<p>^ Dude, the privates have vast numbers of wait-lists.</p>
<p>Correcting the spelling of Haverford [not “Harverford” as in posts #41 through #81]</p>
<p>2.9% – Curtis Inst. of Music
5.5 ---- Julliard
6.2 ---- Harvard
6.9 ---- Columbia
7.1 ---- Stanford
7.2 ---- Cooper Union
7.4 ---- Yale
8.4 ---- Princeton
8.7 ---- Brown
9.6 ---- MIT
9.7 ---- Dartmouth
12.0 — Cal Tech
12.3 — Univ. of Penn
12.6 — Duke
12.8 — Amherst
13.6 — Pomona
13.8 — Claremont McKenna
14.9 — Swarthmore
15.4 — WUSTL
15.5 — Vanderbilt
15.6 — Bowdoin
15.8 — Univ. of Chicago
17.1 — Williams
17.4 — Washington & Lee
17.7 — Middlebury
18.0 — Cornell
18.0 — Northwestern
18.0 — Georgetown
18.3 — Johns Hopkins
18.6 — Rice
19.5 — Harvey Mudd
21.0 — UC Berkeley (25.5% including Spring 2012 admits)
21.8 — Tufts
22.3 — Vassar
22.8 — USC
23.6 — Wesleyan
24.1 — Notre Dame
24.8 — Tulane
24.9 — Barnard
24.9 — Haverford
25.1 — Davidson
25.3 — UCLA
25.5 — Colorado College
25.9 — Emory
26.8 — Hamilton
26.9 — Bates
27.2 — Bucknell
27.9 — Boston College
29.0 — Colgate
29.1 — Colby
29.4 — UNC Chapel Hill
29.6 — Carleton
29.7 — Oberlin
30.4 — Carnegie Mellon
31.7 — Macalester
31.7 — Richmond
32.1 — George Washington
32.3 — Univ. of Virginia
32.9 — Lehigh
33.0 — NYU
33.1 — Babson
33.2 — Kenyon
33.2 — Connecticut College
33.7 — Univ. of Rochester
34.1 — UC San Diego
34.3 — Northeastern
34.6 — William and Mary
38.0 — SUNY Stony Brook
38.5 — Rensselaer Poly Inst.
38.6 — Brandeis
39.0 — Univ. of Florida
40.0 — Univ. of Conn.
40.2 — SUNY Binghamton
40.3 — Lafayette
41.8 — American
41.8 — Dickinson
41.8 — Skidmore
42.4 — Muhlenberg
42.6 — Villanova
42.9 — SMU
43.4 — College of NJ
44.3 — Grinnell
44.8 — Univ. Maryland CP
45.5 — Smith
45.5 — UC Irvine
45.6 — University of San Diego
45.6 — Univ. of Texas
45.7 — UC Santa Barbara
46.0 — UC Davis
46.7 — Penn State
47.7 — Boston Univ.
47.9 — Georgia Tech
48.2 — Case Western
48.4 — Emerson
49.8 — Wisconsin
53.4 — Delaware
56.9 — Elon
59.0 — Wheaton
59.2 — Wooster (Ohio)
60.5 — Sarah Lawrence
62.2 — UC Riverside
64.5 — Virginia Tech
66.1 — Purdue
67.2 — Clark
67.9 — UC Santa Cruz
75.5 — Univ. of Iowa
78.0 — UC Merced
84.3 — Univ. of Colorado</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, did you mix up the OOS and in-state acceptance rates for UC Berkeley? I find it impossible to believe that a UC school would have a higher admit rate for OOS students than it would for in-state students. Or am I just missing something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does not really matter. However, this underscores why not all admisson rates are comparable, especially for schools that offer deferred types of admissions. For instance, the admission rates published by USNEWS for Middlebury have always been misleading, as they use the total applications but only report the students admitted to start in the Fall. The sizeable number of Spring admit are simply obfuscated. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the case of Berkeley, the 21 percent is equally misleading. A fact that Bob Morse will also ignore. This type of reporting should be eliminated by a change in the CDS language that forces schools to report their entire class, regardless of the division between Fall and Sprind admits. This is different from the transfer data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(Re)Correcting Cal’s and Midd’s numbers</p>
<p>2.9% – Curtis Inst. of Music
5.5 ---- Julliard
6.2 ---- Harvard
6.9 ---- Columbia
7.1 ---- Stanford
7.2 ---- Cooper Union
7.4 ---- Yale
8.4 ---- Princeton
8.7 ---- Brown
9.6 ---- MIT
9.7 ---- Dartmouth
12.0 — Cal Tech
12.3 — Univ. of Penn
12.6 — Duke
12.8 — Amherst
13.6 — Pomona
13.8 — Claremont McKenna
14.9 — Swarthmore
15.4 — WUSTL
15.5 — Vanderbilt
15.6 — Bowdoin
15.8 — Univ. of Chicago
17.1 — Williams
17.4 — Washington & Lee
18.0 — Cornell
18.0 — Northwestern
18.0 — Georgetown
18.3 — Johns Hopkins
18.6 — Rice
19.5 — Harvey Mudd
19.6 — Middlebury (1675/8533)
21.8 — Tufts
22.3 — Vassar
22.8 — USC
23.6 — Wesleyan
24.1 — Notre Dame
24.8 — Tulane
