<p>Papa: I actually was not thinking of UChicago, but rather Vanderbilt, but we'll never know.....Maybe Midmo can chime in with his/her opinion........</p>
<p>So now we're going to obsess over how applications are counted? :)</p>
<p>Stanford's comments seem more oriented toward explaining why they lag behind peers, as if this matters or means something. I guess they think it does.</p>
<p>OK, I admit it. I like to look at the numbers, and like to think about what they mean. But it is also reasonable to ask ourselves if they mean much of anything, especially given the changes in the whole environment.</p>
<p>Curious times we have. Access to more data than folks a generation ago could have imagined, from our home desktops no less. But do we make better decisions with this data?</p>
<p>last year Vanderbilt allowed both school-specific app & Common App w/ supplement....not sure if they went 100% Common this year. The big question is what they are counting as a completed app for their count, which only an insider would know I think.</p>
<p>newsmassdad-- agree that in the grand scheme, these perturbations probably mean nothing especially for helping our kids make good choices, but its entertaining to ponder!</p>
<p>I know my children received several rejection letters from schools where they began, but never completed, the application process (and never paid the fee). I always assumed that this was a good indication the college was including them in its applications numbers.</p>
<p>Given that a college has no incentive whatsoever to make fussy judgments about which applications are complete enough to count, and that any piece of paper that comes in with a name and social security number is going to go into an existing file or cause a new one to be opened, it stands to reason that everyone's numbers are inflated a bit. What's interesting about this article is that it tells you that moving to a Common App regime potentially cuts down the number of ghost applications. Chicago's switch next year will provide another data point.</p>
<p>But, yes, I agree, it's meaningless if Stanford maybe puffed its applications numbers 8% in the past. Maybe that might affect one place on the USNWR ranking, maybe not, but that's meaningless, too. No one's behavior is going to change because Stanford really accepted 13% of its applicants in 200X, not 12%.</p>
<p>rodney,</p>
<p>I'm a her, and I don't have any idea how Vanderbilt's applications are counted. Wish I did. </p>
<p>The largest percentage increase, however, were the ED applications (up 41 %). It seems like only those who were serious would begin the ED application process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford's comments seem more oriented toward explaining why they lag behind peers, as if this matters or means something. I guess they think it does.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While the yearly trends are not that important over an extended period, I believe that the explanations provided by the schools are important when sweeping changes are introduced. The elimination of the early applications and annoucement of changes in financial aid made the Class of 2012 different from prior years. From the vantage point of an outsider, it is impossible to ascertain why changes occur without falling into the idlest of speculation. </p>
<p>Examples? Do we really know if the explosion of applications at Cornell was due to its adoption of the Common Application? Fwiw, it would be nice to understand how more than 1,000 students "forgot" to designate a specific college on their College Application! Do we really know how the recalculation of the data by Chicago propelled them (back) into the top ten at USNews resulting in one of the largest jumps in a ranking that moves at a glacial pace. </p>
<p>Scientist have spent time analyzing how students react to financial aid packages at different schools or to changes in the USNews rankings. Without the schools disclosing a "bit" of their internal policies or "counting" policies, this would be very difficult. Speaking about speculations, I offered the suggestion that the explosion at Yale, Chicago, and Notre Dame in the early rounds was more remarkable than at Stanford because the first schools included a massive number of applications from programs like Questbridge in their early numbers. Some reports now indicate that Yale counted the +/- 1000 QB applications as RD and not SCEA. </p>
<p>How much does that influence applicants in the grand scheme of things? Not much but it's still fascinating how schools approach the issues of transparency and disclosure so differently.</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>Surely you are kidding in implying that these schools have any transparency at all? :)</p>
<p>Rather, I find it fascinating how these schools will spin everything. When one looks at the difference between what they say they do in admissions (Legacies? "just a thumb on the scale", but a 40 lb. thumb...) and what they actually do, then add in the games they play with numbers (SAT averages? "we don't count certain groups of students in our averages") and finish with their "explanations" of data that might look negative, then I get a different picture. These admissions folks make politicians in Washington look like amateurs. Take our presidential candidates. Which one wouldn't love to be in the position of an adcom, so the candidate could make an outlandish statement and have voters actually believe the candidate?</p>
<p>newmassdad,
I join you in your cynicism about the schools' spinning the admission data. I read one welcome exception to this in the U Virginia data. They actually differentiate between applications and completed applications and provide the numbers in their discussion of applications in 2007. What's more, I think that they count their number of applications as only the completed ones and not the puffed-up started applications. Nice to see one college that has some integrity and some transparency in this stuff.</p>
<p>NMD, the battle against the lack of transparency, poor disclosures, and outright manipulation will be a long one. Every once in a while I'll post my opinion about the schools that hide the basic information such as the CDS (still too many to list), about the expert manipulators like Middlebury, or about the information-cum-attitude like Tufts, or about the schools that support "for-hire" loudmouth groups such as the Education Conservancy. Unfortunately, posting such opinions tends to ruffle feathers, especially when the school has a fair contingent of supporters: "What! Are you saying MY school does not disclose the information? You must be kidding!" For instance, were I to advance that Chicago is neither very forthcoming nor timely in this regard, I am pretty certain to raise your eyebrows. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the games and manipulations will reach diminishing returns, as more and more schools discover the value of full disclosure. And, I do believe that there are many more schools that are really trying, and may not get credit for the changes they introduce. I know that finding admission data for the Class of 2010 and 2011 is a lot easier than for the Class of 2008. </p>
