News release from Harvard on Class of 2009

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
21

<p>Byerly's stamemts above regarding Princeton's selectivity is totally off base. To support his finding he refers to an obscure report written by two Harvard emplyees. The reality is that Princeton has always been at the top of the selectivity rankings and always rated as one of the most selective and toughest schools to get into. As proof of this I offer instead two of the most widely read, national publications that have have rated and ranked undergraduate schools according to Selectivity - the Princeton Review ("Toughest Schools To Get Into Ranking") and the Atlantic Monthly. The results of these two rankings, as you can see below, come out pretty similarly. The citeria for the sudies is quite involved. For example, the Princeton Review, to measure selectivity used the following criteria:</p>

<p>Princeton Review Admissions Selectivity Rating
"This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students."</p>

<p>Atlantic Monthly</p>

<ol>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Cal Tech</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Washington University</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Pomona</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd</li>
<li>William and Mary</li>
<li>Middlebury</li>
</ol>

<p>Princeton Review </p>

<ol>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>CalTech</li>
<li>Yale </li>
<li>Harvard </li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Duke
10.Columbia</li>
</ol>

22

<p>HYPMS acceptance rates, 2005 in ascending order:</p>

<p>Harvard Acceptance rate, 2005: 9.1%
From the Harvard Gazette, March 31, 2005:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>All applicants were notified of their admission decisions on Thursday, March 31. Nearly 88 percent requested an e-mail notification along with the traditional letter. The 2,074 admitted students have until just after May 1 to reply for September matriculation.</p>

<p>By standard measures of academic talent, including test scores and academic performance in school, this year's applicant pool (and admitted group) remained quite similar to last year's impressive Class of 2008. For example, once again 56 percent of the candidates scored 1400 or higher on SATs; almost 2,150 scored a perfect 800 on their SAT verbal test; more than 3,200 scored an 800 on the SAT math; and nearly 3,200 were valedictorians of their high school classes. >></p>

<p>Yale acceptance rate, 2005: 9.7%
From the Yale Daily News, April 1, 2005</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>After witnessing a 1.2 percent decrease in total applications, the College accepted 1,880 students, a trimming down from last year when Yale accepted 1,950 students -- about 9.9 percent from an overall pool of 19,675 applicants. Officials hailed this year's applicant pool as the most competitive in Yale's history.</p>

<p>This year, the acceptance rate stood at 18 percent for early action candidates and 7.5 percent for regular decision candidates. While Yale admitted 710 of the 3,926 students who applied through its single-choice early action policy, 1,170 students were admitted in the later round of admissions from a group of 15,522 regular applicants.>></p>

<p>Princeton acceptance rate, 2005: 10.9%
From the Daily Princetonian, April 1, 2005</p>

<br>


<br>

<pre><code>"I was especially pleased by the quality of the applicant pool this year," Rapelye said in an interview Thursday. "By our traditional measures of scores and grades, our applicant pool was not only larger but slightly better than last year's academically."
</code></pre>

<p>The average SAT scores and the number of students who ranked in the top-10 percent of their high school classes were both higher than last year, though exact figures are not currently available, Rapelye said. The Admission Office has also not yet calculated the number of "academic 1's" — students holding the highest possible rank on the Office's internal academic rating scale.</p>

<pre><code>Rapelye sent out a total of 1,214 acceptance letters to Regular Decision candidates out of the 14,477 that applied, for a Regular Decision acceptance rate of 8.4 percent. The University has already admitted 593 early decision applicants — 29.1 percent of the 2,039 that applied.

The University plans to enroll 1,220 students for the Class of 2009, 28 more students than was originally planned. The number of students accepted went up by 176 from last year's 1,631 accepted.
</code></pre>

<p>Given the number of the Class of 2009's 1,220 spots that have already been filled in the Early Decision round, about 627 of the 1,214 Regular Decision admits are expected to enroll. This indicates the Admission Office expects a yield roughly in line with last year's figure of 68 percent. >></p>

<p>Stanford acceptance rate, 2005: 12%
Stanford website</p>

<p>The Office of Undergraduate Admission announced today that 2,412 students for the Class of 2009 have been admitted. Letters are being mailed to 1,545 students admitted through the Regular Review process; follow-up letters have been sent to another 867 students previously offered admission through the Single-Choice Early Action program. All admitted students have until May 2 to decide whether to accept the offers.</p>

