Percent in Increase for Apps for Selective Schools

College Search & Selection
1

<p>In spite of my school having had an "off year" in terms of growth I thought someone needed to start the thread. Please add schools as the info becomes available:</p>

<p>Columbia + 32%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Penn + 15%
Uchicago + 13%
Duke + 10%
Stanford + 7%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%</p>

2

<p>Updating…</p>

<p>Columbia + 32%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Penn + 15%
Uchicago + 13%
Northwestern +11%
Duke + 10%
Stanford + 7%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%</p>

3

<p>Columbia + 32%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Penn + 15%
Uchicago + 13%
Northwestern +11%
Duke + 10%
Stanford + 7%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%
MIT +7% </p>

<p>[Total</a> applications hit record highs across schools | The Daily Pennsylvanian](<a href=“http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/article/total-applications-hit-record-highs-across-schools]Total”>http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/article/total-applications-hit-record-highs-across-schools)</p>

4

<p>great…</p>

<p>I thought the most apps were supposed to be one or two years ago–at the peak of the mini-boom? I know recently kids have been applying to more schools overall, but I thought this trend had been around for more than just this year. Why the so dramatic increases?</p>

5

<p>Penn is actually up 17% to more than 31,600, even though the Daily Pennsylvanian apparently hasn’t caught on to that yet:</p>

<p>[Penn</a> Undergraduate Applications Increase 17 Percent | Penn News](<a href=“http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/applications-penn-increase-14-percent-over-last-year]Penn”>http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/applications-penn-increase-14-percent-over-last-year)</p>

<p>So here’s the update:</p>

<p>Columbia + 32%
Penn + 17%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Uchicago + 13%
Northwestern + 11%
Duke + 10%
MIT + 7%
Stanford + 7%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%</p>

6

<p>Cornell increased 6% in freshman apps, excluding transfer apps. Cornell had about 36,300 apps for freshmen, an increase of about 2,000.</p>

7

<p>“Columbia + 32%”
wow, if anyone doubted the impact of US News rankings before…</p>

<p>Chicago inundated my son with spam mailings this go- round, probably sent him a dozen of them. Emory went the spam e-mail route, in equal numbers.</p>

8

<p>Columbia also joined the common app which tends to be a huge boost. Brown went up 20% the year they began the common app, I think Princeton increased its apps even more than Columbia.</p>

9

<p>Quomodo, colleges, realizing the numbers were declining developed a strategy to market themselves to new audiences. They’ve reached out in new areas of the US and internationally to keep the numbers going up. </p>

<p>As you can see in the article posted above, schools can substantially increase their applications through a road show which brings their message to new areas.</p>

10

<p>Columbia + 32%
Penn + 17%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Uchicago + 13%
Northwestern + 11%
Duke + 10%
MIT + 7%
Stanford + 7%
Berkeley + 5.2%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3% </p>

<p><a href=“http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/01/14/fall-2011-applications-set-new-record/[/url]”>http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/01/14/fall-2011-applications-set-new-record/&lt;/a&gt;
2010: 50,300 applicants
2011: 52,900 applicants</p>

11

<p>

Uh that may be part of it…this is more likely the main reason:
[Number</a> of 18-24 year olds in United States, 2000 - 2050 | Newgeography.com](<a href=“http://www.newgeography.com/content/00269-number-18-24-year-olds-united-states-2000-2050]Number”>Number of 18-24 year olds in United States, 2000 - 2050 | Newgeography.com)</p>

<p>According to this chart, Tidal Wave II (children of baby boomers) looks to peak in 2012-2013</p>

12

<p>Updating… adding Notre Dame + 14%</p>

<p>Columbia + 32%
Penn + 17%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Notre Dame + 14%
Uchicago + 13%
Northwestern + 11%
Duke + 10%
MIT + 7%
Stanford + 7%
Berkeley + 5.2%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%</p>

13

<p>Yale and Cornell still missing.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Chicago increased less than 12% – not 13% as reported above. 21,669 vs 19,324. No news regarding the EA admit rate at Chicago. </p>

<p>[Applications</a> to College continue to increase | The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=2214]Applications”>http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=2214)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Cornell had 36,337 applications for the classes of 2014 and 34,381 for 2013. The numbers in this thread should be for the Class of 2015.</p>

14

<p>UC system application data:
<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_applications_table1.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_applications_table1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

15

<p>Added UCLA(based on the link by UCBChemEGrad) and Tufts ( [</a>" + artTitle.replace(“-”,“”) + " - " + “Tufts Daily” + " - " + “News” + "](<a href=“http://www.tuftsdaily.com/news/admissions-office-sees-record-breaking-applicant-pool-1.2436150]”>http://www.tuftsdaily.com/news/admissions-office-sees-record-breaking-applicant-pool-1.2436150) )</p>

