<p>That is why the CDS comes out after October 15th. The WL admits are fully accounted. The Spring admits remain obfuscated inthe CDS. </p>
<p>April numbers are mostly marketing, but that is when the attention is at its apex. Until USNews releases the previous year numbers.</p>
<p>Claremont McKenna’s overall acceptance rate is not in fact 11.7%. I believe that is only their RD acceptance rate, leaving out ED. At least, that is how i interpreted this article:</p>
<p>[Senate</a> 4/1: Admissions, Financial Aid, and ASCMC Reforms « Forum | The Official Student Publication of Claremont McKenna College](<a href=“http://cmcforum.com/news/04042013-senate-41-admissions-financial-aid-and-ascmc-reforms]Senate”>http://cmcforum.com/news/04042013-senate-41-admissions-financial-aid-and-ascmc-reforms)</p>
<p>Note that 12.4% is the RD acceptance rate for CMC’s class of 2016.</p>
<p>@Nutmeg22 CMC’s overall acceptance rate last year was 12.4%, the RD rate was 10.4%. So 11.7% is the correct overall acceptance rate for this year</p>
<p>[Colleges</a> Report 2012 Admissions Statistics - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/college-admits-2012/]Colleges”>Colleges Report 2012 Admissions Statistics - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Added Skidmore and Barnard (20.5%)
[Barnard</a> Admits 20.5% of Applicants | Bwog](<a href=“http://bwog.com/2013/03/30/barnard-admits-20-5-of-applicants/]Barnard”>Barnard Admits 20.5% of Applicants - Bwog)</p>
<p>Stanford 5.7%
Harvard 5.8%
Yale 6.7%
Columbia 6.9%
Princeton 7.3%
MIT 8.2%
UChicago 8.8%
Brown 9.2%
Dartmouth 10.1%
Duke 11.5%
Claremont McKenna 11.7%
Vanderbilt 11.9%
UPenn 12.10%
Northwestern 13.9%
Swarthmore 14.0%
Bowdoin 14.5%
Pitzer 14.6%
Cornell 15.2%
Rice 16%
Georgetown 16.6%
Hopkins 16.8%
Williams 16.9%
Tufts 18.7%
Middlebury 19.2%
USC 19.6%
Barnard 20.5%
Colorado College 22%
Colgate 26%
Hamilton 27.1%
Wellesley 28%
UVA 29.4%
Trinity Col 31%
William & Mary 32.5%
GWU 33.4%
Macalester 34%
BU 36%
Skidmore 35%
Union 37%
Kenyon 38%
Bryn Mawr 39%
RPI 41%
Occidental 42%
Dickinson 44.2%</p>
<p>On CMC, let me lay out the facts as I know them, and some conjecture. 1st, full disclosure, I am a (happy) CMC parent and hirer of 5C kids. I have been more than delighted in both roles and have had exposure to multiple facets of CMC over the years. So I guess you could say I am a biased reporter here.</p>
<p>Facts from the CMC 12-13 CDS <a href=“http://www.cmc.edu/ir/CDS_2012-2013.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cmc.edu/ir/CDS_2012-2013.pdf</a>
(Class of '16)
Total Applied: 5,058
Total Admitted: 688
Total enrolled: 291
Calculated admit rate: = 688/5058 = 13.6%
ED apps: 535
ED admits: 152
Calculated ED admit rate: = 152/535 = 28.4%
Therefore, subtracting ED apps & admits from the total pool…
calculated RD apps: 4,523
calculated RD admits: 536
calculated RD admit arte: = 536/4523 = 11.9%
Notably on the CDS (C2)…54 accepted from the waitlist</p>
<p>The federal NCES site shows 5,058 total apps & 14% admit rate.
[College</a> Navigator - Claremont McKenna College](<a href=“College Navigator - Claremont McKenna College”>College Navigator - Claremont McKenna College)</p>
<p>As noted in post 63 above, the 2012 NYT running tally, last updated in June 2012 reports:
Total apps: 5,056
Total admits: 628
Total admit rate: 12.42% (which is correctly calculated)</p>
<p>IF I add 54 waitlist acceptees to the NYT numbers (presumably admitted after the NYT reporting), I get
Total apps: 5,056
Total admits: = 628 + 54 = 682
Total admit rate: 13.5%</p>
<p>So, if we want to compare the CMC total admit rates year over year for pre-waitlist acceptances, the right number in my view is 12.4%, but if we want to compare to post-waitlist its what the CDS says: 13.6%. [That’s quite a bit taken from the waitlist; prior year was 0.] Both numbers are “right” but FWIW, I have been using the CDS sources in my Class of '17 apps thread, not so much because its ‘right’ but because I can usually find that info easily & the CDS’s provide a consistent source.</p>
<p>On what’s been reported (that I can find) for the CMC Class of 2017</p>
<p>The 1st report out was on 1/29/13:
[CMC</a> Announces 9% Increase in Applications « Forum | The Official Student Publication of Claremont McKenna College](<a href=“http://cmcforum.com/news/01292013-cmc-announces-9-increase-in-applications]CMC”>http://cmcforum.com/news/01292013-cmc-announces-9-increase-in-applications)
Apps: (presumably total apps): “approximately 9% more that last year’s 5,056”
Calculated '17 apps: = 109% * 5,056 = 5,511 (8.51%, the lowest actual percentage I’d imagine that could be rounded to ~9% for satements like this, calculates to 5,486.)
