<p>In the past there have been articles in the school newspaper shortly after the ED deadline indicating the number of applications received. Has anyone seen any indication of the number of 2015 ED applicants?</p>
<p>With the elections right on the heels of ED deadline, I would expect to see it in the school new paper within the next few days</p>
<p>Is it out yet? I really want to know.</p>
<p>I am also very curious, betting between 1400-1600 though.</p>
<p>It would also be interesting to know if they are admitting the extra 60 students this year (like last year how they did 460 instead of the usual 400).</p>
<p>Where to find this information? Stanford has released its REA number. it’s 7% increase over last year, but they will offer same number as last year.</p>
<p>There aren’t a lot of ED’ers posting on this board (Dartmouth). Really wondering what the deal is. Also, does anyone understand the deal with that extra 60? They did it last year “in case” they decided to increase class size…did they end up doing that? I think they will absolutely do it again b/c it brought their yield up to 55%—I worked the numbers and the extra ED was almost exclusively responsible for that increase. My bet is they will go more and more with ED, for the better yield. That’s the best way to counter the effect of all the gazillion lukewarm apps and “any Ivy” apps that the ease of Common App allows. ED people wanna be there.</p>
<p>^I definitely agree. </p>
<p>I also think it’s odd so few people are posting about ED here (better for us!).</p>
<p>Keep in mind that vast majority of college applicants do not post on CC so EDers posting on CC is virtually a non-issue.</p>
<p>I wish IV, DS applied ED, but if you search here, Dartmouth’s board has never been active, but the number of ED (and RD) applicants keeps going up!</p>
<p>[TheDartmouth.com</a> | Early decision apps reach record numbers](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2010/11/16/news/earlydecision/]TheDartmouth.com”>http://thedartmouth.com/2010/11/16/news/earlydecision/)</p>
<h1>of Class of 2014 ED Applicants: 1,594</h1>
<h1>of Class of 2015 ED Applicants: 1,785</h1>
<p>“Laskaris said she expects that the Class of 2015 will include approximately 400 early decision applicants.”</p>
<p>OUCH:</p>
<p>The desire to add more students last year was in part due to the budget process, Laskaris said. This year, however, our goal is really to come in with a class thats more along the normal lines of our typical class size and to admit the strongest of our Early Decision pool </p>
<p>I now bet 22% accept rate on the ED pool. Ouch ouch ouch.</p>
<p>22% sounds great until you contemplate how it breaks down:</p>
<p>Recruited athletes: 100% chance
Legacies: 30% chance
URMs: 44% chance
The unhooked: 6-7%</p>
<p>I figure the unhooked in the pool have a slightly higher chance than the unhooked in the RD pool, which will probably be under 6% this year. Depressing.</p>
<p>Ugh, this is dreadful news. Why did they have to introduce their new fin aid initiative this year and not the next?!</p>
<p>Anyone knows the number of int’l applicants?</p>
<p>Ya, 2College2College, if you factor in the intls, the unhooked are even less.
I didn’t think 22% sounded very good, considering last year was nearly 29%.
Anyway, I hope for a rejection v. deferral so I can move on. I wish I didn’t like this place so much.</p>
<p>According to the director of admissions and recruitment at a workshop for alums two weeks ago, legacies have only twice, at most, the chance of the typical student, and that in the ED round–that is, they have less of a tip in RD. So if a typical student in the RD round has a chance of 8%, then a legacy, in the ED round, has a chance of 16%; all students in the ED round have a better chance than those in the RD round, legacy or not. It might be a few degrees higher than a non-legacy in the ED round, but not much. I know people like to think that legacies have a totally unfair advantage, but they really don’t–most legacies who get in have the same kind of stats as non-legacies, and sometimes better. The director repeatedly made that point, because he wanted the alums to have a realistic idea of their kids’ chances–it’s a lot better to manage expectations before admission than afterward. And it’s not at all pleasant to have alums calling to complain after the fact.</p>
<p>Legacies in the class of 2014 are 14% as opposed to 11% in the previous few years. The 2014’s also have higher stats so I’m inclined to believe that weak legacies were a not part of the increase.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, Standrews, but I don’t understand your post. Are you saying that legacies did, or did not, contribute to the higher stats?</p>
<p>I guess I could be clearer. If the increase in the % of legacies were due to accepting legacies with weaker stats, then I think it would be hard for the stats of the class overall to have risen as much as they did. Therefore what the director said about legacy stats is borne out: the same or higher.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the % of legacies is for matriculating students. The increase could be related to an increase in legacy ED applications and/or it could be that the yield for legacies was unusually high for RD. I have never seen admission numbers for legacies and I strongly suspect they are not available publicly.</p>