Admit Rates -- Class of 2016 (official)

College Search & Selection
1

<p>5.9----Harvard
6.8----Yale
7.4----Columbia
7.86---Princeton
8.9----MIT
9.4----Dartmouth
9.6----Brown
11.9---Duke
12.3---UPenn
12.4---Claremont McKenna
12.8---Pomona
15.3---Northwestern
15.7---Pitzer
16.2---Cornell
16.7---Williams
17.4---Olin
17.7---Johns Hopkins
18-----USC
18-----Washington and Lee
19.6---UC Berkeley
19.7---Wesleyan
21.0---Barnard
21.2---Tufts
25.7---University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
27.1---Hamilton
27.4---University of Virginia
29.0---Babson
30-----University of Richmond
32.7---George Washington
34-----University of Rochester
34.7---Macalester
35-----NYU
39-----Occidental
41-----University of Florida
51-----Elon</p>

<p>Add once new colleges are release info. Only go off of reliable information (news sites, the college itself).</p>

2

<p>5.9----Harvard
6.6----Stanford
6.8----Yale
7.4----Columbia
7.86—Princeton
8.9----MIT
9.4----Dartmouth
9.6----Brown
11.9—Duke
12.3—UPenn
12.4—Claremont McKenna
12.8—Pomona
15.3—Northwestern
15.7—Pitzer
16.2—Cornell
16.7—Williams
17.4—Olin
17.7—Johns Hopkins
18-----USC
18-----Washington and Lee
19.6—UC Berkeley
19.7—Wesleyan
21.0—Barnard
21.2—Tufts
25.7—University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
27.1—Hamilton
27.4—University of Virginia
29.0—Babson
30-----University of Richmond
32.7—George Washington
34-----University of Rochester
34.7—Macalester
35-----NYU
39-----Occidental
41-----University of Florida
51-----Elon</p>

3

<p>OP – is there any way to pull out the Wharton data from Penn? I’m guessing it’s under 9%.</p>

<p>P.S. Why do people write UPenn in this context… what’s wrong with Penn? In conversation I normally hear Penn an not UPenn.</p>

4

<p>5.9----Harvard
6.6----Stanford
6.8----Yale
7.4----Columbia
7.86—Princeton
8.9----MIT
9.4----Dartmouth
9.6----Brown
11.9—Duke
12.0—Vanderbilt
12.3—UPenn
12.4—Claremont McKenna
12.8—Pomona
15.3—Northwestern
15.7—Pitzer
16.2—Cornell
16.7—Williams
17.4—Olin
17.7—Johns Hopkins
18-----USC
18-----Washington and Lee
19.6—UC Berkeley
19.7—Wesleyan
21.0—Barnard
21.2—Tufts
25.7—University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
27.1—Hamilton
27.4—University of Virginia
29.0—Babson
30-----University of Richmond
32.7—George Washington
34-----University of Rochester
34.7—Macalester
35-----NYU
39-----Occidental
41-----University of Florida
51-----Elon</p>

5

<p>Official? Hardly! </p>

<p>Those numbers are preliminary, and in some cases incomplete and thus misleading. As an example, it is extremely doubtful Cal will drop from 25.5 percent to below 20 percent, even after receiving 8700 more applications than last year. The reported number probably obfuscates the Spring admits. The correct number will be released in April.</p>

6

<p>more importantly, waitlists will definitely make a difference. Some of these schools are anticipating a higher yield and will be dissapointed.</p>

7

<p>Added: Bates and Colby</p>

<p>5.9%–Harvard
6.6----Stanford
6.8----Yale
7.4----Columbia
7.86—Princeton
8.9----MIT
9.4----Dartmouth
9.6----Brown
11.9—Duke
12.0—Vanderbilt
12.3—UPenn
12.4—Claremont McKenna
12.8—Pomona
13.8—Bowdoin
15.3—Northwestern
15.4—WUSTL
15.7—Pitzer
16.2—Cornell
16.7—Williams
17.4—Olin
17.7—Johns Hopkins
18-----USC
18-----Washington and Lee
19.6—UC Berkeley
19.7—Wesleyan
21.0—Barnard
21.2—Tufts
25-----Bates
25.7—University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
27.1—Hamilton
27.4—University of Virginia
29.0—Babson
29-----Colby
30-----University of Richmond
32.7—George Washington
34-----University of Rochester
34.7—Macalester
35-----NYU
39-----Occidental
41-----University of Florida
45.5—Boston University
51-----Elon</p>

