<p>Admissions' Statistics</p>
<p>Since this subject interests most posters, I'd like to create a "quasi official" list of the historical admissions' numbers for the Ivy League schools. </p>
<p>If you have numbers for 2005 and prior years, please post the information for YOUR school here. Make sure to quote the source of your information. At a later date, I will reduce the information into one comprehensive post. </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>2008 Columbia
Total Number Applications Received 17,258
Total Number Applications Accepted 2,275
Overall Acceptance Rate 13%
Regular Decision Applications Received 15,322
Regular Decision Applicants Accepted 1,654
Regular Decision Acceptance Rate 11.20%
Early Decision/ Action Applications Received 1,939
Early Decision/ Action Applications Accepted 560
Early Decision/ Action Acceptance Rate 28.90%
Percent of Class Filled by Early Applicants 42.50%</p>
<p>2007 Columbia
Total Number Applications Received 16,884
Total Number Applications Accepted 2,293
Overall Acceptance Rate 13%
Regular Decision Acceptance Rate 11.5%
Early Decision/ Action Applications Received 2021
Early Decision/ Action Applications Accepted 572
Early Decision/ Action Acceptance Rate 28%
Percent of Class Filled by Early Applicants 43%</p>
<p>Please note that the numbers for regular decision are estimated. The accuracy of the numbers may vary depending on the final numbers of admissions of the pool of ED deferred.</p>
<p>10.4% admit rate, 61% overall yield, and 46% RD yield projected.</p>
<p>Of course these are the stats for "Columbia College" alone, and do not include numbers for SEAS or for other sub-sets of the undergraduate student body at "Columbia University."</p>
<p>Thank you, Byerly, but I believe the link above is broken, so here is the correct link:</p>
<p>The article itself:</p>
<p>Class of 2009 Acceptance Rates Reach All Time Low</p>
<p>By David Ali
Spectator Staff Writer</p>
<p>April 05, 2005</p>
<p>High school students frantically checking their mailboxes last Thursday to see if they got in would have easily crashed CubmailColumbia College, SEAS, and Barnard College all received record numbers of applicants.</p>
<p>The recently admitted Class of 2009 set records in every department, from the number of applicants to the admittance rate to the applicants SAT scores. Out of 15,790 applicants who applied for regular admission to Columbia College this year, 1638 students were admitted at a rate of 10.4 percent. This makes this years class the most selective in history, said Jessica Marinaccio, director of admissions. The number of applications increased 5 percent from last years total of 15,006.</p>
<p>Applicants to the Fu School of Engineering and Applied Science were also at an all-time high. This year, 2,330 students applied, up 4 percent from last year, when 2,252 students applied. This year, 612 applicants were admitted at a rate of 26.3 percent, which is down nearly two percent from last years rate of 28.4 percent.</p>
<p>The increased applications came as no surprise to Marinaccio. There is a demographic high until 2008, so more students are applying to college, she said. It is a wonderful trend, however, that not only are the number of applications increasing, but also that the academic and extracurricular strength of the applicants is also getting stronger. The best students in the world are now looking at Columbia.</p>
<p>Barnard College also saw a slight increase in applications, up one percent from last year. BC admitted 1,194 or about 26.9 percent out of a total of 4,427 applications for the Class of 2009, according to Jennifer Fondiller, Dean of Admissions.</p>
<p>Its an incredible, bright, and talented class, with the highest median combined SAT score, but as always in selecting our class, we look for those students who value a Barnard education, take advantage of NYC and who are risk takers, Fondiller said.</p>
<p>The increasing selectivity at Columbia and Barnard is reflected in the newly admitted classes SAT scores. The middle 50 percent SAT for CC was 1380-1530, up 10 points from last year. At SEAS, the median score was 1440-1530. Barnards median combined SAT score was 1400, the schools highest ever.</p>
<p>The admitted classes reflect Columbias penchant for geographic diversity. The Columbia Class of 2009 represents students from 48 states and 60 countries. No information was available as of press time on the amount of minority students admitted. The Barnard Class of 2009 represents students from 48 states and 30 countries. About 40 percent of admitted class for Barnard represent students of color.</p>
