<p>GA Tech's facebook said they received 12000 EA applications. Last year they received 8900 so it looks like the switch to the Common Application definitely increased their numbers despite the CA glitches. They also said that the 12K number was more than total applications for the Class of 2013 that just graduated.</p>
<p>I predict the EA decision rate will go to 40%, so they will accept roughly 5000 EA applicants, the average SAT will go to 1490/2200.</p>
<p>I’m interested in seeing the common data set and the report from the University System of Georgia so that we can compare GT to Emory for HS class of 2013. I think last time, the SAT’s were similar but Emory beat GT out in UW GPA. This year, the scores will probably get much higher, but we’d have to wait until this time next year to see the USG report. I wonder, if GT has just been having an exceptional two years or if both UGA and Emory were also having similar years in increasing amounts of selectivity.</p>
<p>Last year the early admission student profile for GT was a 4.0 average GPA and a 1460/2155 SAT. So this year it’s got to be better than that… with an extra 3100 applicants I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 1500/2200. For sure the 4.0 GPA isn’t going to go down. I also think they will defer more kids so they can look at the extra ones who apply regular decision.</p>
<p>Well, I would only look at enrolled students. It’s more important. Emory and Georgia Tech are almost exactly the same admissions wise, but Emory often edges it out slightly enrollment wise (I think the 75% is usually the same, but the 25% is a little lower at Tech). I imagine they essentially trade off in rejections. There is also often cross-admissions (usually for those pre-med and pre-bus people from Georgia who are wanting or willing to stay in Georgia . However, I have to admit being surprised when someone gets into Tech and not Emory, but it apparently happens. Also, GPAs are not very comparable (in addition, I doubt 4.0 is unweighted. It’s either weighted by Tech or the HS’s involved). Emory is enrolling and likely admitting many more students from other states (we’ll exclude internationals), particularly the mid-Atlantic. The rigor of many of the High schools that lots of Emory students come from (whether public or private) is on a different level from many of the schools that Georgia students attend, even the better ones. The standards are just different. It’s best to just stick to SAT/ACT comparison of enrolled students. Also, the admission strategies of the two schools appear very different. Tech is kind of like many non-Ivy privates that admit VERY high, and enrolls quite a bit lower. Emory is an oddball in that it appears to intentionally admit closer to what it thinks it can or will enroll. I personally don’t think this strategy works when you are an “elite” private school as the opposite has worked for the others. </p>
<p>dirtysocks: Emory does not see increases in selectivity (if you just look at scores and GPA). It’s been in a roughpatch for the last 5 years (likely to continue? I think…we’ll see though). It’s essentially stagnant in that arena; UGA has gotten much better stats wise however. However, I think Emory is looking to recruit different types of students than before with less regard for the scores (If they cared, they would have been more picky for Co2017, however, it’s a delicate balancing act when our peers are other private schools that will more likely snag any very high scoring student admitted). You can easily have a well-calibrated stated without very high SAT scores. If we can get the winners or placers of some competition or several people who have started an organization or business already, who cares if they have below a 1400? Seriously…I think they want more than high numbers. It’s more important for Tech to have high numbers because the academic program is more focused and involves a lot more rigor for most who want to attend because they are pre-dominantly in engineering or technology oriented majors. Emory is private and has a liberal arts approach. The natural sciences are as or even more rigorous, but not everyone is assumed to be doing that. Also, privates are just more holistic in general. The scores at Emory already high enough, it just needs to attract those w/such scores who actually care enough to use the talent in more productive ways. This can only be displayed through high caliber ECs at this point. </p>
<p>Just don’t get overly excited about these numbers you see and always keep in mind those who are actually enrolling. They are certainly smart and know how to test, but what else…</p>
<p>For informations sake:
[Common</a> Data Set - Georgia Tech | Institutional Research and Planning](<a href=“http://www.irp.gatech.edu/publications/common-data-set/]Common”>http://www.irp.gatech.edu/publications/common-data-set/)</p>
<p>Though Emory has since taken common data set off line: But I remember looking and I think Emory’s 2012-2013 data was essentially the same as Tech’s (I think it was 1270 or 1280 for 25% and 1480 for 75%). I believe Emory’s mean SAT for enrolled students was lower than Tech’s though for that year, which means it should also be the case for this year (admitted 2017 is like 10 points weaker on the 25% end than 2016). However, it’s really hard to tell. Sometimes, even in years where the admitted students were weaker than the previous year’s, the enrolled students will have a higher mean (by upwards to 10-20 points at that).</p>
