<p>"The University received a record 26,166 applications for the Class of 2014, representing a 19 percent increase from last year, the University announced on Friday afternoon.</p>
<p>The Universitys 3 percent increase in applications last year had been a drop from the increases of previous years. There were 6 percent more applications to the Class of 2012 than to the Class of 2011 and 8 percent more applications to that class than to the Class of 2010.</p>
<p>Both Harvard and Brown announced this week they had received more than 30,000 applications for their freshmen classes next fall. Harvards applicant pool grew by 5 percent this year, while Brown saw a 20 percent increase over last year. . . . (continued)</p>
<hr>
<p>If, just like last year, 2,150 applicants are offered admission, then the acceptance rate will be about 8.2%. All of the schools in Princeton's peer group have seen increased numbers of applications this year. In the Ivies, Brown is reporting the largest increase with about 30,000 applications, similar to Harvard's total.</p>
<p>obviously the main reason for the increase is the reduction of the number of required SAT subject tests from 3 to 2. as a current student this increase in applicants should make me happy, but it doesn’t - i feel like our school is cheapening itself to boost its perceived selectivity.</p>
<p>Lol, Stanford’s acceptance rate will remain above 7%. Ours will go down to around 8.25% - pretty similar to Yale’s, but higher than Harvard’s and Stanford’s.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how this is unfortunate at all…no need to be pretentious and snobby just because a few more kids are getting a chance at an Ivy. I’m sort of happy at the increase, it means more kids in high school are pushing themselves and looking further into the future than the next party on Saturday night.</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s not like the percentage of acceptance is increasing, it’s staying relatively the same to what it used to be… so duh.</p>
<p>They should have prerequisites for applying. If you don’t meet certain initial criteria then your application should not be considered. That would cut down on the numbers substantially.</p>
<p>^ They probably already implicitly have such a system…
If you think about it, there are definitely quite a few applicants with simply no chance of admission (with like mediocre scores, boring personalities, and just nothing suggesting they should be admitted…), and those applicants would probably warrant a cursory look from the AO, before rejection…(it’s not like they would have to waste a lot of time reviewing such applicants).
I don’t think putting absolute criteria would be a good idea, because presumably they would be quantitative, but there are quite a few applicants weak ‘stats’-wise, but strong in other ways who would, under that sort of system, not even have their application considered…</p>
<p>Also, our standards aren’t any lower than Stanford, Harvard, or Yale. It was nice that our standards were higher with the 3 SAT Subject tests, but we have to be competitive as well and lower our admissions rate, which will end up making us look good in the long run and help maintain an institution where the highest caliber students apply.</p>
<p>Just look at Caltech and it’s high acceptance rate. It’s high acceptance rate just encourages less people (students interested in attending the best schools) to apply because it makes Caltech looks like it’s not on par with MIT, even though it is.</p>
<p>I would think that the increase in apps coms from the left side of the spectrum of candidates. For many reasons but primarily financial ones. I dont believe the increase would come from that many more clearly qualified applicants. There arent that many more to significantly increase the pool size. so I feel the the % accepted number of total apps is really skewed. The # of (perceived as) admits will not change. Just more grist for the speculation mill. btw it was a beautiful day in Princeton today. Cool and clear 51f.</p>
<p>For those applying it is unfortunate since an increase in applications typically signifies a subsequent increase in the competitiveness of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>It seems that applicant pools everywhere have increased. Everyone worries that competitiveness increases; however, are there really more ‘interesting’ types that the ivies look for than in previous years? I guess one could argue that the amount of schools people are applying to is increasing (which is an indication of greater pool overlap), but even so, I’m almost certain that there’s a level of communication concerning applicants between top schools (particularly HYP). So, if they’re ensuring that the greatest amount of the talented pool of kids they receive is reached, and knowing that the number with high test scores and prestigious awards is relatively stable, it’s hard to argue that real selectivity has increased. </p>
<p>yoda - I thought he was saying he feels he’d have a higher advantage if 3 subject tests were required. I’m saying he’s still has the same advantage he would have had regardless of how many SAT scores are required.</p>