ED1 apps: 321 (a 4.22% increase, which calculates to 308 ED1 apps last year)
ED1 admits: 124
ED1 admit rate: 38.63% (noting that this was “up notably from last year’s 28%”)</p>
<p>2/8/13 report from Pomona noting other 5C app stats:
[5Cs</a> Release Admissions Statistics](<a href=“http://tsl.pomona.edu/articles/2013/2/8/news/3538-5cs-release-admissions-statistics]5Cs”>5Cs Release Admissions Statistics - The Student Life)
Total apps: 5,509
(which is pretty close to the 9% increase previously reported.)</p>
<p>And finally, the CMC Senate report, discussed above:
[Senate</a> 4/1: Admissions, Financial Aid, and ASCMC Reforms « Forum | The Official Student Publication of Claremont McKenna College](<a href=“http://cmcforum.com/news/04042013-senate-41-admissions-financial-aid-and-ascmc-reforms]Senate”>http://cmcforum.com/news/04042013-senate-41-admissions-financial-aid-and-ascmc-reforms)
So, it appears that (1) this is meant to be a comparison of Total apps by the comparison of last year’s 12.4% (not RD), and (2) the comparison is to total apps as they stood in early spring '12, before summer’s waitlist admissions.
[Also note the prudent use of the word “unaudited”]</p>
<p>Some calculation ball-parking</p>
<p>Assuming '17 total spring (pre-waitlist) admits = 628 = same as last year at this time
…then, total '17 admit rate would be = 628/5,509 = 11.4%</p>
<p>So, the recently reported 11.7% is quite conceivable to me as a pre-waitlist #, indeed, it looks like they accepted a few more this year presumably to reduce reliance on the waitlist.</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon 24.7%
[CMU</a> admits most selective class yet - The Tartan Online](<a href=“http://thetartan.org/2013/4/8/news/admissions]CMU”>CMU admits most selective class yet - The Tartan)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haverford 23.3%
<a href=“http://haverfordclerk.com/2013/04/who-got-into-the-class-of-2017/[/url]”>http://haverfordclerk.com/2013/04/who-got-into-the-class-of-2017/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly? I think you can find something more relevant to attack a school for. Claremont Mckenna’s numbers will always remain low, even with the anonymous spite you are throwing towards the school. Acceptance rates and SAT scores are two totally different numbers. The acts of one person, who rightfully stepped down after admitting the wrong-doing, does not reflect the entire school or even the admissions office as an entity. Run the numbers like Papa Chicken did, and if you find something wrong, let us know.</p>
<p>The point that we all seem to be missing is that the pool from which schools select is not equal. For example, those applying to MIT likely will not be applying to CMC, with the MIT pool being superior in terms of GPA, SAT scores and class rank. So comparing their respective selection rates is misleading. Also, schools such as Georgetown that do not utilize the common app, have fewer applicant than they would if they used the common app., so their selection rate is artifically lower.</p>
<p>Hey Dad!</p>
<p>You’re also implying that it is possible to compare the two schools (MIT and CMC), however, when making the admissions decisions the two offices are looking for two totally different types of students. One- a STEM focused school at the top of the nation in this focus, and on the other hand you have a small LAC with a program that does not focus on STEM, but I would argue maintains the top program in the nation (amongst LAC’s) in economics, with their government program following close behind.</p>
<p>So yes, one school will have higher raw numbers in terms of SAT, math and science subject tests. However, with the two schools’ admissions offices looking for things totally different in a prospective student, (with CMC taking a more holistic approach as the majority of LACs do) it is impossible to compare them and say necessarily which school is “better.” It is all depending on what the student is looking for in a school. </p>
<p>I would even go as far to say if CMC wanted their class of 2017 to look like MIT’s, they would have the applicant pool to do so. And transversely, if MIT wanted to have a class profile similar to CMC’s they could as well. Its simply what the admissions office wants to see in their entering class. </p>
<p>^^ This paragraph would be where some disagree with me haha</p>
<p>If we are to be comparing applicant pools, we should probably look at schools comparable by majors, school focus, etc… perhaps HMC? This would be similar in terms of comparing apples to apples, whereas CMC to MIT would be apples to oranges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm, one could make that point but the reality is a bit different. </p>