<p>I am not sure though:</p>
<p><a href=“Publications >> Fast Facts >> Discover >> Office of Undergraduate Admission >> Emory University”>http://apply.emory.edu/discover/publications.php</a></p>
<p>A pdf, with decently detailed admissions profiling is near the bottom. Usually, the stats they present for the first year class are those for admitted students, but I don’t know about this year. The percentages in the table suggests that the acceptees should have a slightly higher median than the range presented for the “first year class”. If this represents the enrolled class, then Emory’s 2013 is identical to Tech’s stats. wise:
<a href=“Blow the Whistle! (404 error: page not found) | Undergraduate Admission”>Blow the Whistle! (404 error: page not found) | Undergraduate Admission;
<p>However, if admitted, then I would subtract 30ish points from each end, which would mean Emory’s range is shifted 30 points below at one end and 20 points at the other from Tech’s stats. However, this means nothing for the mean SAT (there could be skewing as is often the case). I personally believe that this is the scenario. Also, be aware that I often find that the admissions website at Tech presents something usually a little different from what I end up seeing in the CDS. The CDS is usually a little lower.</p>
<p>I wonder if tech’s data on its admission site is super scored(and it should be because that’s how they look at your sat for admissions). Also I wonder if the cds looks at every sat sent by every student. This would clearly be the reason that tech’s data is higher. Also the 4.0 is weighted by tech where they first unweight your schools gpa and then add .5 for every ap. Note that admitted students take between 6 and 11 ap’s. For instance I have 3.77 uw but a 3.91 weighted on tech’s scale with 9 ap’s. I’d guess that the average uw GPA would be in the mid 3.8s but the only way to really know that is to look at the USG data when it comes out. I think tech is trying to admit a lot of people because they are aware of who will most likely attend. It’s not like they are going to reject people who are clearly MIT/Stanford material just because they don’t think they’ll attend. They will probably admit people with a certain level of stats and admit anyone who is better than that thus having a low enrollment rate because so many people who apply are qualified and many of those who are would rather go to a different school than tech.</p>
<p>The CDS must show all scores. Emory relies on the waitlist for people who seem “overqualified” or slightly “underqualified”. Our stats. are also more volatile because we have to rely heavily on early decision and international (many whom will have low verbal scores for example) applicants to make sure Emory yields enough students able to pay the high tuition. Tech is yielding and admitting lots of Georgia students who will have a hope scholarship so can select the best among them; even those who appear to have Stanford/MIT caliber credentials, because let’s face it, they will likely not be admitted by these two anyway, so there is no true harm in admitting them. If Emory did the same, it also has to worry about like 25-30 other peer institutions (Tech is primarily competing against schools w/top engineering programs and good fin. aid. And Emory is competing against like…everyone, though perhaps less harder for those who want a BBA), several of whom will offer better financial aid if it’s a middle class student. For Emory to come back in the race, it will have to a) Market more aggressively (it still seems not to understand this), b) revamp the financial aid again (unlikely because they are already complaining about how there is a strain on the fin. aid funds. I say bologna because our endowment is higher than schools w/better fin. aid which means money can be better allocated if we actually want the better students to yield), or c) Consider a more aggressive strategy with the lure of possible merit aid (think they have already done this with encouraging students to self-nominate for Emory Scholar program. This is likely an attempt to get more apps. for those who would be in the 75%). But honestly, those ORs need to be ANDs. They need to do all 3 to attract and recruit the students desired.</p>
<p>“They will probably admit people with a certain level of stats and admit anyone who is better than that thus having a low enrollment rate because so many people who apply are qualified and many of those who are would rather go to a different school than tech.”</p>
<p>Here’s the thing though they only want so many kids to actually attend GT. I think a couple years ago they ended up with more than they really wanted. So they are only going to accept so many kids in EA. I don’t think they are going admit everyone with a certain level of stats. Plus if you look at last years thread on who got accepted and who didn’t there were kids who got denied whose stats were higher than others that got in. So at some point essays can make a difference.</p>
