<p>^^^^^xiggi, fully agree…</p>
<p>this could very well be called the year of the lower yield, high waitlist admissions</p>
<p>it is unfortunate that the more non-transparent colleges will never adjust their final admit rate to reflect the kids let in from the waitlist</p>
<p>Facinating! Where are people getting these numbers from though?</p>
<p>The initial ones were made available by the schools via press releases. Some more from schools disclosing statistics in the letters to the applicants. </p>
<p>However, most seem to be borrowed from Jacques Steinberg’s blog at the NYTimes. It’s very helpful that he seemed to have been able to convince the schools to provide him the information on a timely basis. Except for a few minute errors, the list at TheChoice is a great source of information.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps. One other thing to consider, though, is that some of these schools could have filled a larger percentage of their class with ED admits. Lots of reasons to do this. It gives them a higher overall yield, therefore a lower admit rate. It makes their total yield somewhat more predictable; their RD yield models are probably less reliable when there’s a sudden surge in applications, as many of them experienced this year. ED yield is virtually 100%, so the bigger the fraction of the class filled ED, the less they need to worry about variability in their RD yield. Third—and this is only speculation—it may be that more of the ED applicants are full-pay, because many applicants with financial need will want to compare FA offers and therefore wait to apply RD. Boosting ED admission could be a sneaky way for colleges to reduce their FA exposure while technically remaining “need-blind.”</p>
<p>My guess is we’ll see more admits on both ends—more ED admits, and more taken off waitlists which can also be manipulated to manage yield and, indirectly, admit rates, or even FA budgets at those schools that pledge to be need-blind in RD admission but allow themselves to be need-aware when admitting off waitlists. None of this is in the interest of RD applicants with financial need, of course.</p>
<p>
The problem is that the more students they get from ED, the fewer apply to RD. And this could make their overall number of applications to decrease.</p>
<p>Why would schools choose this year in particular to increase ED admissions? The only reason to lower the total number of acceptances would be to save room because of the previous years’ high yield. As far as I know, that isn’t the case. That’s a dramatic decrease for WashU, Duke, and Amherst, though. Would that just be in the hope that more competitive admissions this year would result in increased yield at their respective school?</p>
<p>an what is USC’S?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, there are plenty of reasons, as I’ve already explained ^^ (post #24). Schools at this level are in a constant competitive contest to improve their reputational standing relative to their peers. And because there are so many foolish HS students out there who want to use a low admit rate as a proxy for “prestige,” a low admit rate is a key part of that competitive game. What do you think this entire thread is about, for gosh sakes? The reason these schools haven’t taken a larger fraction of their class from the ED pool in the past is because they don’t want to dip too far down into that pool and bring down the overall stats of their entering class. But if they’re seeing a surge in ED applications (as many are) and if the quality is there to meet their 25th-75th percentile targets by taking a large number of the ED applicants, there’s no reason for them NOT to do so. It will just make them look super-selective, and likely draw even MORE applicants next year. This is completely the opposite of what ewho suggests in post #25; generally, the harder it is to get in, the more people apply.