<p>For starters, the pools are composed from students who have applications ranging from safeties to uber-reachers. This means that, in the end, there is a massive overlaps amongs selective schools. There is a huge differences between talking about students who stand a good chance of being admitted versus the ones who have a worse odds. </p>
<p>And then, we have little to no information about the pool of applicants. We know a little about the pool of admitted students, and a lot about the poot of enrolled students. In so many words, you CANNOT draw any valid conclusions about the pool of applicants, and surely not reach the conclusion above regarding DIFFERENT pool of applicants to select from. </p>
<p>Especially not when the accepted pools represent from 5 to 12 percent of the applicants’ pool, and the non-analyzed pool is in the 88 to 95 percent range. </p>
<p>HTH</p>
<p>I’m really curious to hear about Michigan’s this year. Apparently their applicant pool was enormous compared to past years. I know a student, class president at a huge public school, 35 on ACT, near perfect SATs, nationally ranked in DI, 3.95, out of state, and wait listed. Really interested to see the numbers.</p>
<p>^Really? I know two people at my school with somewhat above average grades who got into the honors program out of state…</p>
<p>@Lavenderman- According to CB, the acceptance rate for the class of 2016 was 14%, not in fact 12.4%.</p>
<p><a href=“BigFuture College Search”>BigFuture College Search;
<p>@Papa Chicken- how come there is conflicting data from different sources?</p>
<p>@Nutmeg22- that’s the point…its not conflicting when waitlist acceptances are taken into account. 12.4% admit rate is what CMC had at this time last year, but after admitting a whole slew more off the waitlist, their rate ended up (after the summer) at 13.6%. (Think about it…another 1.2% admits is about 60, or roughly what they took off the waitlist.)</p>
<p>Given their 9% increase in apps this year, 11.7% admit rate at this point in the cycle is actually a little greater than I’d estimate.</p>
<p>So what conflicting data are you talking about?</p>
<p>That clears up my question; sorry, I only skimmed your post up above.</p>
<p>Denison 45.5%
[Class</a> of 2017: Acceptance rate falls to 45 percent | The Denisonian](<a href=“http://www.denisonian.com/2013/04/news/class-of-2017-acceptance-rate-falls-to-45-percent/]Class”>Class of 2017: Acceptance rate falls to 45 percent – The Denisonian)</p>
<p>…added Denison, Haverford & CMU, repositioned Skidmore…</p>
<p>Stanford 5.7%
Harvard 5.8%
Yale 6.7%
Columbia 6.9%
Princeton 7.3%
MIT 8.2%
UChicago 8.8%
Brown 9.2%
Dartmouth 10.1%
Duke 11.5%
Claremont McKenna 11.7%
Vanderbilt 11.9%
UPenn 12.10%
Northwestern 13.9%
Swarthmore 14.0%
Bowdoin 14.5%
Pitzer 14.6%
Cornell 15.2%
Rice 16%
Georgetown 16.6%
Hopkins 16.8%
Williams 16.9%
Tufts 18.7%
Middlebury 19.2%
USC 19.6%
Barnard 20.5%
Colorado College 22%
Haverford 23.3%
Carnegie Mellon 24.7%
Colgate 26%
Hamilton 27.1%
Wellesley 28%
UVA 29.4%
Trinity Col 31%
William & Mary 32.5%
GWU 33.4%
Macalester 34%
Skidmore 35%
BU 36%
Union 37%
Kenyon 38%
Bryn Mawr 39%
RPI 41%
Occidental 42%
Dickinson 44.2%
Denison 45.5%</p>
<p>Are there reports from Emory, Michigan, UNC, Georgia Tech or NYU?</p>
<p>Conn College 35%
[Admission</a> Statistics: Connecticut College](<a href=“http://www.conncoll.edu/admission/apply/admission-statistics/]Admission”>Admission Statistics · Connecticut College)</p>
<p>Georgia Girl- no luck on any yet.</p>
<p>Adding another NESCAC, Amherst, who is reporting an increase in their acceptance rate. [College</a> Sees Drop in Applicant Numbers for Class of 2017 | The Amherst Student](<a href=“http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2013/04/10/college-sees-drop-applicant-numbers-class-2017]College”>http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2013/04/10/college-sees-drop-applicant-numbers-class-2017)</p>
<p>Stanford 5.7%
Harvard 5.8%
Yale 6.7%
Columbia 6.9%
Princeton 7.3%
MIT 8.2%
UChicago 8.8%
Brown 9.2%
Dartmouth 10.1%
Duke 11.5%
Claremont McKenna 11.7%
Vanderbilt 11.9%
UPenn 12.1%
Amherst 13.6%
Northwestern 13.9%
Swarthmore 14.0%
Bowdoin 14.5%
Pitzer 14.6%
Cornell 15.2%
Rice 16%
Georgetown 16.6%
Hopkins 16.8%
Williams 16.9%
Tufts 18.7%
Middlebury 19.2%
USC 19.6%
Barnard 20.5%
Colorado College 22%
Haverford 23.3%
Carnegie Mellon 24.7%
Colgate 26%
Hamilton 27.1%
Wellesley 28%
UVA 29.4%
Trinity Col 31%
William & Mary 32.5%
GWU 33.4%
Macalester 34%
Skidmore 35%
Connecticut College 35.2%
BU 36%
Union 37%
Kenyon 38%
Bryn Mawr 39%
RPI 41%
Occidental 42%
Dickinson 44.2%
Denison 45.5%</p>