<p>For the first time in five years, Harvard College has seen a dip in applicantions. This year, 34,285 students applied for spots in the Harvard College Class of 2016, down 665 applicants from last year.</p>
<p>Applications</a> to Harvard Drop for First Time in Five Years | News | The Harvard Crimson</p>
<p>So, the admit rate will be 6.4%.</p>
<p>That is a very daunting number. At least I know that the deferred applicants are in a pool by themselves.</p>
<p>Interesting. Stanford received a record ~36,744 applications this year.</p>
<p><em>gulp</em>
Although it’s a dip, it’s still shocking to see the number black on white.</p>
<p>^Stanford’s applications even surprised the Director of Admissions, "“It’s a little more than we anticipated,” Patterson told Bloomberg. “Stanford did very well in football, and Andrew Luck was a leader for the university.”
Never underestimate the power of a big-time college sports program</p>
<p>With the return of SCEA, I expect the yield rate to approach that achieved for the Classes of 2011 and 2010, namely, around 79%, as opposed to the average 76% rate for the “no early admissions” Classes of 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012. </p>
<p>Historically, the yield rate for SCEA admits was around 92% for the Classes of 2011 and 2010. There were 772 SCEA admits for the class of 2016. If 92% of them matriculate, that will leave 950 spots for the RD applicants and SCEA deferreds to fill on April 1.</p>
<p>If in fact the overall yield rate rises to no higher than 78.5%, then, in addition to the 772 early admits, there will be 1,343 admits from the “regular” pool - including SCEA deferreds - translating to an RD admit rate of a little less than 4.5% and an RD yield rate of a little over 70% (without counting the deferreds). </p>
<p>This translates to an overall admit number of 2,115 - less than last year’s 2,188 - and an overall admit rate about the same as last year’s 6.2%, or even a little bit lower.</p>
<p>^That’s what I was going to point out. Although the total number of applicants decreased, the admissions committee will likely accept a lower number of applicants to account for the higher yield from SCEA. So probably a comparable admit rate to last year’s.</p>
<p>Wow, Stanford got more applicants and will have a lower rate… Harvard got less applicants than last year! </p>
<p>Be nice officers!</p>
<p>The admissions has gone down probably because many are extremely discouraged about applying. While Harvard is extremely helpful when it comes to tuition and financial aid awards to admitted students, it is very discouraging to those who are rejected. They have turned down candidates with perfect 4.0s and SAT scores. Some applications reflect how flawless the students are and motivated as well. While they may be excellent candidates, they are often rejected in favor of legacies of alumni’s and other statuses as well. If applicants of those characteristics are not good enough for Harvard then who is?</p>
<p>People from my high school applied to Harvard by having perfect GPA’s and conquering the SATs, as well as extra curricular activities and internships and they have been rejected. Whereas, students who are recruited for athletics such as Crew and Lacrosse have been able to swing in with no problems at all. </p>
<p>I think Harvard should increase their acceptance rate just a little and show leniency towards applicants, while sustaining their prestigious reputation.</p>
<p>^^Your post, which notes the Crew and Lacrosse acceptances, points out a very critical, underlying feature of ALL Ivy admissions: they really boost athletes. You can be a second rate academic, but play Lacrosse, and get admitted over scores of 4.0’s and 2400 SAT scores with otherwise great ECs. Time and time again, admissions results show that sports trumps every other category of admissions, whether URM or legacy or smarts. People still are transfixed on the academics of the Ivies, but miss the sleight of hand that shows, time and time again, that athletes get the read nod.</p>
<p>There is some truth to what you say, but remember that fewer than 10% of each class at the Ivies are athletic recruits, and a fair fraction of those recruits are highly qualified academically as well.</p>
<p>To clarify the largely hearsay posts:</p>
<p>1.) Applications are down largely (mostly) because high school seniors in the North East declined this year. Most other schools, such as Princeton and Columbia, are down. The only tier-one school in the NE with an increase in applications is Yale, however Yale has had fewer people apply in past years, even with Princeton and Harvard not using EA. Stanford is the real star, where they’re attracting lots of people in all different locations.