Second, their concern on yield is not just underestimating yield. With a rapidly expanding applicant pool due in part to applicants (including the most qualified) applying to a larger number of schools, there’s a real danger they could overestimate their yield, and then need to scramble and possibly chase a declining pool of the best-qualified candidates after many of those they rejected went elsewhere. The parts of this that are more controllable are ED and the waitlist. Prudence would dictate ample use of both.</p>
<p>Besides, I think for some schools still smarting from the endowment losses they suffered in the recent recession, the financial advantages may be very important.</p>
<p>The reasons you point out are fairly obvious and have always been true. That doesn’t answer the question about why they would increase ED acceptances this year. They probably haven’t, I was just wondering if you had a reason. I know Pomona did not. I disagree with your assumption that schools could not have always found more qualified applicants among their ED applicants. Many top schools could fill the majority of their class with ED applicants, if they wished. (Many of these schools have an ED admit rate of <25%). Obviously, schools can’t do that because of what ewho pointed out. If ED offered such a noticeable advantage, all applicants would ED, and the schools would lose money on applications. And lowering admit rate by 1% can’t have any noticeable correlation with an increase in applications. It’s mostly the continuing trend of students increasing the amount of schools they apply to because of the level of competition.</p>
<p>I understand schools want to lower admit rate and increase yield. At the same time, the schools need to be realistic in their yield predictions. If Amherst accepted that many less applicants, it means either that last years’ class was too full, and they don’t have room, or that they believe their yield would increase. Even if last years’ class was full, dropping 150 acceptances is ridiculous for such a small school. I was wondering the reason for the drastic drop. Is one of their dorms being renovated?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. I give you some reasons. You say 1) They’re not reasons, and 2) They’ve always been true. Well, they haven’t always been true. Schools haven’t always been under as much financial stress as some are right now. That’s driving a lot of things. Some schools have switched from need-blind to partially need-aware. Many are accepting larger numbers of internationals, and in most cases they’re not need-blind and/or don’t promise to meet full financial need for internationals. We know that many are placing more applicants on waitlists, and that many are need-aware when selecting off waitlists. You say Pomona didn’t accept more ED; I say, bully for Pomona, but I suspect when all is said and done we’ll find that many schools did admit more ED this year. We’ll see.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen ED statistics for many schools this year. I can tell you that when my D1 was accepted ED last year at her highly selective LAC, it came with a letter saying how pleased the college was that it had the largest and strongest crop of ED applicants in its history last year, and that this allowed it to take a record number (and consequently a record fraction) of the entering class from ED. And there was a noticeable downward bump in its RD and overall acceptance rates. Result? Well, the college had a record number of applicants this year, including (I assume) another record number of ED applicants, and if the ED pool was as strong as last year’s they’d have no reason NOT to do this year exactly what they did last year, i.e., take an ever larger number of ED applicants. And my D’s LAC wasn’t alone. Penn, for example, also had a record ED applicant pool last year, and accepted a record number (and a record fraction of the entering class) out of that pool. Result? their RD and overall admit rates dropped, making them look even more “prestigious” to gullible HS students, and they again had a record number of applicants this year. And if their ED pool is larger and equally strong, my guess is they’ll accept an even larger number of ED applicants this year.</p>
<p>Sorry, I don’t mean to be belligerent. I was simply saying it’s common knowledge that ED is 100% yield, produces money-paying applicants, and reduces margin of error of yield prediction. That was true for previous years, so it wouldn’t explain why they would increase ED acceptances now. And there was also plenty of qualified applicants in the ED pools in previous years, so that would not be a reason, either. As for financial problems, I was referring mostly to the schools in xiggi’s post (Amherst, Duke, WashU). I suppose it could possibly be financial reasons. I haven’t looked at the numbers for ED rates or general acceptance rates, so I’m mostly musing right now. Does anyone have the ED numbers for those schools this year?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>nope…</p>
<p>Gentlemen, I hope that this helps your conversations:</p>
<p>Early Decision</p>
<p>Early Apps 2011
Early Apps 2010
Percent Change</p>
<p>American University<br>
576
538
+7.06%</p>
<p>Amherst College
413
435
-5.06% </p>
<p>Barnard College
550
397
+38.53% </p>
<p>Bates College
344
327
+3.98% </p>
<p>Boston University
893
897
+0.44% </p>
<p>Bowdoin College
561
511
+9.78% </p>
<p>Brandeis University
278
247
+12.55% </p>
<p>Brown University
2,765
2,848
-3% </p>
<p>Bucknell University
540
414
+30.43% </p>
<p>Colby College
242
228
+6.14% </p>
<p>Columbia University
3,217
2,983
+7.84% </p>
<p>Connecticut College
256
249
+2.81% </p>
<p>Dartmouth College
1,785
1,594
+11.98% </p>
<p>Davidson College
402
288
+39.58% </p>
<p>Duke University
2,282
2,007
+13.70% </p>
<p>George Washington University
1,725
1,455
+18.56% </p>
<p>Hamilton College
376
303
+24.10% </p>
<p>Haverford College
265
232
+14.22% </p>
<p>Johns Hopkins University
1,314
1,155
+13.77% </p>
<p>Lafayette College
297
190
+56.32% </p>
<p>Lehigh University
614
537
+14.34% </p>
<p>Middlebury College
657
654
+0.46% </p>
<p>New York University
3,154
3,140
+0.45% </p>
<p>Northwestern University
2,127
1,690
+25.86% </p>
<p>University of Pennsylvania
4,557
3,851
+18.33% </p>
<p>Pomona College
236
234
+0.85% </p>
<p>Rice University
1,000
872
+14.68% </p>
<p>University of Rochester
600
600
0.00% </p>
<p>Sarah Lawrence College
84
73
+15.07% </p>
<p>Skidmore College
271
281
-3.56% </p>
<p>Stevens Institute of Technology
293
232
+26.29% </p>
<p>Swarthmore College
307
292
+5.13% </p>
<p>Vanderbilt University
1,666
1,274
+30.76% </p>
<p>Wake Forest University
401
451
-11.09% </p>
<p>Wesleyan University
515
500
+3% </p>
<p>Williams College
545
538
+1.3% </p>
<p>Early Action </p>
<p>University of Chicago
6,960
5,873
+18.50% </p>
<p>Georgetown University
6,615
6,092
+8.59% </p>
<p>M.I.T.