<p>I think the essays can be an indicator of “interest”, and also, I imagine Tech could do some degree of yield protecting (though not as intense as privates), especially w/OOS people who may end up with comparable options (especially those from the midwest where there are plenty of schools with decent engineering schools and very strong science programs, mostly public. Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin come to mind. Also, if they can maybe get into Northwestern and some of the privates that offer lots of aid, why not?). </p>
<p>Also, if that is the case with enrollment, Tech should simply admit less students. Right now it seems that their admit rate is primarily a function of app. numbers which suggests they admit roughly the same amount as years with less applications. We have been going through this too, but the increased enrollment is probably intentional (when I came in Emory/Oxford campus total for Undergrads was 6800 and now it’s about 7700 which is a HUGE increase for a private school our size). The reason I say it may be intentional is because we keep building, renovating/reallocating dorms for freshman which seems to imply they may be increasing the enrollment to get more revenue. It strains resources (especially in science departments), that’s for sure. However, I think Tech can tolerate higher enrollment because 1) many students can elect to live off campus (even freshman year, right?) and 2) it seems the construction projects preceded any jump in enrollment (like Clough Learning Commons) which accommodates many of the large introductory science and CS classes fairly well. </p>
<p>We have essentially lost control over it…In fact, we are building a chemistry addition (we have lots of chem majors and pre-meds who have to take courses there) that does not include a large lecture hall (they demolished it…), but instead a SCALE-up roundtable pbl/cbl type classroom with only 90 seats. That’s funny considering the size of gen. chem 2 courses are like well over 100 (because even those w/AP credit have to take it, so enrollment balloons in the spring). Freshman have a place to live, but where will they learn (biology is clever and has enough faculty members willing to teach general biology such that there can be 6-7 sections each semester)? At least Tech engages in more or less “smart growth.” The repercussions of a larger class size seem to be less of an afterthought. It’s like the details of construction projects other than housing are out of sync with what is actually happening (however, I honestly think the new chem building does not intend to really serve undergrads…so they can probably care less. It’s more about research and having much more lab space. Talk of a new UG curriculum is very deserving of suspicion given enrollment sizes).</p>
<p>I don’t know if they want GT to get bigger:
Here’s what it says on the housing website:</p>
<p>Why Live on Campus?
Living on campus provides a great opportunity to continue strengthening your bonds with the Tech community–and to build new bonds.
It’s incredibly convenient for accessing campus resources and events.
You will increase your chances of maintaining a high GPA.
You’ll avoid stressful and expensive commutes.
You’ll enjoy access to high speed Internet and HD cable channels.
All of our buildings have controlled access entry to ensure our residents’ safety.
We offer specialized living-learning communities for upperclassmen.
Among second-year students, 75 percent were assigned apartments before classes began in August.</p>
<p>And:
All returning students who apply before the given deadline are guaranteed housing. All transfer students who submit the $600 rent prepayment and complete the online application by May 1st are guaranteed housing.</p>
<p>So if they increase the numbers they wouldn’t be able to guarantee housing to all the students that want it. Although I thought somewhere I read that they could only guarantee on campus housing for the first 4 years… but that’s not what it says on the website.</p>
<p>4 years is better than most places…we only guarantee for 2 years (and this is still the case AFTER Clairmont campus kicked out the graduate students. If your time for junior year housing sign up is bad, you better start looking off campus immediately. Unless you receive lots of fin. aid, your chances for getting off any waitlist are slim). While those are nice perks, let’s admit that a lot of Georgia students may live at home and that those from OOS w/o good. fin. aid or merit scholarships will want to live off-campus to perhaps save some money if they can. They probably want people to live on campus, but not all will and thus spots should be available much of the time. In addition, they don’t require first and second years to do so.</p>
<p>I suppose you may be correct but then there are those Georgia parents like myself that pay for housing and want our kids to live on campus. I don’t think it would save much money to live off campus and plus I’d worry about him more.:)</p>
<p>I don’t really think so either, especially if they plan to stay in midtown, but I imagine many students will try to commute from further away.</p>