<p>OP, admit rate is places/applicants with a fudge factor. You cannot deduce applicant quality from this ratio. I do not know anything about Columbia, but other colleges have had massive applicant increases when they made the app simpler. Use of the common app is a prime example.</p>
<p>EricLG do you think it is correct that</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just guessing (as are we all), but I suspect the Common App will increase ED applications as well as RD applications (if not this year, then next). If one intends to apply to several RD (Common App) schools assuming the ED application is not accepted, the Columbia ED Common App will allow one to do most of the application cycle legwork during the ED cycle. In the past, applying to Columbia ED did not move the RD process forward.</p>
<p>SA, it seems reasonable to me that ED is not significantly affected by CommonApp. My coarse reasoning is that CommonApp leads to more apps/student overall, but ED is limited to one app/student. PBR <em>could</em> be right if ED was not pursued because of the hassle factor, but I doubt many people fall in this category.</p>
<p>OK makes sense. But pbr I think UPenn ED for example would also “allow one to do most of the application cycle legwork,” and so only those who truly want to apply to Columbia ED would do so. These people who actually want Columbia ED would have applied ED even if there still was a separate application.</p>
<p>An ED apps increase requires a new pool of students who 1)want to commit to a single college, 2)agree to the obligations that come with ED, 3)to a large degree accept paying full ride, and 4)have not historically pursued ED because of the hassle CommonApp will alleviate.</p>
<p>You may have to use both thumbs to count them, but I doubt it.</p>
<p>Sorry to bring back my dead thread, but I’m still a little confused on the numbers for each subject. </p>
<p>My school only reports letter grades to colleges (No +/- either). How can a letter become a number?</p>
<p>This is interesting. The class of 2014 admissions statistics are now available. </p>
<p>[Admission</a> Statistics | Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php]Admission”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php)</p>
<p>^ so disappointing.
Their inter-quartile SAT ranges are now ridiculously, Harvard-ish high :(</p>
<p>And where is the college vs. engineering breakdown?
Ugh.</p>
<p>^ those are the ranges for admitted students… many of whom choose “Harvard-ish” schools instead.</p>
<p>Yes it is for admitted, but that’s not really any consoloation for students looking to be admitted in the first place (unfortunately). I think last year’s range for enrolled was like 1370-1550 or something. Columbia’s scores have risen quite a bit in the last ten years.</p>
<p>^ I think the fact that the number of students admitted (2400) tells us a bit about the magic number. Haha, just kidding.</p>
<p>Anyway, I disagree that the right word is diluted and I don’t think that there is a true standard for measuring mediocrity. Of course, an easy standard would be by SATs; I’d like to see a breakdown of students by SAT scores/acceptances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this is true, but last year the admitted scores were 2110-2300, compare that to ~2100-~2330 this year. The bar is rising every year and number of BS applicants at the top is probably falling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean by that? And how would that affect the ranges?</p>
<p>BS = bullsht not bachelor of science</p>
<p>I noticed they removed the individual 50% ranges posted yesterday and replaced them with combined total scores instead. The 50% range for each section of the SAT was:</p>
<p>Math: 710-800
CR: 700-790
Writing:700-790</p>
<p>I’m not sure how much this changes between admitted and enrolled, but for prospective students I guess it is the admitted score that matters more anyway.</p>
<p>yeah they took these down, I have a feeling it was a data error because those ranges seemed a wee bit high. Either way SAT scores for the incoming class should be 10-20 pts higher than 2013, which is good for the rankings in 2011</p>
<p>With regards to this “data error”–the sum of the 25th percentile scores remains consistent at 2110, but not the sum of the 75th percentiles (2330 v. 2380 [sum of originally posted 75ths]).</p>
<p>Thoughts on this significant discrepancy? </p>
<p>2380 isn’t high for a 75th percentile admitted range (my college’s is 2360). </p>
<p>2330 sounds like the enrolled 75th to me.</p>
<p>Actually, they could’ve been correct given they were just for each section whereas the new numbers are combined (i.e. one who received a 800 math probably didn’t also receive the 790/790 cr/writing, so the combined numbers are lower). Either way though, they are impressive numbers.</p>
<p>Top 10% of class changed from 93% to 97% as well.</p>
<p>Insane. Just curious would 50% be roughly the averages of the inter-quartile ranges, or slightly above/below?
Give reasoning :)</p>