8

<p>Added: Georgetown</p>

<p>5.9%–Harvard
6.6----Stanford
6.8----Yale
7.4----Columbia
7.86—Princeton
7.86—Georgetown
8.9----MIT
9.4----Dartmouth
9.6----Brown
11.9—Duke
12.0—Vanderbilt
12.3—UPenn
12.4—Claremont McKenna
12.8—Pomona
13.8—Bowdoin
15.3—Northwestern
15.4—WUSTL
15.7—Pitzer
16.2—Cornell
16.7—Williams
17.4—Olin
17.7—Johns Hopkins
18-----USC
18-----Washington and Lee
19.6—UC Berkeley
19.7—Wesleyan
21.0—Barnard
21.2—Tufts
25-----Bates
25.7—University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
27.1—Hamilton
27.4—University of Virginia
29.0—Babson
29-----Colby
30-----University of Richmond
32.7—George Washington
34-----University of Rochester
34.7—Macalester
35-----NYU
39-----Occidental
41-----University of Florida
45.5—Boston University
51-----Elon</p>

9

<p>Piglet, did you happen to forget a digit or two? I can assure that there is no way in the world for Georgetown to have a single digit acceptance rate. It is one of the rare schools that has a higher admit rate for RD than for EA. The school admitted a bit more than 1000 students in EA. They might have been more cautious this year, but NOT THAT cautious!</p>

<p>Run your numbers again. A fluke happens only that often in Georgelandia.</p>

10

<p>Georgetown’s acceptance rate was around 18% last year, if memory serves correctly. I really doubt it dropped a digit.</p>

11

<p>Correcting Bowdoin number-previous listed percentage was for RD only. Updated is for overall rate.</p>

<p>5.9%–Harvard
6.6----Stanford
6.8----Yale
7.4----Columbia
7.86—Princeton
7.86—Georgetown
8.9----MIT
9.4----Dartmouth
9.6----Brown
11.9—Duke
12.0—Vanderbilt
12.3—UPenn
12.4—Claremont McKenna
12.8—Pomona
15.3—Northwestern
15.4—WUSTL
15.7—Pitzer
16.1—Bowdoin
16.2—Cornell
16.7—Williams
17.4—Olin
17.7—Johns Hopkins
18-----USC
18-----Washington and Lee
19.6—UC Berkeley
19.7—Wesleyan
21.0—Barnard
21.2—Tufts
25-----Bates
25.7—University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
27.1—Hamilton
27.4—University of Virginia
29.0—Babson
29-----Colby
30-----University of Richmond
32.7—George Washington
34-----University of Rochester
34.7—Macalester
35-----NYU
39-----Occidental
41-----University of Florida
45.5—Boston University
51-----Elon</p>

<p>source:
[13.8%</a> of regular decision applicants admitted to Class of 2016 - The Bowdoin Orient](<a href=“http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2012-03-30&section=1&id=1]13.8%”>http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2012-03-30&section=1&id=1)</p>

12

<p>In my acceptance letter, it said somewhere around 20,100 applied and I think ~1,500 were accepted. So just about 8%.</p>

<p>edited: Looking at the post above me, I realize that might have just been for regular decision? Sorry!</p>

13

<p>99% sure that’d be the class size…</p>

14

<p>Someone should resuscitate this thread in, say, October of this year, after all of the final admit rates have been released (including all waitlist activity), and compare the final rates to these initial rates. Might see some interesting results. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Also, are we sure that all of these are overall rates and not regular decision rates? A few of them look kind of low vis-a-vis last year’s rate.</p>

<p>The Choice blog on the NY Times web site should have a comprehensive–and accurate–list of admit rates sometime this coming week:</p>

<p><a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/[/url]”>http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

15

<p>The Choice is neither more comprehensive nor more accurate than other sources. They rely on communications from the admissions’ offices, and do not seem to bother to verifyi the validity of the information before posting it on their blog. After all, it is a BLOG.</p>

16

<p>@superpiglet that’s their class size, which is the #accepted x %yield, which is why it’s much lower than the #accepted.</p>

17

<p>got it, sorry about the confusion!</p>

18

<p>

It’s a blog written by education reporters from The New York Times, and it’s SIGNIFICANTLY more reliable than numbers randomly offered by anonymous posters on an internet bulletin board, especially when no supporting source is linked by those posters.</p>

<p>And FYI, although I assume you already know this, there is NO place–nada, zilch, null set–that one can obtain admissions data that is ultimately supplied by any source OTHER than admissions offices.</p>

<p>So what’s your point?</p>

19

<p>^ to be fair, though its speculation on admissions is often wrong, CC is obsessed with hard data, and as a result the (existing) data is overwhelmingly accurate, because it’s curated by a community of neurotic people who love to point out when something is provably incorrect. Case in point, superpiglet’s error was caught in the post after it. ;)</p>

20

<p>My point, 45percenter, is that your statement about the bloggers at the Choice is off the mark when it comes to accuracy. Anyone who has more than a halting understanding of this type of data can appreciate when the people who collect the numbers for Jacques post erroneous numbers. Simply stated, the blog is full of hits and misses, and they do not seem to know nor care if the numbers are plausible. </p>

<p>Since you suggested to engage in the futile exercise to compare the numbers discussed above to the post-WL data, perhaps you could check the numbers at the Choice to the historical information. </p>

<p>And, fwiw, when it comes to education and accuracy in reporting, the Times is … Well, the Times. The good, the bad, and the ugly.</p>