Not sure if this as already posted but UC schools so a ~10% drop in acceptance. That’s crazy
Does anyone know the stats for Colgate this year??
@MangoLover11223 a 10% drop in the percentage rate from prior year probably, so 18% → 16.2%. surely not a 10% in absolute going from 18% to 8%?
Ah, the old fine print excuse! Ever thought what the reaction would be to a Stanford or Harvard decision to stagger their entering classes between Fall and Winter or Spring in the same manner? Welcome to reporting 2 to 3 percent admission rates in the Fall. Morse admitted that Middlebury was using a loophole, but that astute readers would not be fooled and that the triviality of reporting an admission rate of 16 versus 20 percent was not worthy of much discussion. One way of looking at it. But it remains that Middlebury is misrepresenting their true admission rate on the CDS. Their fact books are, however, correct.
As far as the 2022 numbers, the chances that 1696 admitted will be reported on the CDS is remote. Without digging further in a futile exercise of clearing up the press release of Midd, I would suggest that ED2 admitted 73 students out of a pool of 200 students. And that … about 130 students were February 2019 admits.
That would give
9230 applications - 915 and 8315
399 ED
1297 September admits
133 February admits
Total admits 1696
1430/8315 = 17.2
1696/9230 = 18.375
Lastly, waitlisted students have NO impact on the announced admission rates. Not even the dubious process of adding deferred students to the RD applicants could yield the 17.2 announced percentage.
ED2 pool should be 265 not 200.
@bronze2 --yeah, I had a brain fart in thinking that WL #s might play a part in the numbers.
I think the press release has an error. Here’s what we know:
A total of 9,230 students applied to Middlebury this year.
890 of them applied ED I & II, of which 399 were accepted (45%)
8,340 of them applied regular decision
Middlebury admitted 1,297 of 8,340 RD applicants.
Therefore, the RD acceptance rate was 15.6%.
Anyone know if the total US applicant pool is just larger this year or are all these lower stats is people applying to more total schools or schools accepting fewer students overall or something? Would be odd if it’s the same # of students just shifting their applications to more selective schools at the peril of their safeties.
@citivas i dont know who has demographics information of the high school senior class… but the applicant pool likely gets bigger from international applicants. How much is demographics vs non-demographic (more apps per person) is really hard to tell.
We are focused very much on the selective schools, where apps have gone up 20% in the past 2 years - I have to think this is much more than demographics, but it’s clearly not representative of all colleges. There’s about 1.8 million bachelor degrees conferred each year, and around 3.4 million graduating seniors, but the most selective 50 schools - ranging in size from Berkeley/UCLA/UNC/Cornell to Caltech/Olin/Cooper Union - make only around 150,000 acceptances (some students will be counted multiple times in this number), with a combined enrollment of 72,000.
What has been really revealing this year has been the smaller number of acceptances as an equal driver of the admit rate going down, rather than simply the number of applications going up. (although we will see how much the waitlist comes into play later).
I hope it is the case that students are making more applications to more reach schools, and not going too far from their safeties. Both the denominator and the numerator are working against them.
Stanford: 2040 / 47450 = 4.30%.
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/03/30/offers-admission-2040-students/
750 REA admits, but doesn’t say how many REA applicants
Based on @xiggi’s insight, I revised the table I included in post #214. Some guessing required, but it seems that perhaps Middlebury didn’t include the February admits in their overall acceptance percentage (18.4%), but did when reporting their regular decision percentage (17.2%).
Applied | Admit Total (%) | Admit Fall (%) | Feb | Defer | Rejected |
ED1 <em>650 | 326 (50.2%) | 300 (46.2%) | 26 | 39 | 285 |
ED2 240 | ~120 (50.0%) | 99 (41.3%) | ~21 | 0 | ~120 |
ED TOT 890 | ~446 (50.1%) | 399 (44.8%) | ~47 | 39 | ~444 |
RD *</em>8,340 | ~1,434 (17.2%) | 1,297 (15.6%) | ~137 | N/A | ~6,906 |
OVERALL 9,230 | ~1,880 (20.4%) | 1,696 (18.4%) | ~184 | N/A | ~7,350 |
Notes:
* from <a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/newsroom/archive/2017-news/node/561260">http://www.middlebury.edu/newsroom/archive/2017-news/node/561260</a>
** from <a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/newsroom/archive/2018-news/node/563076">http://www.middlebury.edu/newsroom/archive/2018-news/node/563076</a>
@foosondaughter This is the gold standard!