2.) Of the roughly 200 athletes recruited each year, between 5 and 70 have objectives that would be questioned in a normal applicant (read: not rejected if they had nailed the other criteria in essays/recs/interview - similar to how the athletes nail the criteria in recruiting). There isn’t a single athlete with objectives that would be automatically rejected for a regular applicant who had equal strength in essays, etc. as an athlete did in sports. Keep in mind, Ivy rules say one standard deviation or less; Harvard hardly needs to lower standards for the troves of athletes who apply; and Harvard will not admit any recruit with disastrous transcripts and test scores (certainly not a double digit AI).</p>
<p>Kellybkk wrote:
</p>
<p>It gets tiring continually refuting this old falsehood. In the Ivy League - the mean academic index (calculated using a combination of SAT, SATii and class rank) must be within one standard deviation of the general student body on campus. The athletes in the Ivy League are not just excelling in academics, they’re doing it while devoting several hours each day on athletics. </p>
<p>Of course everyone “knows a guy” at their school who is dumb as a box of rocks, scored 1200 on the SAT and got a full ride to Princeton…it’s BS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>gekko:</p>
<p>please provide the link showing that Princeton applications are down this year</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>Jamie Brown: it’s in the OP. Third paragraph. [Applications</a> to Harvard Drop for First Time in Five Years | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/26/admissions-applications-decline-2016/]Applications”>Applications to Harvard Drop for First Time in Five Years | News | The Harvard Crimson) Here is another article describing northeast schools for both EA and RD. [CC</a>, SEAS applications down nearly 9 percent](<a href=“http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2012/01/18/cc-seas-applications-down-nearly-9-percent]CC”>CC, SEAS applications down nearly 9 percent - Columbia Spectator)</p>
<p>I have to say that admissions increased at Stanford most likely due to the increasing success they have had in college sports (particularly football). Prior to these last couple of seasons, I did not know that Stanford had a strong fan base for their football team, let alone showing up for the games. As someone who plays sports, I look for a positive environment around athletics. It seemed to me like the students at Stanford really do care about their school and athletics, so it makes sense that more students would want to apply their because it’s not just a ‘study all-day’ school. </p>
<p>The drop of applications at Harvard can most likely be attributed to more interest in other schools (such as Stanford), and also the fact that most kids just don’t think that their credentials are good enough. I know many people who have succeeded in high school (good gpa, good test scores, etc), but didn’t bother applying to schools like Harvard because they knew they would be rejected. It wouldn’t make sense to apply just for the heck of it because the app costs money (unless your parents are rich and you applied to every Ivy to see if you could get into one of them).</p>
<p>You’d need to have more information about the demographic breakdown of applicant groups to know for sure, of course, including the total number of international applicants. </p>
<p>Preliminarily, however, I suspect that part of the reason for the 6.9% increase at Stanford was the crisis in California education, where the state colleges and Universities are experiencing a cost squeeze, with tuition rising and enrollments shrinking. In consequence, Cali students are panicking and applying all over the place because they don’t know where they’ll get in and what it will cost.</p>
<p>The Claremont-McKenna apps were up almost 13%. Here were the startling Berkeley and UCLA numbers - showing this year’s total, last years, the size of the increase and the percentage increase:</p>
<p>University of California, Berkeley (CA) 61,661 52,920 8741 16.52%</p>
<p>University of California, Los Angeles (CA) 72,636 61,564 11072 17.98%</p>
<p>Somehow I think Stanford “benefitted” from this crisis, since 40% or so of its apps traditionally come from instate.</p>
<p>According to one article:</p>
<p>“The number of California residents applying for freshman admission (to the entire University of California system) rose by almost 10 percent to more than 93,000, even though the number of students graduating from the state’s high schools is projected to remain the same, officials said.”</p>
<p>Read more: <a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/12/state/n155611S00.DTL#ixzz1kupbuQl4[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/12/state/n155611S00.DTL#ixzz1kupbuQl4</a></p>
<p>Ptrocker wrote: “If applicants of those characteristics are not good enough for Harvard then who is?”</p>
<p>"I think Harvard should increase their acceptance rate just a little and show leniency towards applicants, while sustaining their prestigious reputation. "</p>
<p>No one said they aren’t good enough for Harvard. They clearly are good enough for any college in the world. But Harvard only has a finite number of freshman beds. Basic economics: demand outstrips supply. Many will be left out. Plain numbers.</p>
<p>Also your quixotic wish for Harvard to increase the admit rate – how is this done? Do they miraculously open new dorms in Cambridge and hire contract employees to manage the new students? Its admit numbers are a physical constraint – not some ceiling meant to challenge the fragile egos of 17 year olds who have never faced disappointment in their lives. If applicants to Harvard don’t grasp this fact, then they really shouldn’t be applying to begin with, to be brutally honest.</p>
<p>T26E4 - you are so right. Whenever anyone asks my son where he is going to college, he always says where he would LIKE to go - never I am going to H or Y or P. He has the scores, grades and ECs to get in - but he understands that there are only so many spots that his demographics will fill.</p>
<p>I like the way one writer in another post put it - when you apply to one of these schools you have basically purchased a very expensive lottery ticket.</p>
<p>To post #17,</p>
<p>While CMC application is up, Pomona application stayed the same. Wouldn’t that negate the claim the increase of Stanford applications mainly reflect 10% increase in California residents applicants? </p>
<p>If it is true that Stanford gets 40% of its application from California that saw 10% increase, that would only explain 4% increase not 6-7%. The rest comes from OOS at the increased rate of about 4-5%. Still a respectful increase.</p>