<p>Even when they do publish their CDS online, they can “omit” information. Many do not give information such as GPA of accepted students, or number of students offered admission from waitlist. Those lines are just blank. Makes it hard to compare apples to apples.</p>
<p>True some leave a blank here and there, but I also like the Common Data Sets because it is a more accurate accounting of what actually occured with the admitted class. So many kids lob so many applications to schools that they may be far down their desired list. With the common data set and other available data from college board you can somewhat extrapolate who actually gets accepted and attends which is really the core constituency at a number one or number two choice school that I am concerned with more than who applies. You see this alot at our state flagship…lots and lots of out of region kids using it as a safety that won’t attend because it is their perceived safety and the cost is too high. If you look at the admitted and attending in the common data set you get a much clearer picture of the class make-up.</p>
<p>Is it possible the 2432 number is the number of EA applicants who were admitted eventually? So 1128 were admitted in December and the rest in March for the class of 2013? That way both the CDS and Maroon could be right though CDS is misleading.</p>
<p>I think the GPA of incoming students is a pretty useless piece of information - it’s too school dependent.</p>
<p>I have seen the data used by the Maroon in other documents, I believe they are correct.</p>
<p>I also believe that the data published by the Maroon to be consistent with the information released in Chicago’s press releases. That is not the real issue here. The inconsistencies appear in the data published by Common Data – data that are supposed to be culled directly from the forms filed electronically by the school in answer to the annual survey of the College Board. At it stands, we cannot reconcile the differences.</p>
<p>Fwiw, the numbers of College Data match the numbers reported to NCES:</p>
<p>Undergraduate Admissions Fall 2008
Number of applicants 12,376<br>
Percent admitted 28%
Percent admitted who enrolled 38% </p>
<p>See <a href=“College Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics”>College Navigator - University of Chicago;
<p>One another issue is that the Common Data Set queries the Early Decision numbers and that schools remain rather free to adlib their Early Action numbers. Or so it seems. </p>
<p>Again, the only solution that could and should bring an end to real manipulation (or suspicion of manipulation) is a federal obligation (and enforcement) of schools to disclose all their admission data fully, accurately, and on a timely basis on their individual websites, and this in addition to the submission of statistics to the NCES.</p>
<p>Can you provide the link to the source for Chicago’s CDS?</p>
<p>^^–^^</p>
<p>Since I listed Chicago among the schools that fail to disclose their CDS, I cannot point you in the correct direction.</p>
<p>However, this is the page for the University of Chicago at College Data:</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=327[/url]”>https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=327</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chicago does NOT have binding “Early Decision” – only nonbinding “Early Action” – which should not have a significant impact on overall yield. So who’s playing games here?</p>
<p>The “Early Decision” rate at Chicago is 0… so why wasn’t that number posted?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you really asking why a blank is inserted instead of a zero in a … table? </p>
<p>Would this make you feel better?</p>
<p>University of Chicago
PROFILE OF FALL 2008 ADMISSION</p>
<p>Overall Admission Rate 28% of 12,376 applicants were admitted
Students Enrolled 1,351 (39%) of 3,454 admitted students enrolled </p>
<p>Early Decision Admission Rate 0*
Early Action Admission Rate 49% of 2432 applicants were admitted</p>
<ul>
<li>0 as in zero, zilch, nada, zero percent, or zero percent of zero! I like a blank better!</li>
</ul>
<p>We do not where exactly College Data is getting their numbers. Looks like they may be in error, not the Maroon.</p>
<p>While College Data licenses the data from the College Board Annual Survey and that is appears that the remaining numbers are correct, it is always possible that the data files were corrupted and the number reported by College Data from the number of early applications is erroneous. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, we will never know because it appears that Chicago also conveniently failed to report the same number to the USNews since it is not required to answer the questions about Early Action. </p>
<p>No Common Data Set. No disclosures. No transparency. From Chicago to St. Louis, the more things change, the more they say the same.</p>
<p>I just don’t know what relevance the Early Action numbers have to either overall admission rate or yield. </p>
<p>ED numbers are a different story, because they tie up spots and ED yield rates are probably 97%+.</p>
<p>I am having great luck putting</p>
<p>Freshman Profile into the search box on Univ web pages when I cannot find the CDS.</p>
<p>It often yields some helpful numbers…and sometimes the CDS called by another name</p>
<p>I think its mostly about numbers and money. I know this is the case with graduate school because those profiles don’t exists for most schools. Even if you ask them directly for information on who applies and who they admit they will claim they “don’t keep track” of that information, even if it isn’t true. They don’t want potential applicants to know the real standards they have for admissions because if they did, tons of kids wouldn’t apply at all because they’d know they don’t have a chance. The school wants tons of applicants because then they can drive their acceptance rate down and their rating up. They also want the application fee, thats just the way it works. For grad school its even more frustrating because really all you have to go on is the national rankings, one of my professors told me its basically a crap shoot.</p>
<p>Class of 2014 </p>
<p>
</p>