<p>The total number of applications increased significantly this year, rising above 20,000 for the first time in university history. The admit rate was the lowest ever, with just under 12% of the 20,194 applicants admitted.>></p>

<p>MIT acceptance rate, 2005: 14+%
from Matt McGann's blog, March, 2005</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>We have admitted under 1500 students, for an all-time low admit rate of 14%. Fewer than 500 students are on the waitlist. More than 8,000 students, or 80+% of applicants, will receive letters informing them that we do not have room for them in the class. It has been our most competitive year ever, and the applications were simply fantastic. I'm sad that we have to turn away 4 out of every 5 applicants. I wish I could say something inspirational here that would make the hurt of not being admitted go away, something that would make the vast majority of you not be disappointed. But there's really nothing more I can say. I hope this blog has been helpful for you this year, no matter how things turn out for you. >></p>

23

<p>Marite, I am sure we appreciate seeing all the raw numbers but , as I am sure you are aware, admissions difficulty/selectivity is far more than number of apps received. The Princeton Review formula is self-adjusting. It rewards schools that receive fewer, quality apps and does the opposite with schools that receive many, ofter poorer apps as a result of marketing, popularity, etc. If you read the criteria noted above, you will see that it uses the University of Chicago as an example in this regard.
The PR people should be commended for viewing the selection as a complicated and detailed process, not just an obscure math formula that some would have us believe.</p>

24

<p>OMG...pcessly...you are truly sick. Stop posting these bloody rankings. So you think Princeton receives fewer but higher quality applications than Harvard and Yale? Prove it. Marite has just posted the figures from each of the universities' websites. Why are you still obstinately sticking with your "Princeton is the most selective even though it accepts a higher percentage of its students than H and Y" argument? And why would you even care so much? You have ruined countless number of threads on the H, Y, and P boards with your obsession with Princeton and rankings. Haven't you realized by now that no one really cares about your rankings? Please, I'm entreating you, spare us and go torture someone else on some other board.</p>

25

<p>Anyone who takes Princeton Review seriously as a source of ratings for colleges just drags down the reputation of the college he favors.</p>

26

<p>that was a little harsh cncm...having said that, pcessly does kind of rely too much on ranking lists which quite often have very little to do with reality.</p>

27

<p>Here are the projected overall yield rates (first number) and RD yield rates (second number, where possible to calculate them) for a few selected schools, based on the initial projections. These yield rates, rounded to the nearest whole number, may decline with "summer melt" and use of waitlists:</p>

<p>Harvard: 79% / 71%
Yale: 69% / 57%
Stanford: 68% / 56%
Princeton: 68% / 52%
Penn: 62% / 48%
Columbia: 61% / 47% ("Columbia College" only)
Brown: 58% / 46%
Notre Dame: 56%
Georgetown: 52%
Dartmouth: 51% / 43%
Cornell: 49% / 42%
Swarthmore: 43% / 30%
Duke: 42%
JHU: 28%</p>

28

<p>I didn't know JHU's yield was so low...
doesn't surprise me though...</p>

<p>I'm curious to see the numbers for WashU</p>

29

<p>The WUStL numbers have not yet been released.</p>

30

<p>Major ranking publications have either eliminated yield as a factor to consider or are considering such a move. The problem with yield analysis to measure selectivity is as follows:</p>

<p>It is very evident from the various admissions threads that yield is not driving the bus with top schools. Case in point - At the Princeton site there are a number of students, with top credentials (1,500+ SATs etc) who were rejected at both the ED and RD levels. These same students however were
accepted at Harvard and/or Yale. These were clearly qualified students. My point is that if Princeton was driven by yield concerns, wouldn't it make sense to accept these students since they indicated earlier in the ED process that Princeton was their top choice school? The simple answer is yes of course (if the school was driven by yield). </p>

<p>Fortunately, by recognizing that schools could easily manipulate yield, US News and other evaluators eliminated this factor in their criteria. </p>

<p>The one study measuring selectivity that has stood the test of time and is used by counselors everywhere is the Princeton Review's selectivity study used to measure the "Toughest Schools To Get Into". The citeria, as outlined below is diverse, not allowing any one factor that is subject to manipulation to effect the results. </p>

<p>Princeton Review Admissions Selectivity Rating
"This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students."</p>

31

<p>Holy cow...pcessly...are you by any chance related to the CEO of Princeton Review? Why do you incessantly post that ridiculous ranking on every thread? According to PR, Brigham Young University has a better library than HYP. Yeah, that's credibility for you.</p>

