admission programs at Yale and Stanford and their absence at Harvard and Princeton makes the results difficult to compare. </p>
<p>As I noted above, Im betting that the profiles of their new classes were pleasing enough that both Princeton and Harvard will stay with their current systems. I wouldnt be confident in predicting what Stanford and Yale will do though I think there is a chance that Yale will eventually follow Princeton and Harvard and drop its early program. Yales president was at one time opposed to early programs but the school is now using its own even more heavily. One of the downsides of the early programs is that they tend to have fewer low income students and a lower percentage of minority students. The class of 2012 at Yale dropped about 2% in minority representation. It did see an increase in the number of low income students but Yale had to move aggressively in the regular admissions process to achieve this. A large number of offers to students in the QuestBridge program during spring admissions helped. If they can continue to do this, the increasing reliance on their early admission program may work out fine. As I said before, an approach that works for one school may not work for another.</p>
<p>Last year, those four did not know what was going to happen. They could do better this year. Seems to me that Harvard lost a lot to Yale. Yale lost more to Stanford (compared with before), Stanford lost more to Princeton, and Princeton lost more to Harvard. What do you think about this year? With no SECA and record low admission rate at Harvard and Princeton, do you think the total number of applications will drop? I still don't see that it is a good thing to eliminate SCEA.</p>
<p>Do you know when the geographic map will be updated for the class of 2012? (Nobody from my state was in the class of 2011, so I'm curious to see if anyone made it last year)</p>
<p>Ewho, Stanford seems to be quite open about these cross-admit statistics but the other three are less so. Nevertheless, some reasonable guesses can be made.</p>
<p>In total number, Princeton almost certainly lost more to Harvard this year among cross-admits than it has in the past. Because they simultaneously dropped their early programs and now run admission presentations together, the two schools have hugely increased their common applicant pool. Its possible that Harvard may now have a larger cross-admit pool with Princeton than with any other school and Harvard is widely thought to have a significant advantage in these head-to-head competitions. On a percentage basis I doubt much has changed. In other words, I suspect that Harvard and Princeton are splitting their common admits in about the same percentages as they have in the past with Harvard taking the majority. The difference is that there are many more common admits so, in total number, Princeton will have lost more to Harvard.</p>
<p>Harvard has generally been thought to beat Yale by about the same margin it beats Princeton. Exact numbers are unavailable but because Yale used its early admission program so much more heavily while at the same time Harvard dropped SCEA, Yale may have gained a few percentage points on Harvard. This would be expected. Early programs give their users many months head start in courting their accepted students and it definitely has an effect. I doubt, however, that it was a significant change given the fact that Harvards yield only dropped by about the same amount as Yales. Harvard is a tough competitor. Since both Harvard and Yale previously had SCEA, those accepted to one were always free to apply to the other. SCEA still gives advantages in matriculation rates but vis-à-vis Harvard I doubt they made a huge difference. The size of the Harvard/Yale common admit pool may have shrunk slightly because of the very large number of students that Yale accepted EA. Though these students are still free to apply to Harvard, a high percentage will not and will have been removed from the pool. By increasing its use of SCEA, Yale probably gained a little on Harvard but its unlikely to be a huge change.</p>
<p>The only numbers we know with certainty are for Stanford and those show that school having pulled even with Yale in cross-admits. Stanford lost far more to Princeton and stayed about the same vis-à-vis Harvard. Again, if each school got the class it wanted, none of this makes much difference.</p>
<p>As to the total number of applications for this year, Ill bet they increase at all four of these schools. This would be due less to changes in their desirability than to the still increasing number of high school graduates in this demographic bubble.</p>
<p>As for SCEA, keeping it may work out fine for Yale if they can maintain their diversity and the academic caliber of their students. The risk is that increasing reliance on early admission could at some point simply move the effective application deadline to November 1st as the odds of being accepted in the regular admission pool will decline to a point where they will discourage applicants from even applying.</p>
<p>Butternut, I'm sorry to say that I can't answer your question. It will probably be updated soon.</p>
<p>Stanford's yield is 71% this year without drawing anyone from the waitlist, compared with Harvard's 200+ and Princeton's 90+ from the waitlist, which effectively pushed their decision's deadline from April 1 to June 1. Do you think that this year Stanford will follow HYP to draw from the waitlist? which, in turn, makes it harder to get into Stanford, less the concern about a record number of graduates this year.</p>