Only means something if seen in context with numbers from other similar schools. Which, I won’t bother looking up.
Off the top of my head, I think 1400/4800 = 30% yield. Unless we have a huge incoming class…
Subtract ED numbers to get RD acceptance rate and RD yield.
Due to the cap at 4.0 (and hopefully the fact that 4.0s are rare), I’d say 3.73+ to be competitive in the college… of course, the 3.8 is rounded to one decimal place and 3.84 is much different from 3.76… Although, I guess they would give us two decimal points if it was a “4” or a “6”… But, then again, who knows.
I wonder how yield for international students compares to that for students from here. I’d be surprised if they’re similar. Should be easy to figure out for anyone who’s interested in doing the math for me…
acceptance rate not including ED1 (includes ED2) = 22.4%
Yield rate not including ED1 (includes ED2. ED1 assumed to have 100% yield) = 21.3%
(1400/2)-480 = 220 Admitted ED2. 220/1244 = 17.7% ED2 Acceptance rate This is very surprising, but I doubt it’s the norm. Maybe due to them not expecting as many applications ED2 and RD? Maybe due to a strong ED1 pool? But it could be due to adverse selection? IDK
Acceptance Rate not including ED1 or ED2 = 4796-700 ED admits = 4096/(20519-1244-1253)=4096/18022 = 22.7% RD Admit Rate
Chicago had a 20% increase in applications.
NYU had 35%
Berkeley - 16%
UCLA - 18%
Columbia - 10%
Harvard and Penn - slightly under 10%
etc.
So, I guess slightly less than half of schools that Emory applicants also consider/hope for had 9%+ increases. Glad Emory had 15%, but 20% would have been much nicer. And, of course, overall trend is much more important than one year. Hope we can keep it up.
@aluminum_boat : Increase is irrelevant. Quality is far more important-that’s where the improvement needs to happen and I have yet to see if it did- the scores are the same…if they feature some class of 2019 members via Emory news media and they did some cool things…I’ll change my mind. But right now, there is no evidence that the increase helped. Chicago is just playing the rankings game and even before their high app. counts had a nice self-selected pool of extremely strong students to choose from (accomplishment wise and score wise), and they managed to yield them as well. Also, where did you get ED2 rates?
I suppose the impressive thing is that we had a high increase without the overspamming of students and without moving the RD deadline, which was actually earlier for class of 2019 than previous years.
They probably got too many more apps than they expected for ED2 and wanted to use the extra apps. to shape the class a little more than normal so denied more ED2 applicants. They should have denied more RD students if they were aiming for a class of 1350 (now it is like 1400 which is too high), but they admitted even more than last year which hurts the yield. We also have to throw more money at RD students (like most other schools do). The fin. aid amount/vs. yearly tuition is at a low ratio in comparison to other schools in our endowment bracket. Even Vanderbilt is doing better (and their endowment is lower), basically paying for a little over 1 year’s worth of tuition. If you can buy your students, they will come. So they need to either offer more random merit aid or improve Emory Advantage. That is the only way to improve RD outcomes. But most schools simply have high yields because they have high app. numbers and aren’t afraid to deny lots of RD applicants. We still are afraid to do that.
I don’t know how much of the endowment is allocated to be used for financial aid. If it’s not enough to improve Emory Advantage, I think this is the time to make it so. Make an aggressive push to attract better students while we’re riding the high from Ebola, among other things.
Move the ceiling for LCG from $100k to $125k or even $150k.
It isn’t that much but it is a certain percentage of the endowment allocated to ECAS which unfortunately is pretty small in comparison to, again, other CAS (or CAL) units with similar endowments. I’m surprised at how good much of the ECAS academics are considering how the amount of money allocated to it is relatively lacking despite being much stronger now than before the recession (and definitely during it) as the endowment is now like a billion or so higher than pre-2008/2009 times: 5.5 billion to 6.7 billion. You can see the endowment for each Emory unit here: http://www.emory.edu/home/giving/where-to-give/college.html
That (those brackets) would be painful…I think some schools have no loan policies or 60-65k LRG brackets. Maybe 60-65k and 125k is reasonable and then the rest can be pulled from an endowment fund for merit aid. As in, we can throw random, unexpected merit aid at students who didn’t apply for scholars. It can’t be as high 2/3s like many finalists will get. But maybe some people can receive 1/4-1/2.
Yeah, that’s for the college. I’m basically saying if ECAS has a lower endowment than comparable CAS and CALs, then its scholarship and fin. aid endowment is probably lower. Luckily the school has many older (40+) alums that are quite wealthy and loyal so I think they’re going to be successful with the scholarship initiatives which is weird and kind of confirms my hunch that Emory has a marketing and message problem Emory has always had a surprisingly high alumni donation rate (even if the gift per person isn’t the highest, the fact that many people give what they can and that many older alumni are still even giving portions of their estates at levels in the millions is impressive) for a place that isn’t as popular or necessarily the first choice upon freshman application time. It means that many people were also pleasantly surprised or at least came to appreciate/care for the future of the school.