24.9 — Barnard
24.9 — Haverford
25.1 — Davidson
25.3 — UCLA
25.5 — Colorado College
25.5 — UC Berkeley (21% when not including Spring 2012 admits)
25.9 — Emory
26.8 — Hamilton
26.9 — Bates
27.2 — Bucknell
27.9 — Boston College
29.0 — Colgate
29.1 — Colby
29.4 — UNC Chapel Hill
29.6 — Carleton
29.7 — Oberlin
30.4 — Carnegie Mellon
31.7 — Macalester
31.7 — Richmond
32.1 — George Washington
32.3 — Univ. of Virginia
32.9 — Lehigh
33.0 — NYU
33.1 — Babson
33.2 — Kenyon
33.2 — Connecticut College
33.7 — Univ. of Rochester
34.1 — UC San Diego
34.3 — Northeastern
34.6 — William and Mary
38.0 — SUNY Stony Brook
38.5 — Rensselaer Poly Inst.
38.6 — Brandeis
39.0 — Univ. of Florida
40.0 — Univ. of Conn.
40.2 — SUNY Binghamton
40.3 — Lafayette
41.8 — American
41.8 — Dickinson
41.8 — Skidmore
42.4 — Muhlenberg
42.6 — Villanova
42.9 — SMU
43.4 — College of NJ
44.3 — Grinnell
44.8 — Univ. Maryland CP
45.5 — Smith
45.5 — UC Irvine
45.6 — University of San Diego
45.6 — Univ. of Texas
45.7 — UC Santa Barbara
46.0 — UC Davis
46.7 — Penn State
47.7 — Boston Univ.
47.9 — Georgia Tech
48.2 — Case Western
48.4 — Emerson
49.8 — Wisconsin
53.4 — Delaware
56.9 — Elon
59.0 — Wheaton
59.2 — Wooster (Ohio)
60.5 — Sarah Lawrence
62.2 — UC Riverside
64.5 — Virginia Tech
66.1 — Purdue
67.2 — Clark
67.9 — UC Santa Cruz
75.5 — Univ. of Iowa
78.0 — UC Merced
84.3 — Univ. of Colorado</p>
<p>Of course, Xiggi would do everything it can to pull down Berkeley in any ranking or table that attempts to rank universities. This is but one glaring example of his deep hatred to Cal.</p>
<p>I don’t know anything about this xiggi’s biases or whatever, but he does have a point. If this list is to include accepted students, then Berkeley should be higher up. Because that’s what has already been done for UCLA. However, if this were for the fall (Which that wasn’t the case, but overall acceptances), then it would be where you, RML, replaced it.</p>
<p>It’s kind of silly because 25% is still super selective. As is 28%. As is 20%.</p>
<p>I don’t think there was an intention of bias but rather consistency (since you would have to do the same with UCLA. This is why UCLA is up around 25%).</p>
<p>Besides, these numbers are meaningless since it really matters the number of students that were accepted rather than the rate. That’s because there are schools which actually accept less students than other schools, yet still have a higher rate because more people applied.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML, you could make your point without resorting to ad hominems. You added the source of infornation in your post, but also decided to quote from it selectively.</p>
<p>[Campus</a> releases 2011-12 admissions data](<a href=“Berkeley News | Berkeley”>Berkeley News | Berkeley)</p>
<p>From YOUR source, I quoted </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on that, I added a line to the table that contained both the full admit rate and the Fall only. Did you? </p>
<p>25.5 — UC Berkeley (21% when not including Spring 2012 admits)</p>
<p>My conclusion remains the same … not all admissions’ data are comparable. By the way, would you please let us know how you divide 13,600 by 52,900.</p>
<p>To add another source of information, here is the UCOP data</p>
<p>BERKELEY 2009 2010 2011
Applications 48,671 50,372 52,953
Admits 12,943 12,914 13,523
Admit Rate 26.6% 25.6% 25.5%</p>
<p>LOS ANGELES 2009 2010 2011
Applications 55,680 57,648 61,517
Admits 12,086 13,013 15,551
Admit Rate 21.7% 22.6% 25.3%</p>
<p>RML, please make sure to send your claim of bias to the University of California Office of the President, Student Affairs, the source of the numbers quoted above, and perhaps express your dismay. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_admissions_table1.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_admissions_table1.pdf</a></p>
<p>The same source provides an additional and noteworthy point, namely that close to 70% of the 106,000 applicants to the UC system are admitted.</p>
