Any idea of how many were deferred and/or denied?
Hi, anyone has read about Middlebury’s ED stats? Just curious.
Additional info from this Duke article:
https://today.duke.edu/2016/12/duke-accepts-861-early-decision-applicants
Supping Duke data:
MIT 657 out of 8394 (7.8%) (def=69.7%, rej=22.4%)
Harvard SCEA 938 out of 6473 (14.5%)
Princeton SCEA 770 out of 5003 (15.4%)
Yale 871 out of 5086 (17.1%) (def=52.7%, rej=28.6%)
Brown ED 695 out of 3170 (21.9%)(def=60%, rej=18%)
Penn ED 1354 out of 6147 (22.0%)=
Notre Dame REA 1470 out of 6020 (24.4%) (893 def=14.8%)
Duke ED 861 out of 3516 (24.5%)b**
Cornell ED ~1379 out of 5384 (25.6%)(def=20.9%, rej=53.5%)
Dartmouth ED 555 out of 1999 (27.8%)
Williams ED 257 out of 728 (35.3%)
Barnard ED ~248 out of 674 (~36.8%)(~18% def=120)
University of Georgia EA 8059 out of 15,614 (51.6%)
@spayurpets I’m appending up-to-date information from the Columbia Spectator.
Your Barnard numbers for this year and last year are wrong. Barnard received 934 ED applications this year, and 787 last year. I don’t know where the 674 number comes from.
Here is article about Barnard ED applications from the Columbia Spectator:
BY JESSICA SPITZ | SPECTATOR SENIOR STAFF WRITER | DECEMBER 13, 2016, 3:00 PM
Early decision applications to Barnard for the class of 2021 increased by 19 percent this year.
The Barnard College Office of Admissions received a total of 934 early decision applications, up from 787 last year.
Last year marked Barnard’s lowest acceptance rate in history, admitting 16 percent of the 7,071 total applicants received during the admissions cycle.
@spayurpets Thank you for this thread. It is very informative.
How does one find out this information? Are we at the mercy of the PR department and local newspapers?
Williams did not provide this data. The only school that appeared to do that so far was Cornell which I wanted to call out: “Legacy students make up 23.3 percent of early admits and athletes make up 13.4 percent…” Based on Cornell’s numbers, this is around 185 athletes and 321 legacies, out of 1379 early admittees.
NESCAC schools like Williams treat athletes very differently, relying a lot more on walk-ons. A Bowdoin newspaper article about the process stated that NESCAC schools were allowed 14 recruits in football and 2 per varsity sport, so Bowdoin was admitting 75 or so per class. They reported that Amherst was a little less than that–66. You could count the number of varsity sports Williams has and that would give you a rough estimate of how many athletic recruits Williams has yearly. I recommend the Bowdoin article for more details: http://bowdoinorient.com/article/9151
Hmm, I found the Barnard blog post on the web, so maybe it was from a different year. I’ll check back and delete the data if it’s wrong.
@spayurpets Barnard’s information is published on the Columbia Spectator website. If you ring the admissions office, they confirm the numbers and say they gave them to the Spectator.
It appears that the Barnard data was pulled from an old undated blog post, so I’m removing Barnard:
MIT 657 out of 8394 (7.8%) (def=69.7%, rej=22.4%)
Harvard SCEA 938 out of 6473 (14.5%)
Princeton SCEA 770 out of 5003 (15.4%)
Yale 871 out of 5086 (17.1%) (def=52.7%, rej=28.6%)
Brown ED 695 out of 3170 (21.9%)(def=60%, rej=18%)
Penn ED 1354 out of 6147 (22.0%)=
Notre Dame REA 1470 out of 6020 (24.4%) (893 def=14.8%)
Duke ED 861 out of 3516 (24.5%)(def,671=19.1%)
Cornell ED ~1379 out of 5384 (25.6%)(def=20.9%, rej=53.5%)
Dartmouth ED 555 out of 1999 (27.8%)
Williams ED 257 out of 728 (35.3%)
University of Georgia EA 8059 out of 15,614 (51.6%)
@spayurpets Why use blog posts as opposed to university data? In the case of Barnard, the information is easy to find. The link is here:
Any stats on Richmond or Vanderbilt?
You’re at their mercy. Some schools that typically announce their early admissions data through a release or article have so far, by act or omission, not done so, most prominently: Stanford, Yale, Amherst, Northwestern. But it’s still early. For others, they have traditionally chosen to not report the ED/EA data, e.g., Columbia, Chicago, Swarthmore, WUSTL and I do not expect their practice to change this year. The only one that has expressly changed their policy this year is Stanford, which put out a statement that they will not release their early admissions data until the whole admissions cycle is complete.
Here’s a Yale article, confirming the data we already posted:
Jeesh, what’s your problem? I saw that article you are referring to, but in it Barnard does not release anything beyond the number of applications so it’s not much use to me. I found an online essay at the Barnard.edu/admissions website: https://barnard.edu/admissions/focus-early-decision called Reflections on Early Decision which starts with the following statement:
[quote]
*This year, *Barnard College received the largest number of Early Decision applications in our history, 674, representing an increase of just over 40% from five years ago and 12% from last year. /quote So I assumed that I could rely on the numbers that were stated in the essay. Admittedly, I did not check to see that the essay was undated, nor did I compare that number to the number in the Spectator article. My mistake, and the data I used for Barnard is now deleted. I linked to all the source material and quoted the language I was relying on, which you can see here: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/20136229/#Comment_20136229 It just turned out that it was probably from a prior year. My profuse apologies. I will never ever again assume that Barnard or Columbia will provide useful and timely early decision admissions data on their website or in a blog. OK???
I wish more schools would follow the lead of Harvard and Yale in giving aid where truly needed. the FAFSA requirement of paying 50% of your gross income is not realistic in my opinion. I understand not all schools have the private endowments like Harvard or Yale but the publicity they get for these programs for the low cost should sway more colleges than it does. There can truly only be a handful of students who benefit from these programs given the opportunities available to the children of people with means.
wonder why Stanford decided not to announce EA stats? they also stopped announcing yield data from last year even though it was the highest of any university.
EA stats were 9% acceptance last year I believe… I’m sure they’re better this year.
maybe has something to do with the new president?
Re: Stanford, I could think of some possible reasons (with no specific evidence to support any of them):
- Maybe they got an unprecedentedly high number of apps this year, and were concerned about releasing stats that showed that getting in EA was almost as hard as RD - since that might drive some kids to EA at HYP instead if they felt like they were wasting their bullet at S.
- S has historically denied a much higher percentage of its RD pool than its competitors - historically they defer relatively few applicants - maybe they're tinkering with that and don't want to do so publicly.
- Maybe they've decided they don't want the scrutiny that the disclosure brings, and have concluded that they won't suffer any penalty (i.e., lose apps) as a result of no longer publishing EA info.