<p>BTW: one reason why yield rate is being eliminated from future rankings is that schools (such as Princeton and Duke) manipulate their yield rate so they have a higher ranking. But since you don't believe in any kind of study if it doesn't place Princeton ahead of HY, I won't bother posting it.</p>

32

<p>Cncm, I am glad that you agree with the premise that yield analysis is a problem. However, if your going to accept that premise then you must look elsewhere for evaluation criteria. In that vien I proposed the PR "Toughest Schools To Get Into" criteria because it is self adjusting and based on a number of key, "hard" factors (no surveys). Princeton does not need my promotion, the national rankings state the case well enough, however yield analysis must be viewed as flawed. </p>

<p>Further , with regard to your other statement about BYU, your attack is uncalled for. BYU was not chosen as a "better" library. Students were asked to assess their library's facilities. That is an entirely different question. For instance, what good is having 11 billion books if you cannot find a quiet place to sit - that kind of stuff. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?categoryID=2&topicID=12%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?categoryID=2&topicID=12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

33

<p>Since Early Decision programs are in ill repute, and since certain schools have used ED programs, in part, to artificially boost their yield rate, US News dropped it as a "selectivity" measure - even though it is far more useful than the so-called "admit rate', which also subject to manipulation. (ie, WUStL) - because they were being accused of encouraging the spread of the ED virus.</p>

<p>Such criticisms CANNOT be levelled against the RD yield rate measure - which shows the percentage of admits who matriculate at a school without being legally forced to, even though they have options to go elsewhere. This measure filters out the distortions introduced by early admissions programs.</p>

<p>That I why I think it is important to list both the overall yield rate and the RD yield rate. Assuming an equivalent SAT median score, the RD yield rate is a very reliable indicator of "selectivity" - and the best way to compare the relative "selectivity" of two schools, save for precise cross-admit data.</p>

34

<p>As long as you have an EA or ED progarm that "tips off" colleges as to a students first choice school, you will always have a problem with RD yield. As explained, once a school knows that it has applicants in its RD pool that have already chosen that school as their first choice school, then they can easily manipulate yield by favoring those students in the RD round (and we all know that the top schools have enough of those waitlisted people to draw from). It is the EA/ED tip off that allows schools to "stack the deck." And this is why it is no longer being considered a factor in selectivity. US News and the Princeton Review recognize this, only the less professional, poorly funded studies continue to treat yield as a factor to be considered.</p>

<p>The ED program is a great option for those students who know where they want to go and don't want the hassle of going through a four month nerve racking app process. It's good for the student and it's good for the school.</p>

35

<p>You don't have a clue what you are talking about. That was total gibberish.</p>

36

<p>Fortunately it is a gibberish spoken and understood by US News, the Princeton Review and Atlantic Monthly. Three well staffed, unbiased, long standing, well funded, national publications.</p>

<p>Who speaks your gibberish?</p>

37

<p>How is ED more beneficial to a student than a SCEA policy? The only advantage I can see, is that a yield-conscious school might give more of a benefit to an ED app than a SCEA app.</p>

<p>Princeton Review's selectivity index criteria are often touted on this board, but I think they're far too vague. I guess releasing the actual formula wouldn't make business sense, but a list of the typical factors without any sort of detailed explanation of weighting isn't enough for me. The selectivity index survey that you simplisticly bash provides a thorough basis for its analysis.</p>

<p>This whole debate is rather stupid, because there are too many variables that can't be controlled for when looking at selectivity. Unless you can figure out a way to eliminate the differences in early admit programs, financial aid, and geographic proximity, you're not really accomplishing anything.</p>

<p>And WashU has a horribly slimy admissions office.</p>

38

<p>Flame war!! YAAAY!!</p>

39

<p>"OMG...pcessly...you are truly sick. Stop posting these bloody rankings. So you think Princeton receives fewer but higher quality applications than Harvard and Yale? Prove it. Marite has just posted the figures from each of the universities' websites. Why are you still obstinately sticking with your "Princeton is the most selective even though it accepts a higher percentage of its students than H and Y" argument?"</p>

<p>LOL, why are you obsessing that Harvard has to be the most selective school, maybe its Yale maybe Caltech maybe Princeton you dont know theres more to selectivity than number of apps.</p>

40

<p>pcessly-you have a problem. we have already argued about this on the yale board. i beat you. byerly, do your thing. pcessly needs to be put in his/her place</p>