<p>Middlebury's factbook provides lots of stats, but both ED rounds are consolidated, that is, ED1 & ED2 are not broken out. The past 3 years of total ED accept rates has ranged from 28% to 32%. As that rate is considerably less that what I've calculated above, either I've messed up the calculation or Midd's ED2 acct rate is considerably lower than ED1 rate, the latter which is plausible & consistent with other schools.</p>
<p>the only thing that i think could explain it is the 12% growth stat comes from a certain day in 2008 compared with a certain day in 2007. In theory, us 2013 applicants may have just been better at getting in our apps earlier than the 2012 applicants. But ya, it seems a little off....</p>
<p>Well.. I don't have the answer, but what I have noticed is that shortly after ED application deadlines passed, a lot of schools released their applicant numbers. And, for example, Dartmouth released it as 12.5% increase over last year. However, when the decisions were made their press release said it was a 9%(?) increase. </p>
<p>One explanation: People send in pre-applications with their fees and then something comes up or changes, etc and they don't actually send in a completed application. Certainly not saying that's the case here, but our house received A LOT of mail this fall about not dismissing a school based on the economic climate etc etc. So, I think there was already some expectation that numbers might be slightly down this year.</p>
<p>And when it comes to ED especially, I would guess if you are applying for financial aid, for example, you'd be more apt to apply RD to makes sure you can compare offers of aid?</p>
<p>found one of my posts from early 12/06, regarding the '10 data that was still on the banner page at the time:
[quote]
Looks like ED2 acceptance rate for Sep admits is on par with RD rate (20-21% once you remove the ED1 numbers). ED1 acceptance rate is 26% for Sep admits, 31% for Sep & Feb combined.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>so, Sep+Feb ED1 accept rate was
31% for '10
32% for '11
??% for '12
40% for '13</p>
<p>and apps look they they are going down instead of going up as reported in the paper. What am I missing??</p>
<p>Modadunn-- good theories. Conceivable they couldn't end up counting an app if it wasn't complete.</p>
<p>I guess I don't follow exactly. But are you talking ED applications or acceptances? If the number of apps are going down and the number of accepts stays the same, the percentage of accepted applicants would go up, yes? I fully accept I could be missing the point entirely.</p>
<p>I remember the ED 2 stats from my year because I was among them... 265 applicants 48 acceptances. I don't remember if that included febs, however.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Although the latest report from Midd admissions says that "ED(1) group expands 12%". the actual app numbers, taken off that banner page today and in the past, look like they are shrinking....from ED1 '11 to ED1 '13.</p></li>
<li><p>I'm a little surprised that the ED1 acceptance rate has increased. Again, given the press that apps grew, one would expect the opposite. Looks like a reversal of a trend to me.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>But, that Nov 2008 article, interviewing the admissions dean, is at fundamental variance with the history of data reported by Midd on the admissions banner page, albeit that page was never intended for public display.</p>
<p>Climbing-- I re-read the 11/08 article, and I think you are right
[quote]
According to Dean of Admissions Bob Clagett, applications "are running 12 percent ahead of where we were on the same day a year ago for Early Decision (ED) 1 applicants."
[/quote]
...so the article was published a couple of days before the ED1 deadline, so there must be some slop in the how they counted. Folks this year got their apps in early. </p>
<p>I wonder if Clagett will revise the erroneous +12% figure to a negative number? My money is NO.</p>
<p>given the reported 660 ED1 apps,
assuming 688 for the prior year (the '11 #), applications decreased 4%
assuming 700 for the prior year as written in the Midd weekly, applications decreased 6%
so, ~<5%> is probably about right, vs the +12% reported</p>
<p>Hmmmm. Not sure. It could be that the +12% figure was premature--announced before the deadline, and they didn't get as many as expected in the last 2 days. Although the New York Times article published on Nov. 20 (after the Nov 15 ED I deadline) notes that Dartmouth, Middlebury, and Bowdoin are up around 10%. </p>
<p>Or it could be a typo on the welcome page. Should it be 760 and not 660? The Campus usually does a good job of reporting admissions trends, so I'll keep and eye out for the next admissions article.</p>
<p>Our counselor said something to the effect that the preapplication process was practically invented to inflate the stats of applications and to legitimize schools saying "...applications are running ahead or even with last year" (I doubt they'd mention if they were down as they were coming in and would probably opt to say nothing).</p>
<p>In any event: Are we saying less applied and more were accepted or do we really not have a clue? And how does any of this affect how they will consider RD applicants or doesn't it?</p>
<p>It seems this entire process has changed SO SO much since our 24 year old went through this only 6 years ago. She wasn't looking at quite the same set of schools, but it was nothing like this.</p>
<p>The admission numbers of that school have always been as clear as good Vermont maple syrup. </p>
<p>Trying to reconcile the numbers announced by Midd is an exercise in futility. Two options exist: accept them at face value and never look at the verifiable data, or simply ignore them as combinations of hype, marketing, and wishful thinking.</p>
<p>Since I have decided to adopt the latter and place an asterisk on EVERY number released by Middlebury, my life has been simpler. I only wished the USNews would wise up and also place a warning asterisk regarding the creative admission data submitted by Midd.</p>
<p>The admission numbers of that school have always been as clear as good Vermont maple syrup. </p>
<p>Trying to reconcile the numbers announced by Midd is an exercise in futility. Two options exist: accept them at face value and never look at the verifiable data, or simply ignore them as combinations of hype, marketing, and wishful thinking.</p>
<p>Since I have decided to adopt the latter and place an asterisk on EVERY number released by Middlebury, my life has been simpler. I only wished the USNews would wise up and also place a warning asterisk regarding the creative admission data submitted by Midd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What a sad little world you live in. It's all magic bullets, cover ups, and conspiracy theories for you.</p>