BIG Applicant Pool :(:(:(!!!!!!!!!

Applying to College
1

It seems from EVERY college I applied to other than regular colleges like Michigan State University, they talk about how this year they had the “biggest applicant pool in history”… it’s true for nearly all the top colleges like harvard, princeton, duke, wellesley, washu, stanford…

i thought washu was a backup cuz it was like not as hard to get into as stanford and such but i was shocked when i divided with my calculator that its admission rate was 6-7%~~!!! thats lower than princeton! princeton was like 7-9 idun remember what, but it traditionally is 10-11. from all my letters I think washu so far has the biggest applicant pool / amount of new undergrad. i mean, UMich has lots of applicants, but we gotta keep in mind that they do accept like a lot too, and UMich acceptance rate was surprisingly pretty high at like 40%.

Even NYU! on the 2004 posting it should accept like i think 25-35% of applicants, but this year it accepted 13%. that is an INCREDIBLY low percent for NYU, its like… MIT in 2004! idealisticly, NYU should be nowhere near MIT when it comes to acceptance rates.

it seems like there is a trend for people to want to go to better colleges now days. i think it was so easy for those lucky 2000, 1999 or so HS graudates it seems like they were easily accepted into college.

Even SAT scores; in 1995 you can get like 1 or 2 wrong on the math and still get a perfect score but now days you cannot get ANY wrong. you used to be able to get like 5 wrong on verbal and still get a perfect score but now days its decreasing. the questions arent getting any easier…

i think the 2 - 3 tier colleges are getting lower application numbers but im not sure. i guess we woke up and realized we all need an education eh?

i wonder where this “HUGE HISTORYMAKING APPLICANT POOL” for this year came from.

any takes?

2

<p>actually washu has an acceptance rate of 21%ish roughly. what they emailed u was their estimate at how many will be enrolling, not how many they accepted</p>

<p>but yes, we are the start of the baby boomers so....:-/ i guess it sucks for us? :(</p>

<p>ur info for NYU is incorrect as well</p>

3

<p>but "enrolling" and "accepting" are pretty close aren't they? that's why they make a waitlist so that people who dont end up going makes room for the waitlisted</p>

4

<p>Enrolling = how many of the accepted will actually attend the school
Accepted = admitted students to the university (not all will attend)</p>

5

<p>NYU 2005:</p>

<p>(15,584 = undergraduate body / 4) = freshmen enrollment = 3896
33,889 applications</p>

<p>3896/33889 x 100 = 11.5</p>

<p>so i actually said MORE when i said 13%</p>

6

<p>washu entering freshmen: 1,300 usually and this year i think around 18,000+ applicants</p>

<p>1300/18000 X 100 = 7.2 </p>

<p>so i was off by a little bit.</p>

7

<p>Enrolling = enrolled come september
Accepted = accepted by RD or EA or ED or w/e
Waitlisted = those that couldn't be accepted because there was no room left so that if those that were accepted do not mail their deposite by May 1-2 then the waitlisted people move up and become an acceptee. if they accept WAY more, than they can enroll, why bother making a waitlist? why not just reject them outright since those people will have no chance watsoever anyhow?</p>

8

<p>no, washu: accepted: roughly 4100ish, enrolled: 1300
i dont remember the exact number accepted to nyu, but its around 9500 ish</p>

<p>that is what waitlist means, all schools "predict" yield and compensate for their yield. that is why waitlist is rarely used at many schools.</p>

9

<p>Do not make the mistake of calculating acceptance rates by using enrollment. Most top top schools (like Princeton or Cornell) only have 50% yield rates which means they have to accept double their enrollment number. The yield for other schools would be even lower.</p>

<p>BTW: I don't know what you're talking about with the SAT's. I took it 3 years ago. Missed 2 and omitted one on both the math and verbal sections and received respective scores of 760 and 790. So I'm not sure what you are talking about where you can miss 5 and still get a perfect score. The SAT used to be harder which is why they had to recenter the score. A 1200 SAT from pre-1995 is better than a 1200 today.</p>

10

<p>actually pton has a yield of 70% they usually accept 1700 for a class of 1250</p>

<p>but in the case of washu which they have a yield of 26%, the compensate for this....accepting over 4000 for a class of 1300. in the end, waitlist is used in some case if the yield happens to drop unde 1300</p>

11

<p>Princeton projects a 51% yield rate this year due to the huge increase in apps.</p>

12

<p>they offered admission to 1800 students this year for a predicted class of 1220, thats a 68% yield</p>

<p>even harvard with the highest yield is at about 76%</p>

13

<p>the 10 real SAT has those tests from previous years and when you score yourself, the 1995 and previous tests have more and more chances of getting them wrong. 3 years ago = 2002 10 years ago= 1995</p>

14

<p>on my sat verbal i got 2-3 wrong, omitted 1, still got 800.</p>

<p>on the math the curve allowed you to get 1 (or 2, don't remember) wrong and still get 800 (not that i did, though)</p>

<p>the sat curve has been the same for 10 years and the acceptance rates for every top school has been the same for the past 30.</p>

<p>EVERY school had a 10:1 applicant to slot ratio including fairly crummy ones like suny-geneseo.</p>

<p>accceptance rate for NYU this year was 28% btw.</p>

15

<p>Big applicant pools can come from increased population of college-aspiring students, or from students applying to a higher number of schools or both. </p>

<p>It's not always an indicator of interest or school quality, either. Some schools get a lot of applications because it's a "hot" school that year, or because they've got a big alumni base who want their kids to apply, or because being accepted there is such a feather in one's cap that people are willing to invest $50 and some time on the attempt. Some of those people may have little intention of enrolling. And then there are schools which tend to fit more a niche, and attract a more self-selecting applicant pool. Still great schools, which are demanding and hard to get into, but fewer people take the chance or send an application on a whim. </p>

<p>You mentioned Michigan--UMich doesn't have a historically huge applicant pool this year. This year they have an applicant pool that is way up, because last year, with the new application, applications were significantly down. (That has been the case with other flagship publics which have altered their application--they go down, and then bounce back). UMich is bouncing back, but this year's applications aren't at a historical record.</p>

<p>You're completely wrong to assume that acceptances = enrollment. Your math is flawed.</p>

<p>Let's look at WashU again. You claim their take rate is around 7%. Wrong. They accepted 20% of their applications. It's still selective, but that's a pretty big difference. Washington University has a yield of about 67%.</p>

<p>Another example? Duke. If you want to calculate things your way, you'd conclude that it's acceptance rate is 10.4%. Wrong. It's 24.5%. Duke has a yield of 42.5%</p>

<p>As for the waitlist, it's used several ways. At some schools, it's a gentle rejection. It can generally mean that you didn't get in, but it's not because you weren't good enough, it's because they didn't have space. But the waitlist is also an important enrollment management tool. Particular in years when applications are up. Often when applications go up, yield goes down, because you've got a higher number of not-that-interested students in your pool of apps and admits. But you can't be sure. If after May 1 you've miscalculated and yield is lower than you thought, you can fill in your class from the waitlist. Some schools go to it often, some hardly ever. I wouldn't generalize.</p>