<p>UNIVERSITYWIDE (unduplicated count)
Applications 98,119 100,428 106,186
Admits 66,265 68,329 72,432
Admit Rate 67.5% 68.0% 68.2%</p>
<p>Although it is unfeasible to obtain, it woul nice to see the number of unduplicated applications and admission at the eight Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>Xiggi, please recalculate admission for Emory including their Oxford campus…</p>
<p>Interesting that UCLA’s admitted class numbers have increased by approximately 3500 students over the past 2 years.</p>
<p>Xiggi, why is the 70% admission rate to a UC campus “noteworthy” to you?</p>
<p>Buzzers, UCLA only has fall quarter admission.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Knock yourself out! </p>
<p>All you need to do is finding a source for the numbers … I do not have such numbers for Emory/Oxford, nor do I know much about the Oxford College at Emory. It is like the CAP system at the University of Texas or it more like the very dynamic transfer system, a la DeAnza to Cal pipeline? </p>
<p>But if you do post a source, I would be happy and honored to add the information to the floating list. Of course, you do not need me to do that … anyone can make changes to the list. It does, however, help when the changes are suported by data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find many things interesting and noteworthy, including the fact that close to 70 percent of applicants at the UC system are admitted. All we hear is negative news about students’ rejections and the need to focus on the CSU and community colleges system. </p>
<p>Lastly, I expressed the opinion that it would be nice to know the number of unduplicated applications at the Ivies. </p>
<p>Do you disagree with that?</p>
<p>Olin College of Engineering is 30%</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.olin.edu/DataSets/documents/Common%20Data%20Set%202010-2011%20C.pdf[/url]”>http://www.olin.edu/DataSets/documents/Common%20Data%20Set%202010-2011%20C.pdf</a></p>
<p>Great list, thanks :)</p>
<p>Xiggi,
<em>shrugs</em>
What does it really matter?
The stats are probably consistent with the highest admit rate…UC Merced for the UC system and Cornell for the Ivies.</p>
<p>xiggi, sorry about the ad hominem part, but I sense it that your hatred for Cal has just worsen. Maybe you should give it a little credit, if you can’t respect the school. Thousands of students visit this site and if and when they read your offensive comments about the school (by protecting the privates), they might going to value more the lies you spread than the positives that the school seriously provides. </p>
<p>If this thread was purely intended to provide statistics and not to rank schools, then providing more data makes more sense. But if this thread was opened to rank schools based on selectivity, then that’s another story. Somehow, I feel the latter was the intention of this thread. I hope I am wrong. </p>
<p>Anyway, if this was really to provide information, why won’t you include the number of students offered as “wait-list” too so that it would really give us a clearer picture of the nature of the school’s selectivity. After all, if you think Berkeley was gaming its selectivity by admitting Spring Admits, so are the others (especially the privates) by offering several wait-list students.</p>
<p>Many universities “cook the books” when it comes to reporting admissions data. Private universities can take more liberty with admissions data, but some publics engage in similar practices. Indeed, some private universities do not include admissions data of entire programs or colleges. </p>
<p>Of course, many private universities (including four Ivies although I am not going to list any by name because that would not be polite) rely heavily on their ED applicants to ensure a high yield and a lower acceptance rate. A university can drop its acceptance rate by 10-15 points that way.</p>
<p>^ Penn exploits ED the most, by far. Then Columbia, then Dartmouth and finally Cornell. Are these the four you’re referring to?</p>