<p>Across the Ivy League, many universities saw all-time highs in numbers of applicants. Harvards admittance rate hit an all-time low of 9.1 percent, accepting 2,074 out of a record 22,796 applicants. Brown admitted 2,463 applicants or about 14.6 percent of its total applicant pool of 16,908 students. Dartmouth admitted students at a slightly higher than the other schools in the Ivy League, admitting 17 percent, or 2,150 students of its total applicant pool of 12,756 students. Princeton University admitted 1,807 students out of a record 16,516 applicants, or about 10.9 percent acceptance rate, which is 1 percent higher than last years record low for the Class of 2007, according to an article in the Daily Princetonian.</p>
<p>Of the schools that have reported their figures, only Yale saw their application pool decrease 1.2 percent, to 19,448. But Yales acceptance rate remains the second highest in the Ivy League, at 9.7 percent.</p>
<p>The admissions offices at both Cornell and University of Pennsylvania have yet to announce the number of admitted students for the class of 2009.</p>
<p>Acceptances were mailed out last Wednesday and students were able to check their status via e-mails after 6 pm on Thursday, March 31. Admitted students are encouraged to attend Days on Campus throughout the month of April. The deadline for students to decide accept admission to both</p>
<p>The "Columbia College" admit rate is reported at 10.4%</p>
<p>If SEAS is included (and I can't understand why it wouldn't be, as engineering students are included in the total at other Ivies and top elites) then the total number of apps was 18,120, and the total number of admits was 2,250, for an admit rate of 12.4%.</p>
<p>If, moreover, Barnard is included, (and Barnard students are, for all intents and purposes, "Columbia University" undergrads) then the total number of apps was 22,547 and the total number of admits was 3,444, with a projected admit rate of 15.3%.</p>
<p>Byerly its not fair to include Barnard students, they aren't "Columbia" students. They have their own housing, professors, resources, campus, erc. Then you might as well include GS as well. Columbia means Columbia College and SEAS.</p>
<p>Note that Columbia refuses to even include SEAS data when reporting its stats to USNews for ranking purposes.</p>
<p>I believe as of this year's rankings Columbia's profile for US News combines both the College and SEAS. That's why you can see a jump in SAT range from some prior years. If you look on Columbia's Ugrad Admissions website, they provide profiles for each school and then combined. There are some significant differences in each applicant pool. I can see merit in arguments both for and against having both colleges as one profile. </p>
<p>Barnard should not be included in the Columbia profile because it has its own corporation, endowment, Board of Trustees and President. It is not just another Columbia college but more like a contracted partner for shared facilities, athletic teams, etc. It has its own admission office v. College and SEAS which are 'under one roof.' To look at your argument in another way, it would be like asking all the Ivies to include their General Studies numbers in first-year or transfer profiles because they are technically part of the same university structure OR asking the University of California to have one profile for all of its campuses.</p>
<p>Furthermore, by its very nature as a women's college, Barnard couldn't be as selective as Columbia College, even if it were getting equally strong applicants. Half of the population isn't allowed to apply to Barnard, so in order for it to fill its incoming class, it has to accept lower-caliber students than it would be taking if both genders were allowed to apply.</p>
<p>With applications down and Harvard in flames after the Summers resignation, it makes some sense that some from that board would travel to this one in order to attack Columbia, an increasingly attractive competitor. Pay them no mind. Columbia has had at least as much integrity as any Ivy League school in reporting its numbers. (And, as I have pointed out before, Columbia has not, in contrast to some of its peers, yearly changed its admissions and financial aid policies in order to entice applicants.)</p>
