Columbia vs. Princeton

<p>Columbia’s REAL acceptance rate and yield for the class of 2014 after the 75 wait list kids were added:</p>

<p>Applications - 26,179
Acceptances - 2,472
Enrolled - 1,422</p>

<p>Acceptance Rate = 9.44%
Yield = 57.52%
</p>

<p>here is where you find that the NYTimes, after careful consultations with Columbia shows the 75 kids added from the waitlist:</p>

<p>[2010</a> Admissions Tally - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010-admissions-tally/?ref=edlife]2010”>http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010-admissions-tally/?ref=edlife)</p>

<p>unfortunately even today, almost six months since the start of the Fall 2010 semester, Columbia continues to claim a 9.16% Acceptance Rate and 59.3% Yield:</p>

<p><a href=“Columbia OPIR”>Columbia OPIR;

<p>[Admission</a> Statistics | Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php]Admission”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php)</p>

<p>even though all the first class institutions such as Harvard, Stanford, Princeton and Yale adjusted their initial admit and yield rates in order to account for their wait list kids that were added to the freshman class…</p>

<p>onecircuit -</p>

<p>you hate on columbia despite the fact that it clearly states “as of May 1, 2010.” and on the OPIR site it states “Final enrollment figures may differ slightly from those reported here.”</p>

<p>how is that false advertising?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>admissionsgeek, the absolute only correct way to calculated acceptance rate and yield is to include all the kids that got admitted into the class from the waitlist. To do otherwise is considered sleazy and unethical. All the first class institutions do it the proper way. If you don’t believe that this is the right way, figure out how a college can game the system by waitlisting a significant amount of students that they are going to admit normally…take some time to think about it then I will show you if you can’t figure it out.</p>

<p>sleazy and unethical by whom? are you an admissions professional?</p>

<p>not all corporations use the same accounting principles, does that make one corp better than the other.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>admissionsgeek, I am sorry but what part of </p>

<p>**“Date: November 17, 2010” **</p>

<p>do you not understand here?:</p>

<p><a href=“Columbia OPIR”>Columbia OPIR;

<p>you have been so so so wrong in just about every fact that you have presented about Columbia and other schools, that it is not even funny any more. Stop embarrassing your school.</p>

<p>did you know that harvard admits a number of students each year that they offer ‘deferred admission,’ usually legacies or folks that would hurt their numbers. </p>

<p>those students a) don’t count for the year they apply, b) don’t count toward the year they enter.</p>

<p>if you talk about sleazy and off the books, that is far more problematic. but i am sure you didn’t know that.</p>

<p>“Final enrollment figures may differ slightly from those reported here.” what about this is not clear?</p>

<p>you are funny, and in the laughing at you kind of way.</p>

<p>if you don’t plan on reading my posts, then don’t respond. it makes you look hasty and ill-prepared.</p>

<p>ha!..so Columbia, as of February 27, 2011, is still using old admissions stats as of 9 months ago, May 1, 2010, even though those stats are no longer valid and should be absolutely updated…</p>

<p>[Admission</a> Statistics | Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php]Admission”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php)</p>

<p>unbelievable!</p>

<p>ok, tell columbia they should update it. if your problem is the fact that an office that just got 32% bump in admissions has decided not to update its website, that is a weak argument.</p>

<p>so admissionsgeek, tell us again how you were falsely claiming and claiming and claiming that Columbia would have to drop its yield to 38% in order to result in an 8.5% acceptance rate for the class of 2015, even though you were completely and utterly proven 100% wrong in this analysis:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12067126-post179.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12067126-post179.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Onecircuit, your analysis makes no sense. In order to get a 43% yield, you assume that Columbia will accept 3,200 students. They’re going to accept 2,400 or 2,500, as they do every year. There is no reason to think they’ll accept an extra 800 students. Given around 2,500 acceptances, the yield would have to be below 40% for the admissions rate to be 8.5%. Admissionsgeek is therefore correct.</p>

<p>For all who are arguing acceptance rates, here is a link to an article that will hopefully dispel some rumors about updated admission statistics and who really does have the lowest acceptance rates: [Difficult</a> Colleges - Galleries - The Daily Beast](<a href=“http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2655/1/?redirectURL=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-24/2011-college-admission-rates-rankings-for-30-schools/]Difficult”>http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2655/1/?redirectURL=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-24/2011-college-admission-rates-rankings-for-30-schools/)</p>