Updating overall rates with Stanford, Barnard, and Olin, :
Stanford (RD+SCEA) 2,040 out of 47,450 (4.3%)
Harvard (RD+SCEA) 1,962 out of 42,749 (4.6%)
Princeton (RD+SCEA) 1,941 out of 35,370 (5.5%)
Columbia (RD+ED) 2,214 out of 40,203 (5.5%)
Yale (RD+SCEA) 2,229 out of 35,306 (6.3%)
MIT (RD+EA) 1,464 out of 21,706 (6.7%)
Pomona (RD+ED) 713 out of 10,245 (6.9%)
Brown (RD+ED) 2,566 out of 35,438 (7.2%)
Duke (RD+ED) 3,097 out of 37,390 (8.3%)
Penn (RD+ED) 3,731 out of 44,491 (8.4%)
Northwestern (RD+ED) 3,392 out of 40,425 (8.4%)
Dartmouth (RD+ED) 1,925 out of 22,033 (8.7%)
Swarthmore (RD+ED) 980 out of 10,749 (9.1%)
Johns Hopkins (RD+ED) 2,894 out of 29,128 (9.9%)
Cornell (RD+ED) 5,288 out of >51,000 (10.3%)
Bowdoin (RD+ED1+ED2) ~935 out of 9,081 (10.3%)
Williams (RD+ED) 1,163 out of 9,559 (12.2%)
USC 8,258 out of 64,256 (12.9%)
Colby 1,602 out of 12,313 (13.0%)
**Barnard (RD+ED) 1,088 out of 7,897 (13.8%)
Olin 125 out of 882 (14.2%) **
Harvey Mudd (RD+ED) (14.5%)
WashU (RD+ED) (15%)
Tulane ~6,598 out of 38,813 (17%)
Wesleyan (RD+EDI+EDII) 2,186 out of 12,788 (17.1%)
Middlebury (RD+ED+Febs) 1,696 out 9,230 (18.4%)
Emory (RD+ED, excl. Oxford-only apps) ~5,135 out of 27,759 (18.5%)
Davidson ~1,066 out of 5,700 (18.7%)
Haverford 877 out of 4682 (18.7%)
Wellesley ~1,267 out of 6,670 (19%)
NYU (RD+ED1+ED2) 15,722 out of >75,000 (< 21.0, incl. 19% for NY campus)
BU ~14,184 out of 64,473 (22%)
Georgia Tech (RD+EA) ~7,832 out of 35,600 (22%)
UVA 9,850 out of 37,222 (26.5%)
BC (RD+EA) 8,400 out of >31,000 (< 27.1%)
VIllanova (RD+EA+ED) 6,545 out of 22,727 (28.8%)
Florida 14,866 out of 40,849 (36.4%)
Georgia (RD+EA) < 12,700 out of 26,500 (< 47.9%)
Santa Clara (RD+ED) ~ 7,954 out of 16,233 (49%)
Rice:
http://news.rice.edu/2018/03/14/rice-receives-record-20898-applications/
https://m.chron.com/news/article/Rice-accepted-just-11-percent-of-applicants-this-12777700.php (secondary source - not sure how reliable the 11% number is)
Why is this year so insane?
cuz these were mostly born in 2000 @lebaggies
4.3%. What’s next? Below 4%? Hopefully, Stanford’s acceptance rate will go up with an increase in class size each year. Don’t know when the increase starts.
@websensation i recall the plan to increase is something like adding 1700 undergraduates by 2035 (as presented to the county for planning and building purposes), so it will barely be noticeable in the admissions numbers in the coming few years. thinking of it as ~25% growth in 15 years.
University of Chicago. Straight from Dean of Admisions at reception as recorder by attendee
“We’ve had over 32000 students apply to the University this year and the admit was 7.2%. The most selective we’ve ever been. If you were in the regular round, so if you’re like woo-ho I just got in recently, their admit rate was 4%. <> And if you were one of those students who we, in the early action round we deferred you and we came to our senses <> and admitted you in regular you had a 0.5% admit rate.<> Thank you for Walking across Lake Michigan … “
Why don’t they make an official publication like everyone else. The numbers are hard enough to interpret when they are written down. See upthread how misleading the middlebury numbers are.
Especially given his inclination to be excited and gloat about these numbers. Who can verify them?
Elsewhere, announcements on admissions and financial aid can be verified later against the common data set, and these announcements are given more credibility over time. Not that this is totally foolproof as we have seen before, but at least it is published by an independent office of institutional research.