6,500
5,684
+14.40% </p>
<p>Villanova University
7,000
5,587
+25.29% </p>
<p>Restrictive/Single Choice
Early Action </p>
<p>Boston College
6,200
5,775
+7.36% </p>
<p>Stanford University
5,945
5,565
+6.83% </p>
<p>Yale University
5,257
5,261
-0.08%</p>
<p>Ah, true. I see most of the top 25 most selective colleges hover around 30-35% for ED. </p>
<p>That’s not exactly what I was looking for. I am interested in the # of applicants accepted ED this year as opposed to the # of applicants accepted ED last year. That would add something to bclin’s theory.</p>
<p>and as you can see here, the Early admits for Class of 2015 are not much different that those for the Class of 2014 for 13 of the top schools:</p>
<p>[Ivy</a> League Admission Statistics for Class of 2015 Hernandez College Consulting, Inc. and Ivy League Admission Help](<a href=“http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/ivy-league-admissions-statistics/#]Ivy”>http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/ivy-league-admissions-statistics/#)</p>
<p>Early Admits</p>
<p>Class of 2015 - Class of 2014 - Percent Increase (decrease)</p>
<p>4,824 - 4,765 - 1.2% — Ivy League
1,526 - 1,343 - 13.6% – MIT/Stanford
4,400 - 4,549 - (3.3%) - Chicago/Duke/Northwestern/JohnsHopkins/Georgetown</p>
<p>10,750 - 10,657 - 0.9% increase for all 13</p>
<p>santeria, sorry it took me so long - 7 minutes - to respond</p>
<p>Those 7 minutes were intense. Thanks for the info. </p>
<p>I guess we’ll see the final acceptance rates in May. So why did Amherst accept so many less applicants? If they accepted around 1240, which they normally do, their acceptance rate would be 14.7%. So, back to the original question: why the big drop?</p>
<p>Duke Class of 2014
Acceptance Summary
Early Decision vs Total ED+RD<br>
Applications 2,006 vs 26,784
Accepted 592 vs 4,207 (after WL - 4,065 in 4/2010)
% Accepted 29% vs 16%
Enrolled 484 vs 1750 </p>
<p>Duke Class of 2015
Acceptance Summary
Early Decision vs Total ED+RD<br>
Applications 2,227 vs 29,689
Accepted 645 vs 3,739
% Accepted 29% vs 16%</p>
<p>Amherst College
2015 413 Applied 151 Accepted (36.56%)
2014 440 Applied 146 Accepted (33.18%)</p>
<p>PS Pomona is harder to figure out with multiple rounds of ED.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Numbers for that LAC … just in case one needs supporting data for the point made above. </p>
<p>ED
2013 247 Applied 120 Accepted
2014 232 Applied 126 Accepted => RD Pool down, admit rate down, more admits
2015 265 Applied 130 Accepted </p>
<p>TOTAL ED + RD
2013 3403 Applied 862 Accepted 13 WL Admit 323 Enrolled 25.33% Admit Rate
2014 3312 Applied 860 Accepted 01 WL Admit 325 Enrolled 25.97% Admit Rate
2015 3476 Applied 865 Accepted TBD WL Admit TBD Enrolled 24.88 % admit rate</p>