<p>I also believe that the administrators do have their heart in the right place, and may not quite understand why "outsiders" have an interest in this boring "stuff."</p>
<p>Speaking about diminishing returns, one might consider what the ratio of applications to admissions mean in a system that encourages multiple applications. </p>
<p>Borrowing data quoted above and elsewhere on CC, here are a few numbers from California:</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA received the most applications with 70,328, followed by UC Berkeley (60,709), UC San Diego (57,116), UC Santa Barbara (55,871) and UC Irvine (51,935). </p>
<p>The system's newest campus, UC Merced, had 10,180 applicants, 16 percent more than when it was enrolling its first class for the 2005-06 school year. UC Davis, with 48,653 applicants, had the next-biggest surge with 6,342, or 15 percent more than a year earlier. </p>
<p>For the UC system as a whole, the pool includes nearly 26,000 transfer students and 95,000 students seeking admission as freshmen, an increase of 9 percent over last year. The university accepted 85,509 of the 96,569 students who eventually sought spots either as freshmen or as transfers for 2007-08, 49,963 of whom ended up enrolling.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now, what would a table showing similar patterns of multiple applications look at the ten schools comprising Ivy League plus MIT and Stanford?</p>
<p>All first-time freshmen</p>
<p>Universitywide (all campuses combined, unduplicated counts)
UC Applied Admit Enroll
Total 83,199 68,249* 35,328
*Admit Rate = 82%</p>
<p>Universitywide (all campuses combined, duplicated counts)
UC Applied Admit Enroll
Total 308,172 162,809 35,328</p>
<p>Details
UC Applied Admit Enroll<br>
Berke 41,796 9,941 4,157
Davis 32,643 22,143 5,511
Irvine 38,429 23,193 4,835
UCLA 47,317 12,188 4,809
Merc 14,098 12,314 398
River 25,899 22,373 3,591
UCSD 43,591 19,863 4,589
UCSB 39,857 21,282 4,100
UCSC 24,542 19,512 3,338
Total 308,172 162,809 35,328</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>I think schools do what they do because it works. After all, these schools tell half-truths or worse with an abandon that would make a presidential candidate blush. So don't expect to see greater transparency. Expect it to get worse. After all, Chicago hides its data, recalculates how it does its numbers and look where it got them - a rise in rankings and record applications. Record at least if we count all the fragments, pieces and other stuff that floats in the door. And I'm sure Chicago was late in reporting numbers probably because they had a staff meeting where the admissions director said "are you sure there aren't more? Let's check those bags again..."</p>
<p>Oh, NMD, I have to agree with you! :)</p>
<ul>
<li>6%</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=8643%5B/url%5D">http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=8643</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
William and Marys undergraduate admission applications have topped 11,500 -- which represents a 6.2 percent increase from last year, including a rise of nearly 15 percent in applications among in-state students.</p>
<p>The total application numbers represent another record year for the College its third in a row in terms of total undergraduate applications. In addition, the increase of more than 6 percent would be the highest percentage increase in undergraduate applications in three years. Last year, the College recorded more than 10,850 applications, which at the time was itself a record.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rice's numbers are out:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rice University’s Vision for the Second Century calls for “growth to achieve our ambitions,” including a 30 percent increase in the number of undergraduate students, and the Office of Enrollment has stepped up to the plate. With 9,734 undergraduate applicants, the 2008–09 applicant pool grew 10.7 percent over last year — making it the largest in Rice history. That pool will produce the 775 new students Rice will welcome next fall.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if the University of Chicago's promotional materials have always been so sophisticated but several of my D1's friends were absolutely smitten by the "unCommon App" theme and applied there early. They did their homework -- saw the 40% admission rate -- and applied early, only to be deferred.</p>
<p>If this was the first year of this particular marketing campaign for University of Chicago, then I'd say they better keep whoever did it for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment. :D</p>
<p>NMD: I totally agree with you, but some on cc that live in the world of Lake Wobegone and believe that colleges really are trying for more transparancy..</p>
<p>Mammall, we received similar materials 4 years ago. It was part of the reason my D ended up going there. We visited the campus at the beginning of september. I'll never forget how excited she got at the admissions session when they discussed the uncommon app and some of the other quirks the place is known for. (guess I have a quirky kid!)</p>
<p>Seriously, I think they do a good job communicating what makes the place different and that it is not a place for every kid. In business terms, they've defined a market segment and positioned themselves well in it. </p>
<p>Regarding spin, my favorite example is playing out right now. Notice how Princeton, Harvard and others have announced their generous financial aid initiatives for "poor" families - those making less than 60K per year, who make up less than 15% of attendees? How does this square with the fact (and for once it is a fact!) that the median family income in the US is (in 1996) $48,000? In other words, by Harvard's definition, a family with an income above the median for the US would still be considered "poor" by Harvard!<br>
Talk about spin. (note that the relevant measure is median. Average household income is over $20,000 higher, due the influence of the fabulously wealthy tail of the distribution on the average.)</p>
<p>Take a look at the details if you want. They're interesting. <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf</a></p>
<p>I am curious to know how many of those $48,000 families have college-aged children. Perhaps that number is skewed by younger households (?)</p>