<p>Columbia + 32%
Penn + 17%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Notre Dame + 14%
Uchicago + 13%
Northwestern + 11%
Tufts + 11%
Duke + 10%
MIT + 7%
Stanford + 7%
UCLA + 6.4%
Berkeley + 5.2%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%</p>

16

<p>Thank you, UCB.</p>

<p>The most interesting lines are at the bottom. It shows the incredible importance placed by the UC system on transfers. </p>

<p>**UNIVERSITYWIDE (unduplicated count) - 2011 **
Freshman 106,070
Transfer 36,165
Total 142,235</p>

<p>Also, would happen to have figures (for 2011) for the number of admitted students that matches the unduplicated count? Of course, that is NOT the total of all the admitted students, but the total of the unduplicated applicants who were admitted. In so many words, how many of the 106,070 students do end up with at least one admission to a UC school?</p>

<p>If not, do you think it will be above 70 percent or below?</p>

<p>PS See my comments regarding Cornell and the Class of 2015 numbers. Apples and oranges.</p>

17

<p>To help you out, here is a copy of post presenting the Class of 2010, which should in theory represent the admission to Fall 2006. </p>

<p>Numbers for UC Class of 2010 </p>

<p>All first-time freshmen</p>

<p>Universitywide (all campuses combined, unduplicated counts)
UC Applied Admit Enroll
Total 83,199 68,249* 35,328
*Admit Rate = 82%</p>

<p>Universitywide (all campuses combined, duplicated counts)
UC Applied Admit Enroll
Total 308,172 162,809 35,328</p>

<p>Details
UC Applied Admit Enroll
Berke 41,796 9,941 4,157
Davis 32,643 22,143 5,511
Irvine 38,429 23,193 4,835
UCLA 47,317 12,188 4,809
Merc 14,098 12,314 398
River 25,899 22,373 3,591
UCSD 43,591 19,863 4,589
UCSB 39,857 21,282 4,100
UCSC 24,542 19,512 3,338
Total 308,172 162,809 35,328</p>

18

<p>I don’t understand what your point is.<br>
Here’s all the data: [University</a> of California Office of the President](<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/studstaff.html]University”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/studstaff.html)</p>

<p>Knock yourself out!</p>

19

<p>… more quality students because of reduced acceptance rates for all of UC’s campuses, unless there’s proportionately more oos and international apps because of active recruitment, ie, new sources…, instead of increased in-state apps and more urms…, the latter because of a perceived easier admit experience under holistics; “I’m going to apply to Cal, UCLA and UCSD - maybe I’ll get in with my 3.4/1600.” (I think even SD is going away from formulaic and more towards holistics because of the troubles the school had the past year.)</p>

<p>For both UCLA and Cal, I think it only means more leap-frogging admissions under the guise of holistics, more opportunity for the administration of both to admit more lesser qualified people -> more money spent on academic services, when costs s/b tightened and more sunk cost due to more dropouts. </p>

<p>You’ve seen the leap-frogging even at a school like PV Peninsula where the student body is fairly homogeneous wrt economic background. I wonder how much leap-frogging would occur in comparing one student from a well-funded hs v one from an underfunded, especially if the latter student is urm.</p>

<p>The more apps that UCLA receives are a combination of two things:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Those from some places where UCLA is seen as a better alternative than Cal because of the notion that Cal is not a good place for those of conservative upbringing. (Cal: Naked Man etc, lol…)</p></li>
<li><p>Those who know that Cal won’t be apt to accept someone, ridiculously, who has significantly lower stats as UCLA. There’s a notion that UCLA might just as well take anyone if he or she is urm, moreso than Cal. There’s less chaff in the application pool at Cal. People have the notion taht Cal would play less admissions’ head games - “How did he get in when she didn’t?”</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Anyway, I had my say about it; I’m done. ; )</p>

20

<p>UC *promised<a href=“emphasize%20past%20tense”>/i</a> a spot for everyone who q’ed. A lot of the applicants would be directed to the less popular campuses. The state can’t afford to fund all of those who are eligible any more. A lot of it is the stupidity of the UC administration, trying to find more ways, ELC, etc, to gain more eligibility for CA’s hs grads. STOOOPID… When state economy should show a cutting back of elgibilty because of lesser funds, UC is going in the opposite direction. So there is no longer a guaranteed spot for all those who q under teh index. UC’s administration isn’t fit to run any university system, let alone, the world-wide prestigious UC system.</p>