<p>“further - yield is calculated using the number of actual regular students admitted and those that accept, usually, but there are some folks that will calculate and use the total yield inclusive of waitlist activity. but the one flaw would be the presumption then is that yield on waitlist students would be 100%. i didn’t include waitlist activity, hence how i got to my 38% number instead of the 48.4% number you list. i was asking, myself, how low would the yield have to be for you to need to admit another 500 students. when you ask a different question, you get a different number.”</p>

<p>when you are done with your reading assignment, please report back.</p>

<p>i will also make a clarification for onecircuit, using actually his own argument.</p>

<p>"Applications–Acceptances–Acceptance Rate–Enrolled-Yield
34,587–2,398–6.90%–1,422–59.3%</p>

<p>Class of 2014 acceptance rate = 9.16% and yield = 59.3%"</p>

<p>but as he himself notes, columbia admitted 75 kids off the waitlist, it would mean then that a) it admitted 2473 students, b) its yield would be 57.5% in that case.</p>

<p>ultimately the real question is what is the class size of columbia following students who ask to defer admission, which i am going to guess is 40 kids, which indeed gives us the yield rate of 59%, and yet the enrolled class of 1422.</p>

<p>for those of you keeping score at home, this means that on may 1, columbia would’ve had 1347 students confirm in an admitted class of 2398, or a yield only of 56% following the regular cycle.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>celloman - huh?</p>

<p>what in the world are you talking about?</p>

<p>this doesn’t dispel and acceptance rate rumors.</p>

<p>the fact is that acceptances at these top schools listed, including Columbia, have not been announced yet. All the link that you provide shows is the projected acceptance rate based on the current amount of applications and last years number of students that were accepted, nothing more nothing less. Not taken into account are the number of increased applications that Columbia has received due to the Common Application that came from the HYPSM schools, most of which will not chose Columbia, thereby significantly lowering Columbia’s yield and forcing it to accept more students than last year…</p>

<p>@one circuit</p>

<p>quit being a jackass and get a life.
your a new low even for the extreme columbia haters on cc. </p>

<p>well see what the admissions numbers are in a few months and you can whine about something new then alright? quit trying to enforce a highly unrealistic, hypothetical situation which hasnt happened yet. </p>

<p>how does it even bother you so much if columbia’s admit rate drops below princeton’s?? you spend days on end on cc trying to prove that this will not happen to assert that one school (that you dont attend) may be in some vague way better than another school (that you dont attend).??</p>

<p>kudos to you for being the most annoying and obnoxious poster on this thread. but stop. seriously.</p>

<p>It is very simple folks. As stated before, part of the increase in applications to Columbia this year is from the HYPSM schools that previously used Brown and Cornell as the fallback Ivy league applications and did not bother with Columbia. Now that Columbia is using the Common Application, students that applied to HYPSM will use Columbia as the fallback school and when accepted to both, will undoubtedly go to HYPSM, thus reducing the yield for Columbia and forcing Columbia to increase the number of students that it accepts from the 34,587 applications for the Class of 2015.</p>

<p>If you don’t believe this, just look at the combined increase in applications for Brown and Cornell this year. It was very small, 1.1% :</p>

<p>Brown and Cornell Applications
66,474 - Class of 2014
67,173 - Class of 2015
1.1% - Percent increase from Class of 2014 to Class of 2015</p>

<p>Overall, Applicatons to the Ivy League plus Stanford and MIT increased an average of 10.0% from the Class of 2014 to 2015. Had Brown and Cornell had an average 10.0% increase in applications for the class of 2015, it would have had 5,916 more applications. These applicitions essentially went to Columbia and a big part of them were from HYPSM applicants that did not apply to Columbia in 2014. Most of these Columbia/HYPSM cross-admits will go to HYPSM thereby lowering Columbia’s overall yield.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>slicebread, Columbia continues to falsely report their acceptance figures. Admissionsgeek continues to post false and misleading information on just about everyone one of his posted messages. I have pointed this out. I have also given my opinion that a decent increase of applications to Columbia was caused by HYPSM and therefore Columbia’s yield will drop this year, thereby forcing Columbia to admit more students than last year. That is all, no more no less.</p>

<p>i think post 198 was really the kicker on here, it shows just how little onecircuit knows about columbia (most commonapp switches improves the bottom quintile numbers, but usually not the most admissible students, i am sure he/she doesn’t know this). my reason i kept on posting was because i actually do know a bit about admissions and wanted to impart that knowledge onto our friend, which seems to be a losing battle.</p>

<p>anyhow with post 200, let us leave him/her to have a debate with him/herself that ever approaches the absurd. </p>

<p>onecircuit - usually the way you know you have won a debate is when people believe you, when folks think you’re crazy, it is a kind of a good metric to know you’ve failed.</p>