<p>
[quote]
But if you look at the ones that were really lopsided w/ Penn in the teens (HYPMS), then I'd bet money that Penn is still losing the majority of those X-admits - maybe they are now getting 1 of 3 or 1 of 4, but they ain't getting better than half, especially in CAS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody would dispute that HYPS will get more than 50% of the cross-admits. The real thing that has surely changed and that is the bone of our contention is whether Penn is still losing out to the "crappy ivies" which I do not think it is. At the very least it would certainly be MUCH closer to them than it was 7 years ago.</p>
<p>dude seriously, i think this year was really though to get into schools. i had a 2100 sat, gpa:4.2, and im going to uci, cuz i got rejected to all my other schools.</p>
<p>Stevie makes a good point which I think may help to explain why Penn's yield stayed up even though everyone expected it to go down due to Common App - there are more and more people from the "traditional Ivy pool" who would have once have been admitted to 2, 3, 4 or more Ivies who are not getting into any Ivies like Stevie (sorry) or are getting into only one. If Penn is your only Ivy/Ivy-like choice, then there's no losing any X-admit battles - it's your only choice so you're going to take it. It would be interesting to see how many people didn't have ANY Ivy X-admits this year.</p>
<p>McCash - what is the "somehow" you magically assume? Even if Rice took the common app with no supplement and charged no fee, they still couldn't get 23,000 people to apply . Selectivity is one of the coveted USNWR stats and colleges will do as much as they can to get their app #'s up so that % accepted goes down and their USNWR rating goes up, but there just aren't 23000 people who are interested in Rice. The fact that they can get 4 apps for every spot must already be unbelievable to them - I dunno what their admit rate was 10 or 15 years ago but I'll bet it was over 50% - the fact that Ivies are turning down 6 out of 7 or 9 out of 10 applicants has sent those turned down people (or everyone really since almost no one knows whether they are going to be the 1 out of 7 or 10 who's getting in) applying to the next tier of "new Ivies" like never before.</p>
<p>Dionysis you are wrong. Dartmouth has an incredible reputation in the Northeast and it seems to be the first choice among students interested in LACs. These students tend to be stronger overall giving Dartmouth a highly self-selected and strong applicant base. Dartmouth tends to admit the strongest students with little consideration for desire to attend, and that's why its SAT scores are consistantly right next to Princeton and Stanford and above the other Ivies.</p>
<p>I've read that Dartmouth has the strongest applicant pool outside HYPSM and Caltech in terms of applicant stats.</p>
<p>Oh please. You cannot even compare Penn's "yield" numbers to those of Harvard's, Stanford's, MIT's, or Yale's, seeing as Penn ropes in half these students through Early Decision.</p>
<p>That percentage is obviously wrong since it would mean that less than 1,000 were admitted ED (out of an entering class of 2400). I think the DP either garbled what was actually a percentage of projected total admits (3600) that was provided to them or, more likely, incorrectly reported 49% of the projected entering class as 39%.</p>
<p>39% of students admitted were taken ED. About half the students who matriculate were admitted ED (ED has like a 99.9% yield rate). It works that way at almost every college that offers ED.</p>
<p>Except those numbers don't work out. 3600 were admitted in total, and 39% of that would be 1400. About 4,000 applied ED this year, and 29% of those, or 1160, were admitted ED, which is more like 32% of the total admitted. However, 1160 IS about 49% of the 2400 who will enroll, which is why I'm fairly certain the DP MEANT to say that 49%--and not 39%--of the enrolled class would be ED admits.</p>
<p>39% must be a typo - it's funny how one little keystroke is enough to cause a whole big discussion. 45%er gave the correct stats, which is that almost 1/2 the class will come from ED which is pretty typical both for Penn and other Ivies (that have ED). Because the yield off ED is almost 100%, the RD yield is much lower - the stated yield of 67% is really more like 50% off the RD pool - almost 1/2 the people they admit RD will pick another school. Again same true in most Ivies (except maybe H). </p>
<p>Doing away w/ ED was a sucker bet as far as yield goes for everyone except H, which is why H must be snickering in its sleeve that P was dumb enough to take that bet. One of the biggest reasons I think for Penn's rise in the ratings (and the ratings reflect the reality, at least somewhat) is its clever use of ED to attract a strong student body that was committed to Penn. It's a perfect example of a "good deal" - a bargain where both sides come away with something that makes them happy. The (stated) reasons for doing away with ED are totally bogus - I really think it was a trick by H.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Doing away w/ ED was a sucker bet as far as yield goes for everyone except H, which is why H must be snickering in its sleeve that P was dumb enough to take that bet
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I concur. It's not about equality. Increasing financial aid options for ED students does that. Anyone who isn't H will suffer for this--even Y, which fortunately is too smart to join in this p!ssing contest, unlike P.</p>
<p>And this comes at a time when Princeton is in the process of increasing its class size (and presumably, the number of admits). It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out in the next few years in terms of Princeton's yield, selectivity, and--dare we say it?--#1 ranking in USNWR.</p>