Yup. Pretty much what I expected. The University extended the deadline to gin up the applications. It’s a blatant attempt to increase the number of applications so that the University can argue that it’s more “selective”. Take a look at the blog on the Ivy Coach website. It’s a sad commentary on the college arms race. It also cheapens the intrinsic qualities of the University.
At your suggestion, I DID take a look at the blog on the Ivy Coach web site and, unlike you, it views this as a POSITIVE development, and not a negative one:
The Ivy Coach believes that the University extended the deadline so the University could spike the number of applications. I agree with the Ivy Coach – they were obviously right. Where I disagree with the Ivy Coach – but you apparently agree with the Ivy Coach – is that the manipulation of deadlines to inflate the number of applications is a good thing. To me, the University’s arbitrary extension is a naked play at the numbers game. It has nothing to do with “fair accommodations”. The University is attempting to increase the number of applications so that it can assert a claim of selectivity. It’s just stupid. UChicago is doing the same thing. Frankly, I would have thought that UPenn is above that kind of sophomoric game playing. Evidently, you don’t. In my opinion, you’re just rationalizing to defend the college. Not sure why, but so be it.
The deadline was extended to increase applications, plain and simple. Furda, as are all the admissions heads, are business people. They need to drive application numbers up and acceptance rates down. Their report card is USNews and World Report. Everyone knows the charade that is going on. Alums can rationalize it anyway that makes them feel good.
No, I DON’T agree that–in Penn’s case, at least–it was merely an attempt to spike the numbers. This is what Eric Furda, Penn’s Admissions Dean who MADE the decision to defer the deadline, said about it:
http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/01/penn-receives-record-high-applications-after-deadline-push
Of course, you may know better than the rest of us what is actually in Dean Furda’s mind, but I’ll take him at his word.
And incidentally, ALL Ivies and other selective schools, including your alma mater, constantly seek to increase the size of their applicant pools and lower their acceptance rates, so your criticism of Penn and Chicago for that is a bit misplaced. But don’t take my word for it–take it from the good old Ivy Coach blog:
http://theivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/college-admissions/college-admissions-myth/
With all due respect, your response is double-talk. You initially object to the notion that UPenn extended the deadline in order to spike to numbers. Then . . . you admit that all Ivies and other selective schools do what they can to increase the number of applications to boost their selectivity and manipulate their rankings. So what is it? Are you claiming that UPenn didn’t extend the deadline to boost the numbers (which would be so naive). Or, are you asserting that UPenn is simply doing what others are doing – twisting and turning their processes to inflate their standings? To the extent you’re saying that UPenn is engaging in a practice that is no different than what others are doing, I have two responses to chew on: First, there’s marketing and then there’s manipulation. Sending out glossy brochures or informational emails is the former, and changing the rules midstream to pump numbers is the latter. Second, just because other colleges are engaged in undignified practices, doesn’t mean that UPenn should follow suit. It cheapens the real attributes that UPenn has to offer and what prospective students should be considering.
Ok. I think this is what is happening. We all know that the peak college applicant number was either last year or the year before. The schools (including the private high schools in my town) are all aware of the birth rate drop after 1997 or so. The colleges were doing fine because of the increased numbers of people wanting to apply to college. I think this year is the first year where that population drop is taking a toll. Add that drop to the poor economy, the improvement in and acceptance of Ivy-adjacent schools, and the Stanford Rush - and I think the applicant numbers have finally, finally stopped organically climbing at the top top schools. This then would also bring about a natural inclination to both boost the apps and generally be more welcoming and practical. It is a good move for everyone.
So what’s the deal? Haven’t heard any official word from UPenn Admissions. Can we all agree that Upenn extended the deadline to goose its numbers so that UPenn can claim that its applicant pool “grew” by 3%?
Actually, we HAVE heard official word, from the Dean of Admissions:
http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/01/penn-receives-record-high-applications-after-deadline-push
So, we’ll have to wait until the next admissions cycle to see whether this will, indeed, be a permanent change in the due date, or was merely a one-time occurrence (whatever the reason).
Gimme a break. You don’t really believe that the deadline extension was “to give student an opportunity to use more time over their school holiday”? The fact is that many colleges, including Penn, have been using January 1st as a deadline for years. From time immemorial high school breaks have been between Christmas and New Year’s. There was nothing unique about this year and there was no special reason to give students an opportunity to use more time over their school holiday this year. Wake up. Admit it. UPenn gave the extension to increase applications. It’s as if the University is on crack. It’s addicted to applications, and needed an extra lift so that it can make report to US News that it is “more selective” this year. Can’t you see through the smoke???