I suppose, if I ever became remotely successful, I would give something, but to something more academic if possible. I’m not for giving money to empty recruiting efforts that will attract great students only to join a department in need of serious help like math, CS, or economics. I’d rather help strengthen such programs first so that a great student at that subject can actually do more than just harbor themselves in the department and have a 4.0 GPA. Need more honors level courses, competitions, and a general math culture that some schools have to attract better students in those areas and expect them to enjoy it (the culture in those 3 or at least 2 of them should be radiant much like chemistry is…the hack-a-thons are a start, but those don’t come from the dept itself. Where are the integration competitions and large Putnam participation I hear of at other schools with lots of students taking upperlevel maths? Departmental events and student engagement hint at the strength of depts). Hopefully QSS will contribute (with stuff like its internships, research fellowships, and datafest) but it is too young.
Either way, while scholarships are easier because of the alumni base, need-based aid seems like a more administrative thing and the whole program would have to change so its harder I think.
Anybody still up for mocking Oxford students for “backdooring” into Emory and being “not good enough” for Emory with those stats? No? Good. Unless I spoke too soon, which I have done before… Never heard people talking less of Oxford students on campus, but apparently on the internet it’s a bit different.
@CrispyBullet : That is a favorite past time of some folks…wish they would make fun of UCLA as much. The stats are about the same. Perhaps UCLA may as well be a backdoor or back-up to Berkeley. Even if lots or most of the Oxford folks wanted to go to Emory, they still likely chose it over other options that have similar, higher, or lower score ranges (as many considered different schools altogether than most applying to main only). Many of them could have just gone to UGA for example and would have qualified for many schools between a 1250 and 1350 SAT mean which are not averages to joke about considering that Emory’s average is about 1365-1370. I think Oxford is an all too convenient scapegoat for some if you know what I mean…they must have something to look down upon I guess.
@CrispyBullet I’m glad I’ve never ran into those folks in real life. Yet. They have a right to complain about the unfairness or whatever they have against Oxford, but I also have the right not to listen.
I don’t know how much UCLA is connected to Berkely. But I know there are community colleges connected to universities, i.e. you graduate from X Community College you’re guaranteed admission/continuation at Y University.
@CrispyBullet They aren’t connected…I was just saying that the people who complain about Oxford are complaining about their lower stats which are actually on par with many of the public and private schools that they revere such as UCLA. And ironically, that scenario you mention is quite common and is definitely the case for the UC system and Georgia’s very own elite STEM university, Georgia Tech has programs with community colleges and lower tier colleges and universities throughout Georgia that basically guarantee transfer admissions if certain conditions are met. The attitude of outside Oxford haters (as in those who did not attend or even apply) is actually quite snobby and ignorant. I still remember my “slap forehead” incident of overhearing a student say “Georgia Tech can’t be that good because it is a public school!” and the surprising (actually just one domestic student thinking that is one too many) number of students at Emory who think Berkeley is actually private (kind of getting close giving the funding situation in California but still in the UC system). Some just live in a bubble I guess. I hear some parts of the Northeast bubble can sometimes create some very interesting cultural attitudes and logic when it comes to appraising colleges.
I also think that people’s right to complain does not always make them right. Oxford’s stats can speak for themselves. The selection profiles have been converging for a while as ECAS remained flat and now the differences are completely negligible at like 30 points on each end. The only real reason their admit rate is higher is because they have less applications, but it seems clear to me that they are basically admitting students to both ECAS and Oxford among those who cross-applied and that those who didn’t aren’t honestly that much different. I think I saw one case in one of the decision threads here where someone was obviously a fit for main and not Oxford and their decision reflected it (they were waitlisted or denied Oxford but into Emory). There is more thought behind their admissions scheme than just stats. clearly.
When you write a reply, do you write not just to the person you are replying to but also to the benefit of everyone else who might also read your post? That’s what I might assume given your tendency to craft detailed, long, and informative answers to seemingly simple questions.
I reply specifically to the person that starts the conversation on whatever issue because I think they may be more interested than others, but I craft them with others in mind who may read it as well. Even though I mess up the grammar and mechanics a lot, I write longer ones to ensure I get across the right message and it isn’t misinterpreted as something else. If I want to be blunt, I will use specific examples, and if I want to be nuanced, I will pose questions are try to propose different interpretations of data. Lots of things are messy and I don’t like making things seem simple when they aren’t for the sake of brevity. I would say that the best portions of my Emory education has taught me not always to see things black and white and that others shouldn’t either lol. And when it comes to commenting on Emory specifically, I like to throw in historical tidbits and observations. Context is important to me. I used to not be as cautious when writing and I’m sure many took it the wrong way. It used to be rants with no context or support. Now I’m a bit more measured and optimistic because I see Emory doing some things quite well, and actually trying to get better (as in, the effort is visible beyond construction now)!
Looks like the SATs have gone up a bit as expected, and this year the acceptance rate has finally decreased a bit to. Still not quite up to par with peer schools, but it’s a start.
@collegestu816: Aluminum already posted these. Also, those stats are “flat”, exactly the same (maybe add 10 points to each end) and there was a 10 point shift in the median. They are identical to the last class. This tells me that Emory is not admitting based on stats…yet. I believe it could have increased them much more if it wanted to (maybe addition 20-40 points to each end) with an addition 3k apps to play with. Also, it just needs to work on yielding students that are “very” close to this range as opposed to the scores sliding by 40-50 points on each end like many schools. As far as peers. Duke has similar admissions (add 30-40 to each end) for its A and S, the only difference is that it easily yields a class the same caliber of the ones it admitted.
