Harvard accepts 7% of applicants...

<p>Harvard</a> Admissions Drop to 7% on Record Applicants (Update1) - Bloomberg.com</p>

<p>"Harvard University’s undergraduate college said it admitted 7 percent of the applicants for the next entering class after the “most competitive admissions process in the history” of the institution. </p>

<p>Harvard College, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, received a record 29,112 applications, William Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid, said today in a statement. Financial aid offered by the university helped attract applicants, he said. </p>

<p>“Financial aid enables students with modest means to believe Harvard is possible for them,” Fitzsimmons said in the statement. </p>

<p>On April 1 last year, Harvard said it offered admission to 1,948 students, or 7.1 percent of 27,462 applicants."</p>

<p>Wonderful.</p>

<p>yay soo excited for tomorrow. not. expect the worst. hope for the best. and all is well.</p>

<p>93 no’s for every 7 yes’s…</p>

<p>Legacies take up 3, athletes take up 3, URM take up 1, good luck to everyone else.</p>

<p>It really shows that they turn down many, many, many perfectly well-qualified applicants. No one should beat themselves for not getting in, nor think it indicates that much if they do.</p>

<p>the record number of applicants for these top schools mean a record number of applications per candidate. I don’t think suddenly in one year the quality of HS students went up dramatically so that there are 20% more Harvard ready kids this year than last year. Yes, I know that this HS graduating cohorts are large in number, but NOT enough to warrant a 20% increase.</p>

<p>What this means to me is a lot of cross admits among top schools. Given that the acceptance rate is lower than ever, the yield in top schools will also be lower since the same couple of thousands kids who applied to a lot of top schools and got admitted by multiple top schools still have to choose only 1. My bet is, knowing all this, the top schools still did not increase their admit rates, but rather decided to use the larger than normal wait list to control the flow and maintain the class size without running the risk of overshooting and having more kids than they want.</p>

<p>Just my speculation. I may be completely wrong.</p>

<p>Tomorrow, the only person who is allowed to talk about college admission in my family is my S1 who is going through all this. If he does not raise the subject matter, we will get the cue and stay away from the subject for a few days unless he wants to talk about it.</p>

<p>Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. I am ready.</p>

<p>Oldfort - not actually true … but, yes, the percentage of admits is low.</p>

<p>twinmom - just joking. Ok, maybe 2 % for legacies, 3% for athletes, 1% for URM, and 1% for everyone else.</p>

<p>Oldfort: Let us be reasonable here:
2 % for legacies, 2% for athletes, 2% for URM, and 1% for rest of us.</p>

<p>Oldfort is right, when you consider admissions rate for the unhooked it’s probably about 3%.</p>

<p>hyeonjlee, nice theory, but so far it hasn’t played out. The number of applications per kid has been increasing for several years, and so predictions of reduced yield have been suggested every year, too. Instead, many schools are finding freshmen enrollments expanding causing overcrowding in freshmen dorms – and many schools haven’t had to go to their waiting lists. </p>

<p>The only new factor this year is the financial crisis. I could see more kids opting for State U – although not when the top schools have improved their financial aid.</p>

<p>hahaha i like your thinking oldfort</p>

<p>fireandrain,</p>

<p>I am new to this game, so I will take your words over my own. Then, what gives??? USA did not suddenly grow 20% more brilliant kids. that would be a very good thing for the nation from collective benefit point of view! One could think of the international applicants who may be contributing to this ever increasing applicant pool, but still I highly doubt that it would account for 20% increase!</p>

<p>Is it the case that there is a significant college polarization - meaning, top 10-20 colleges are sucking up all the high performing kids, while the remainder compete for the brilliant kids among the ever diminishing pool who are still willing to consider those colleges outside of top, top elite 10-20 colleges?</p>

<p>There are several reasons:</p>

<p>-The ivies have indeed stepped up international recruiting in a big way
-New aid initiatives are making the middle class much more interested
-The schools are reaching out to the low income who never thought to apply
-More parents are only willing to pay $50K for a tipy top school
-The internet and sites like CC have put the ivies on everyone’s list</p>

<p>About the % distribution for URMs:</p>

<p>Lets assume that Harvard’s yield for URMs is the same as for the general population.</p>

<p>Blacks and Hispanics constitute 15% of Harvard’s student body, i.e, about 1 in 6 students at Harvard. So I would say that of the 7% accepted, no more than 1.2% are to URMs.</p>

<p>Incidentally, 1 in 5 students at Harvard is “Asian or Pacific Islander”. So most likely about 1.4% out of that 7% is to Asians.</p>

<p>^^^ “-The schools are reaching out to the low income who never thought to apply”</p>

<p>. . . and to middle income families. My Ds can attend Harvard for roughly the same as it would have cost them to go to our state university AFTER full-tuition merit aid.</p>

<p>this is surprising. last year they let in more like 15% right</p>

<p>

Oh no! CC is to blame for all of this!!!</p>

<p>Wow with 29k apps at $65 each, Harvard made over $1.8 MILLION in just application fees…</p>