Whether or not acceptance rates are used directly in the US News rankings, they definitely matter. It’s a factor in their credit ratings, I believe (yield is for sure, but I think acceptance rates also determine the health and outlook of an institution.)
If I google any of those schools it’s the first thing that comes up in the right sidebar. And just look at how much people talk about it…it has an impact on reputation which is indirectly a factor in the rankings.
Each one of the Ivies made fewer offers (combined ED and RD) than last year.
Penn saw a big decrease. Its total offers of admission went from 3,740 to 3,345, a decrease of over 10%. Last year’s number is from their CDS (Penn announced 3,731 this time last year, and added 9 from its waitlist.)
But dividing this year’s number up into ED and RD, Penn made only 2,066 offers in RD compared to 2,428 in last year’s RD, off a similar number of applicants.
Pitzer - 582 admits, 13.2% admit rate
https://www.pitzer.edu/admission/admission/apply/#admitted-class-profile
Scripps 29.8% admit rate (24.2% last year)
https://tsl.news/claremont-colleges-admissions-2019-2023/
USC 11% admit rate, 66,000 applicants
http://dailytrojan.com/2019/03/28/usc-fall-acceptance-rate-drops-to-11-percent-record-low/
Macalester 31% of 6598 applicants (admit rate was 41% last year)
https://www.macalester.edu/admittedstudents/classprofile/
NYU - but note the release can be misleading. The number of admits is for its NY campus but the number of apps are for all campuses. If I were cynical, I would say this was not an accident because the language is very clear.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/march/Class_of_2023_Admits.html
Boston University 18.1% admit rate, 62,210 applications.
https://dailyfreepress.com/blog/2019/03/28/bu-admits-students-to-class-of-2023/
@bronze2 re NYU the class size (the expected 6500) is across all campuses, Shanghai and Abu Dhabi only take in a few hundred each per year. Applicants can and do specify alternative campuses on the same application so you can’t separate the applications out. If you do the math, the total admits number cited for NYC vs applicants (12307/85k) would be 14.5% and not 16%, so the 16% cited for NY campus is accurate and not comparing NYC admits vs all apps.
Aggregating the 35 selective colleges (whose admit rate is below 30%, ranging from Boston College and UVA to HYP) which have released admissions data for this year, admit numbers are down by nearly 10% and the number of applicants is up but only by 4%.
Comparing for this same group of schools their aggregate admits and applications in prior years:
Class - admits, applications (admit rate)
2023 - 107k, 911k (11.9%)
2022 - 117k, 874k (13.4%)
2021 - 123k, 799k (15.4%)
2020 - 124k, 755k (16.5%)
These schools had a total enrollment of 48k in the Class of 2021.
Whereas it was the increase in number of applicants driving down the admit rate for these schools in 2015-16, the continued decline is driven more by the lower number of offers of admission at these schools. Obviously, the numbers are dominated by changes in the larger schools but the trend is visible across most schools large and small.
@SJ2727 ok, but for the 85,000 applicants for all campuses, what is the total number of admits? I just don’t know why it only says 12,307 for NYC and not the larger total for all admits. Is it a number we can back out or am I missing something?
@bronze2 This is fascinating data, I guess it means that the yields are going up across the board for these schools. Any similar data for 10 years ago? 20?
@bronze2 I think colleges are getting better at determining who is likely to come, i.e, how to get higher yield. There is anecdotal evidence that if all kids who were admitted to a school X last year declined, you are very unlikely to get in. There is probably a complicated algorithm being used.
Schools are also prefering to use waitlist a bit more – I suppose with the only objective being that it allows them to report lower acceptance rates?
Also, filling a larger fraction of class with ED might also be a factor. This allows for better overall yield and thus lower number of required acceptances to fill the class.
I think increased use of ED is certainly a factor at those colleges that have it.
“Also, filling a larger fraction of class with ED might also be a factor.”
There is no might about it. Many schools now fill over half their class with 100% yield ED and ED 2 applicants This has a substantial impact on overall yield numbers.
@bronze2 has a great post. The most important is the 48k enrollment available at these schools. This is versus a hs universe of 3.3mm grads and 2.2mm applicants. Add in another 100k (?) international students. It’s a 2.3mm applicant pool.
That’s a 2 percent chance of getting a seat at one of these schools.
And if you take away seats for all the institutional needs. It less than half of the seats really open to most students.
It’s a math problem.
Inversely, 98% of CC is pretty much devoted to those 2% of spots.
@bronze2 I’m not sure why they don’t back it out more clearly. I know (they publish this) typically Abu Dhabi has a very high yield rate (and only about a 4% admit rate) so around 450 admits is usual for a freshman class a little under 400. I don’t know about Shanghai’s admits or yield; the class is also around 400 though so even with lower yield, overall maybe another 1000 offers total for these two campuses?
Clarifying: The Duke math in the press release is completely accurate. T20hopeful2023 and RichnPitt it is 36761 not 37761.
2101/36761 is indeed 5.7%.
36761 + 4852(ED) is 41613, or “more than 41600”. ,
“More than 41,600 students applied for admission this year – the highest number ever received – with 36,761 applying under Duke’s Regular Decision program. Among the Regular Decision applicant pool, 2,101 students – or 5.7 percent – will receive a notice of acceptance inviting them to become members of the Class of 2023. Another 81 students who applied Early Decision and whose decisions were deferred to March will also learn they have been admitted.”
Besides the numbers, I feel right strategy is becoming so important. There are 15,000/16,000 national merit finalist/semi-finalists. I know at least two of them that shot very high during the early round, and then have pretty much come out empty in RD for the top 30 schools. They did not have any hooks, and moreover, were Asians who applied for CS. Had they applied to `lower’ ivies or schools like Duke or Northwestern ED, I feel they should have gotten in.
Not everyone understands this. Moreover, for someone at the top of their class in a large HS, national merit semi-finalist, 35/36 in ACT, and at least decent ECs, it is not easy to conclude that HYPSM is a very long shot. And when you are focusing on schools in this range, you do not have enough demonstrated interest for schools in the 10-30 range.
Interesting… about the Duke numbers. here is the reason for confusion.
The Duke newspaper reported 37761 and probably misreported, but the Duke University official release was 36761.
https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2019/03/duke-university-admission-acceptance-rate-regular-decision-class-of-2023
https://today.duke.edu/2019/03/welcoming-dukes-class-2023-and-its-record-engagement-and-results
Aha! Thanks, that explains, bronze2.
@osuprof. That makes sense. But it’s not always the case right now.
Institutional priorities etc make the number of seats even lower.
20 years ago yes.
Today. A NMF get may get shut out every school in the top 20. Northwestern and less “selective” Ivy League schools are 3X more selective, statistically, than Harvard was in 1980. UCLA had. 74% admit rate that year.
However for many of us that’s when our impressions were embedded as to how this all works.
I do not mean that NMF guarantees ED admission to any place, but such students are much more likely to get in ED, if they chose strategically, as opposed to shotgunning in RD and then coming empty.
Every case is different and there will be exceptions to any general observations we make. But I do think choosing ED school judiciously is becoming very important.