<p>I think the "record" acceptance records for Columbia are a bit of a sham. As much as I love Columbia, they are playing the same game that all of the schools in the "second" tier are playing. The numbers for Harvard and Yale are legit in that they don't use early decision only early action, so their yields and acceptance rates are true rates. But accepting so many students as early decision, the second tier schools fudge their numbers (all of the early decisions are essentially 100% yield) and now make the few remaining spots ultra competitive. So, their numbers will look better for USNWR.</p>
<p>Interesting theory, oldman... but you're wrong.</p>
<p>Brown actually selected only a .5% higher percentage of ED applicants than RD applicants and ED applicants are usually slightly more qualified.</p>
<p>So, I don't know about Columbia, but that's a rude and incorrect generalization.</p>
<p>The best way to measure "selectivity" is via the RD yield rate - filtering out the game-playing with both ED and SCEA.</p>
<p>No, Byerly, that's actually where oldman has a legitimate point. If a school fills up ED, then the RD looks super-competitive, even when it isn't. </p>
<p>Example: </p>
<p>A school has 1000 spots. Let's say 1000 apply ED and 800 are accepted. Let's say another 9000 apply RD and 400 are accepted (they have to over-accept for the remaining 200 because RD is not binding). That means 1200 acceptances with 10,000 applicants. </p>
<p>Now, instead, let's say that they admitted only 100 applicants under ED and admitted 1,800 RD (same 50% projected yield rate). That means 1,900 acceptances with the same 10,000 applicants.</p>
<p>In the first situation, you get a yield rate of 12%, in the second 19%. So, the EDs make a huge difference in the process.</p>
<p>Rude and incorrect? I guess your answer would be rude and incorrect.</p>
<p>And i agree with Byerly. The yield is the essential issue.</p>
<p>Take Columbia. Here are the numbers. 17,148 applicants. Their acceptance for Reg Decision is 7.9%. Much, much lower than Brown. Pretty impressive, but is it really that much more of a competitive school? </p>
<p>The accept rate for ED was 25% and they accepted 59% of their class early decision. (582/2275). So that left 418 slots for the 14,893 students who applied regular decision (not including students who were deferred, numbers not clear but less than 1500). So Columbia accepts 1073 students for the 418 slots (yield of about 39% by the way) and now claims a very low acceptance rate. And if they go to their wait list, these numbers will be artificially high as well. But the reason is the ratio of ED applications to RD applications and the high number of early admits. If the ED was close to the RD, or if the number of ED applications was similar to the RD applications, you would be right, but they aren't. So the numbers, basically mixing apples and oranges, result in numbers that don't mean anything. Just something to brag about. I think all of the second tier schools are playing this game. </p>
<p>I'm a Columbia alum and give money and active with the alumni community so I have no ax to grind. Just trying to point out the facts for the math challenged here.</p>
<p>Sorry, I apologize.</p>
<p>I didn't mean it was incorrect/rude to say about Columbia, in fact after your stats I agree. I was concerned that you claimed ALL "second-tier" schools artificially inflate their grades. My point was, Brown and some others don't, so it's unfair to accuse all of them.</p>
<p>i apologize as well. I don't consider Brown second tier either. This obsession with rankings leads to strategies that make the rankings a travesty at the end.</p>
<p>metrics are powerful incentives and bad metrics destroy systems. alternative metrics?</p>
<p>well i'd rather see a VERY detailed assessment, by a nontrivial percentage of the student body, of their satisfaction with various aspects of a school. Everything from quality-of-life and living to academics to administration to opportunities after graduation (both grad/professional school and business opportunities). % working in nonprofits. average salary of graduates in industry after 5 years. ease of access to nightlife.</p>
<p>I realize the princeton review does a reasonable stab at this, but in many cases is comparing apples to oranges (like being displeased with Columbia dorms when it's not being compared with the costs and value at similar NYC schools and instead is measured against rural/suburban places).</p>
<p>I think any rankings tend to suffer in that regard, i.e. assuming that the only numbers that are available are the only measures that have meaning. I'd encourage USNWR to get more creative.</p>
<p>-Steve</p>