<p>Still having problems with the math used to calculate admissions? Obviously, applying an adjustment of 16 percent to a 25 percent admit rate cannot yield a number below 20 percent. Simple math dictates that</p>
<p>Last year, Cal admitted 13523 out of 52953 for a 25.53 admit rate. Assuming the 61661 applications and a steady 13523, your admit rate would be just below 22 percent. There is zero evidence that the number of admitted students might decrease. </p>
<p>And please, do not quote the wrong statistics reported to the USNews.</p>
<p>^ ah, that makes sense. To be clear, by waitlist, do you mean the spring admit students or those who appealed the decision and got in? Forgot that Berkeley always reports two different acceptance rates, one for fall admits and one for fall+spring.</p>
<p>edit: the data in the link says it’s preliminary, so the ~270 difference between that and the June data from Berkeley is probably the appeal cases.</p>
<p>The admission office at Claremont Mckenna has reported in the campus newspaper that the admission rate will fall to 11.7% because of an increase in applications and because the school will be accepting less students this year due to a housing shortage.</p>
<p>Keep in mind these are guestimates. We’ll update once the schools release better figures. Yield rates may be up at UChicago, Duke, Stanford. All schools could have variability from last year’s class size.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, some of the Ivies may have higher RD yields this year, because many of the H and P early admits won’t be in the RD applicant pools (unlike the past few years). For example, Penn’s Admissions Dean has stated that he anticipates a higher RD yield this year because of that (and Penn admitted fewer ED applicants this year than it did last year). Penn’s yield rate did drop about 3 points (from 66% to 63%) the first year with no H and P early admissions, and has since remained at that level.</p>
<p>Bottom line: some of these overall admit rates may not go up as much as you’d think, or even at all. But only time will tell.</p>
<p>IMO all this talk of decreased applications because of fewer graduating seniors in the Northeast is BS. The number of graduating seniors in many areas of the country has fluctuated and yet the top universities still had growing applicant pools, which they attributed to many factors like financial aid, outreach, etc. Other Ivies have had decreases because H and P accepted ~1500 students early. H and P likely had lower applicant pools because they both reinstated SCEA at the same time and thus ate into each other’s RD applicant pools. This is good, because it added a little bit more certainty to the admissions process at HYPSM.</p>
<p>This makes me wonder about something - what the “aggregate yield” of HYPSM is. Since these schools usually have the most overlap, and since each loses many admits to the other four (Stanford, for example, says that 75% of non-matriculants end up at one of HYPM, and no other school makes up more than 2% of non-matriculants), it would make sense that they all eat into each other’s yields. So I wonder how many admits to one or more of HYPSM end up at another school altogether.</p>
<p>One college comparison website claimed that when students were admitted to both Harvard and West Point, the students chose Harvard 50% of the time and West Point 50% of the time.</p>
<p>And then, of course, there is the issue of the students who don’t even apply to those schools to begin with because they aren’t interested.</p>
<p>And then there is the issue of foreign students. The U.S. is 4.5% of the world’s population. Biologists would say human intelligence is randomly distributed across the globe. So if the top schools really had the top students, their students would be 4.5% American and 95.5% foreign (instead of 10% foreign.) If that sounds too philosophical, consider that, according to Princeton, more than half of its graduate students currently are from outside the U.S. (Why not its undergrads?)</p>
<p>Of course, there may be all kinds of practical reasons schools don’t do this (financial aid, alumni base, blah, blah) but I imagine one day the major universities will be truly GLOBAL not just American.</p>
<p>Regarding Harvard and West Point, was that official data from the two or just a statistical guess? The overlap between the two applicant pools is probably small, and the admit pool even smaller.</p>
<p>I agree that one day major universities are going to be much more global. I think eventually at least a quarter of each student body will be international students.</p>
Penn’s RD yield was 46% for the Class of 2015 (1,275 RD matriculants out of 2,743 RD acceptances).</p>
<p>And although the 2010-2011 CDS states that 1,319 ED applicants were accepted to the Class of 2014, that’s an error. That number appears to be the total number of ED applicants who were accepted in both the ED and RD rounds, i.e., it includes deferred ED applicants subsequently admitted during RD. In fact, if memory serves, 1,200 ED applicants were accepted to the Class of 2014 during the ED round, and the RD yield was also around 46% (to my knowledge, Penn has never accepted more than 1,200 applicants during the ED round).</p>
<p>Penn’s RD yield has stayed fairly constant since Harvard and Princeton originally dropped their early admissions programs. And as I said, it initally dropped around 3% the first year H and P dropped their programs (from 49% to 46%, for an overall yield rate drop from 66% to 63%). Of course, the ED yield rate of almost 100% has not been affected by H’s and P’s early programs.</p>
<p>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo: 37%
California State University, Dominguez Hills: 53%
California State University, East Bay: 36%
San Jose State University: 75%</p>
<p>The examples show that admit rates do not necessarily match up with level of selectivity. East Bay is one of the least selective CSU campuses, but it had a lower admission rate than San Luis Obispo, which is the most selective CSU campus. San Jose is more selective than Dominguez Hills or East Bay, but has a higher admit rate than either.</p>
<p>On the other hand, admit rates can be reported differently, by dropping “incomplete” applications. This changes the list to:</p>
<p>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo: 38%
California State University, Dominguez Hills: 84%
California State University, East Bay: 85%
San Jose State University: 91%</p>
<p>This version does indicate that San Luis Obispo is more selective, but still leave the relative position of San Jose versus Dominguez Hills and East Bay misleading.</p>