<p>Stanford is the biggest riser and second-biggest overall.</p>
<p>Harvard is the only one that didn't grow.</p>
<p>Classes of 2002-2010:</p>
<p>Harvard: 35% (16,818 tp 22,719
Stanford: (18,888 to 22,223) 17.7%</p>
<p>"There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians."</p>
<p>"Numbers don't lie"</p>
<p>Again, it's hard to look at a 9-year period when we have Stanford being ED and Harvard being EA for most of the time. </p>
<p>Stanford had a bad patch in the mid-90's.</p>
<p>During this period, Harvard intentionally took a step to REDUCE its app numbers by giving up open EA, while Stanford took a step designed to BOOST its app numbers by moving from ED to SCEA.</p>
<p>These numbers don't involve the "mid-90's" or any "bad patch" period.</p>
<p>Numbers don't lie - the people reporting them do.</p>
<p>my post wasnt aimed at you byerly, but at how both of you are "manipulating" statistics to prove your point of view.</p>
<p>There is no "manipulating". </p>
<p>The application numbers, admission numbers, matriculation numbers, yield numbers, and SAT median numbers, quite simply, speak for themselves.</p>
<p>Byerly is right. You can't argue with simple statistics.</p>
<p>I seriously think that Harvard's applicant number has alot to do with the perception that Harvard is much much harder than any other school to get in to and only the best of the best stand a chance of getting in.</p>
<p>While that is undoubtedly true, and is most graphically demonstrated with early applications, where students must carefully calculate how to "spend" their single best shot at admission to an elite, it is also true that applicants often react to numbers - and trends - from the previous year.</p>
<p>For example, last year, total apps at Yale were down several hundred, while they rose over 15% at Harvard. No one pretended it was anything but a cyclical phenomenon. This year, apps were up 8% at Yale, but virtually flat at Harvard. Who knows: next year, the surge may be in another direction, as strategic applicants calculate how to balance their desires with a realistic assessment of their chances.</p>
<p>As another example, take early applications at Harvard: for the Class of 2007, Harvard still had the less risky open Early Action - less risky because you didn't have to gamble all on your one shot at Harvard, but could cover your bets with a concurrent early application to MIT, Chicago, Caltech, Georgetown, etc etc. For that class, a full 36% of Harvard's total applications were received in the open Early Action round.</p>
<p>Now, conversely, with Harvard's switch to Single Choice Early Action (a switch which was, IMHO, ill-advised) its far more risky early application percentage has plummeted to 17% of total applications. At Yale, which after that year switched to SCEA from "the other direction" - binding Early Decision - the change provided a welcome boost, as early applications rose from about 14% of the total to nearly 20% of the total.</p>
<p>Dartmouth University, never heard of it. Dartmouth College I know. This kid needs to do his research.</p>
<p>The article in the Yale Daily News only mentioned Penn's 8% increase in RD applications and not the 21% increase in ED applications. Standford EA increased by only 4%. So, it seems difficult to tell who the overall "winner" is.</p>
<p>Many of those reports are screwed up and innacurate. College newspapers are chronically bad at reporting these numbers - particularly, but not exclusively, as they relate to other schools.</p>
<p>Interesting that they cite MIT and Stanford but not other private colleges that receive more applications overall. Recently I read that the private universities that receive the most applications are: NYU, BU, Northeastern, USC and Boston College.</p>
<p>I think you read that in a post of mine at "the other place"!</p>
<p>I'd like to provide a link to that but I can't find one. Looking at each of the schools separately in USNews it is certainly true. Though I did not go through all of the entries to see if there were others that had more. Certainly many of the public universites do, i.e. the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>I'd like to provide a link to that but I can't find one. Looking at each of the schools separately in USNews it is certainly true. Though I did not go through all of the entries to see if there were others that had more. Certainly many of the public universites do, i.e. the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>That was a list of the entirely PRIVATE universities with the largest number of freshman matriculants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Numbers don't lie"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This sounds a little something like "Guns don't kill people". So if we apply the full phrase on the quoted text it would be: Number's don't lie - the people behind it do". Just my two cents of philosophical contribution :)</p>