<p>Anybody know how many people applied and the acceptance rate?</p>
<p>They don't have it up yet on their website, but I believe they accepted 37%.</p>
<p>I was looking at a report published in 2004 showing Grinnell's admission statistics since 1984, and not since 1996 was their an acceptance rate above 50%. Why than as late as 2004 were there statistics broadcasting only 2,200 applicants and a 64% acceptance rate? That figure is even still available and was published in a USA today article at the end of last year.</p>
<p>Also, what makes US News and Princeton review admission statistics consistently show higher acceptance rates than the ones published by Grinnell? This holds true even when they are compared to statistics from the year before.</p>
<p>Here are the links to what I was referring to:</p>
<p>web.grinnell.edu/dean/Reports/03-04/2004%20Report%20on%20Admission.pdf</p>
<p>The Fiske and Insider's guides for 2006 said the acceptancerate was 63%. I asked about it when at Grinnell (why was their acceptance rate so high when he stats of their students were so high?). THey said they accepted about 36%. I don't know what the discrepancy is about.</p>
<p>At least the most important publications such as USNews and Princetonreview have since 2004 been lowering the statistic. If I remember correctly last year princeton review said the acceptance rate was 51% now it stands at 45%</p>
<p>It's very misleading and I don't quite understand the innaccuracy.</p>
<p>I think it just shows all those publications have slightly out of date information and we should take that into account when reading about any college in one of those big books. It's sloppy on their part, on the other hand, it's easy enough to visit the website of any college you're interested in and find out what the college says about their statistics. I would imagine they update Yale, Princeton, etc. numbers first because those are more likely to be quoted in national newspapers. Misquoting Grinnell's numbers is only going to bother relatively few people.</p>
<p>Yeah confusing. A friend of mine got accepted at Grinnell and is going to. She has pretty good high school records and SAT scores and she was waitlisted by WUSL. She would have gone to Uni of Illinois but settled for Grinnell.</p>
<p>Tsubie-chan</p>
<p>I hope you mean settled ON Grinnell. My son got accepted everywhere he applied and Grinnell emerged as his first choice.</p>
<p>Hehe, funny these forums have this crappy system of now allowing people to edit after 20 mins (and I don't have the time to go over what I have written too) and yet it's probably the one of the forums where errors get criticized the most. Even with minor things like spelling mistakes which are pretty obviously typos, I have seen many people attempting to correct, and you should do that only when you think the person has it wrong wrong... although this particular one I know isn't that type.</p>
<p>Where did your son apply to? I wish my parents spoke English and could be in college forums asking questions too. It's nice to see many parents coming here and talking about their kids' college life and concerns.</p>
<p>He applied to Carleton, Goucher, Haverford, Lewis & Clark, Macalester, Oberlin, Pomona, Reed and vassar.</p>
<p>Hehe, funny these forums have this crappy system of not allowing people to edit after 20 mins...</p>
<p>(correction)</p>
<p>As for those colleges, I'd have preferred Vassar, Carleton, Oberlin and Pomona over Grinnell but I can understand why there will be many people who'd pick Grinnell over all. It's all about fit, we all know. :)</p>
<p>I like Grinnell but the answer to the discrepancy is in the definitions. Grinnell counts as applicants those student who did any part of the application including part 1 but not the whole application. This skews their application numbers high and makes it look more difficult than it actually is. The actual numbers to look at are the actionable applications. These are the applications that were submitted as complete applications. If you look at the cited report carefully from Grinnell you will see some comments on "actionable" applications.</p>
<p>Could very well be carldad, but the academics are still rigorous and the stats of the applicants are high. Not as high as Pomona, but my son didn't go by rankings or selectivity when he chose. He'd never even looked at US News, though he'd read guide books. He went on how the school felt when he visited. And, as you know, I don't think there's a better school anywhere than Carleton. Go figure.</p>
<p>Yes, Tsubie-chan, we were sometimes surprised how a school felt when we visited. These were all great schools that he applied to and I thought he'd prefer Carleton, my neighbor thought he should pick Vassar or Oberlin, probably lots of people thought he should pick Pomona. But you're right--it's all about fit. I hope you'll feel free to ask us all for help with your college search.</p>
<p>Carldad suggests that "Grinnell counts as applicants those student who did any part of the application including part 1 but not the whole application. This skews their application numbers high and makes it look more difficult than it actually is."</p>
<p>As the attached link shows, this isn't quite accurate. Grinnell only counts as "actionable" any incomplete applications that are complete enough so that a "fully-informed admissions decision [can] be made." Both Carleton and Macalaster, on the other hand, deny admission to ALL incomplete applications and report those numbers to U.S. News, etc. Thus, it appears that Grinnell is the only one of these three colleges that comes anywhere close to being "honest" in reporting the numbers. </p>
<p>The common data set itself defines an applicant as "Applicants should include only those students who fulfilled the requirements for consideration for admission (i.e., who completed actionable applications)...</p>
<p>The question is how each college defines an actionable application. My comment regarding Part I of the application was based on personal knowledge of students who have only submitted Part I and then received denials from Grinnell. This is not a slam on Grinnell as it is my understanding that many of the most selective colleges follow this procedure. I was merely explaining the discrepancy that several of the posters had questioned.</p>
<p>All three of these schools are great. I didn't think you were maligning Grinnell, carldad. I thought it was interesting.</p>
<p>I didn't think you were disparaging Grinnell either -- just wanted to set the record straight.</p>