Acceptance rate sees uptick to 24% from last year’s 16% per Middlebury’s newspaper:
Surprised it went up that much. I was expecting it to stay the same around 16-17%. What really surprised me is Colby College and how it went from over 30% 10 years ago to just 9% now.
Does this mean Midd is going to way over enroll this year? If they think the yield rate goes down a lot but it doesn’t actually…
Seems really weird that other colleges didn’t accept more students like Midd did.
It’s still unclear what their calculations are, and why they are not doing what the rest of the NESCACs are doing.
It actually makes little sense, considering that they have had over-enrollment in the past and it didn’t go well. Alternatively, perhaps they know something that the other NESCACs don’t.
Perhaps they are thinking that the yield from international students would be low, or they expect many students to take gap years?
Colby has no application fee. Easy way to bring down acceptance rates - get tons of apps from kids you will reject. I don’t think they have a writing supplement either. So free, easy app!
It’s not uncommon to see this type of thing, but the Campus’ editor needs to check the paper’s articles for math misinterpretations and related inconsistencies. The percentage increase from 16% to 24% is 50%, not 8% as stated in the article. And wasn’t Middlebury’s acceptance rate 17.4% last year?
Yes, positive that Middlebury was right in that 17.2% to 17.6% acceptance rate range last year. That mathematical mistype is a huge misnomer.
Last year they had a big contingent come in through the waitlist. I think over 100 which is a big number for a school that size who also enrolls 50% of the class through ED. Maybe this year they accepted more in response to that yield?
Colby is soliciting applications and offering free applications too in an effort to bring up their number of applicants so they can boast a lower acceptance rate. My son gets an email from Colby every couple of weeks with the offer to apply. We never once contacted them or demonstrated any interest. Several colleges do this including Siena College in Loudonville, NY. It’s all a game.
1 Like
Colleges can miss their enrollment targets if they rely too heavily on their waiting lists. This happened at Bucknell last year. Since it’s likely that Middlebury wants to avoid this condition, its decision to admit a greater group of applicants at this stage may be well considered.
The writer of the article used 8% in reference to the difference in the rate of admissions from 16% to 24%. The difference in the admissions rate is “24% minus 16% = 8%”.
THe increase in number of students admitted would be 50% (assuming that 16% & 24% figures are correct).
1 Like
This accurately could have been described as an increase of eight percentage points, a different concept (and, as an opinion, one too simple to mention). In any case, the paper missed an aspect of the article’s potential lede (an acceptance rate that has increased by ~50%).
@merc81: We just disagree. I think that the article is correct, well written, and edited well.
Your position is that you would prefer to sensationalize the increased rate of admission which the writer & editor deemed unnecessary. I would agree with your position if this were a tabloid newspaper sold in supermarket checkout lines, but not for a well written & well edited college campus newspaper.
I’d like them to describe the math accurately or not mention it. And comprise doesn’t mean what they they think it means, but that’s another topic . . .
I understand your point, but I think that the article fairly & repeatedly described the change in admission rate as an “uptick”.
Again, the article is well written & clearly communicates that Middlebury’s rate of admission increased to 24% from 16%. The 8% uptick in the rate of admission resulted in 50% more students being admitted.
Yes, but they also wrote “a major uptick,” which translates to “a major small increase.” The article needs editing, @Publisher.
Note that with this acceptance rate, Middlebury seems to have forecast its yield (~33%) for this year.
Interesting approach. They almost have to hope enough people opt to remain in-state or closer to home in order not to overflow its first-year beds. Other schools seem to have chosen an accelerated wait-list approach. Either way, there are sure to be “upticks” everywhere by summer’s end.
I’m wondering whether, if there is over-enrollment, they will encourage students to take gap years. If this is successful, it would help with next year’s yield.
As a current Middlebury student, I can tell you that we don’t understand why Middlebury decided to accept that many more students. We received an email from Residence Life last week informing us that they are almost sure that they are expecting over enrollment, even more than last year. Due to this, they are turning rooms from doubles to triples and quads—and singles into doubles.
Besides COVID-19, I also think Middlebury’s image/way of handling things has been on a downhill lately and the administration/admissions know this. For example, last week faculty rejected universal credit/no credit grading model despite the huge student movement, Professor Taylor, the current dean of the college, announced that she’s leaving Middlebury this summer to become the dean of Smith College, and also, “The College will fail to meet its budget this year by an estimated $17 million, and severe cuts are unavoidable.”
This came from a faculty member who is advocating for Middlebury to let go of MIIS—Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California because of budget costs. And Charles Murray was scheduled to return back to speak on campus in May. God knows how that would have turned out.
These issues are less internal and I believe more prospective students are aware of them. Just my thoughts.