^ I think we’ve pretty much exhausted this discussion. You have your view based on a single, solitary event. I have mine based on observing Penn Admissions for decades, hearing Dean Furda speak about Penn Admissions in person on several occasions, hearing what he’s had to say about Penn Admissions in particular and college admissions in general in broadcast media (e.g., the “Today” show, Wall Street Journal Forum, NPR, etc.), and reading what he’s said in various articles abut the year-to-year increases and decreases in the number of applications Penn has received. And based on what he’s said and done as Penn Admissions Dean for the past seven years, and as Executive Director of Undergraduate Admissions at Columbia for nine years before that, suddenly deciding to extend the application deadline by a measly four days just to goose up the number of applications would be completely out of character, to say the least.
But you know what? It really doesn’t matter what you say based on the solitary fact of the deadline having been extended, or what I say based on the history of Penn Admissions and Dean Furda. As I said before, if the deadline IS permanently moved as Dean Furda discussed in The Daily Pennsylvanian article, then we’ll KNOW that this year’s extension wasn’t merely an attempt to goose the number of applications this year.
And with that, it’s been a pleasure, and I’m out of here. 
@Plato23, are you saying that is the same for Yale too? And WashU? Both schools extended their deadlines. I’m just curious, I’ve got no dog in this fight.
Not to mention Chicago, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, and Duke, which also extended their deadlines. But for some reason, Plato23 (apparently a Columbia grad) has chosen to post only in the Penn forum, about its extension.
@"45 Percenter" If you have been observing Penn admissions for decades you know that the admissions process today is nothing like it was decades ago. Get off your soap box – times have changed. Top colleges are all on a power trip, playing numbers games so they can be called “most selective”. Of course Penn extended the deadline to increase their applications, same reason all the other colleges did. When colleges extended the deadline the last few years for legitimate reasons, they realized the effect it had on their stats. It is the same reason they string the majority of early applicants along by deferring them instead of giving them the bad news in December – to make the RD admit rate seem lower. It is a cruel game and if you or your offspring had applied to college in recent years you would not be holding Penn Admissions up to be some kind of holy icon.
Actually, my offspring DID apply to college–and to Penn–within the past three years. Is that recent enough? 
And if you read my posts carefully, you’ll see that I am NOT holding Penn Admissions up to be some kind of “holy icon.” On the contrary, I’m merely contesting attempts by others to single out Penn as some kind of villain in the world of selective college admissions simply because it deferred its application deadline this year by a mere four days in the midst of Winter Break (as did several of its peers). My position in this thread, as well as the many other College Confidential threads in which I’ve participated over the past several years, is quite consistent: Penn is comparable to its peers in terms of college admissions. No better, but certainly no worse.
45 Percenter. I thought that you were going to get “out of here” and sign out of this conversation permanently. I guess you decided to change your mind. That’s okay, we all change our minds from time to time. In any event, you’ve also decided to sing different tunes. On the one hand, you repeatedly deny that UPenn extended the deadline to goose the numbers. As support for your position, you’ve pointed to some opaque statements from the Admissions office that suggests that the reason for the deadline extension was to give applicants some time to enjoy their holiday breaks. Yet, in other postings, you run to UPenn’s defense by insisting that, even if UPenn’s purpose was to goose the numbers, UPenn isn’t doing anything that is worse off than its peers. That last point may be partially true: UPenn may not be doing anything worse than some, and maybe many, of the schools that are goosing the numbers too. I would say, however, that there are other schools that appear to be taking a steadier and more reliable (and even principled) approach to deadlines and counting applications. Just my two cents . . . I know that you want “out” so I dont’ expect you to reply.
^ Not a problem–I don’t mind another quick reply.
As I said, we’ll find out next admissions cycle whether this was a one-time event for Penn (and, taking your position, therefore a one-time attempt to goose application numbers), or if instead it leads to a permanent change in the application deadline. Of course, we’ll also see what the other schools that extended the deadline do next time–as well as the remainder of Penn’s peers. 
The extension was purely to increase numbers only. My hunch is overall applications were on the light side this year. There was no other reason. Dartmouth, who has been seeing significant declines, and Chicago, with traditionally very light RD applications, did the same.
Time will tell. We’ll see in the late summer or early fall what deadlines are set by these schools and their peers.