<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and for a very good reason! I asked you a question that would have required mindreading skills to answer. Obviously, too much coffee --or not enough-- made me register Fall 2011 as Fall 2010. </p>
<p>Apologies! </p>
<p>PS By the way, the “point” of the unduplicated admit rate is better left for another day and place. :)</p>
<p>Adding Yale
[Yale</a> sees 5 percent increase in applications for class of 2015 | Yale Daily News](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/jan/20/yale-sees-5-percent-increase-applications-class-20/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/jan/20/yale-sees-5-percent-increase-applications-class-20/)</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%
Yale + 5%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For someone who complains about Cal posters “seizing every opportunity” to turn a thread’s discussion into one about Berkeley, I have to say: pot, meet kettle. </p>
<p>All I wanted to do was post some numbers.</p>
<p>As for your theories on why UCLA gets more apps than Cal, I’d say they are all secondary to these two facts:</p>
<ol>
<li>Roughly 61% of California’s population resides in Southern California.</li>
<li>Majority of college bound kids don’t stray too far from home.
[url=<a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06092/678836-298.stm]Home”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06092/678836-298.stm]Home</a> and Away: College-bound kids don’t stray far from home<a href=“granted%20this%20is%20a%20regional%20study,%20but%20I%20think%20it%20applies%20most%20everywhere”>/url</a>.</li>
</ol>
<p>… and I apologize also…</p>
<p>My primary intent was to show taht increased applications means nothing to UC, and especially nothing to UCLA and Cal.</p>
<p>It wasn’t to show that UCLA receives more apps than Cal because in my second point, I actually “complimented” Cal wrt UCLA because the former receives less “chaff” applicants, less applicants who think they can work the holistic system to gain admission to one of the two. </p>
<p>And also there’s probably more counselor interaction to say to the applicant, “With your stats [say, 3.4/1600 on 2400 scale] you won’t have a chance for Cal, but the door might be slightly ajar for you for UCLA.” And you can throw geography context into this as you alluded, because a counselor might say this with the schools switched for a hs counselor at Richmond HS.</p>
<p>This is all I was writing, not to take advantage to prop UCLA. Rather, again, 1) to say more applicants means more admissions’ games as a whole to UC, 2) to chastise the adminstration of UC for making pathways for more applicants when it should be cutting back and cutting costs as a whole, 3) to chastise UCLA’s administration for playing more admissions’ head games, than Cal’s.</p>
<p>If this is too delicate a topic for you to address, then I understand.</p>
<p>^ Err, sorry I thought xiggi posted that quote. Disregard my comments.</p>
<p>Riiiiight…</p>
<p>xiggi a closet UCLA fan. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Interesting about differences among the Ivies-good for Dartmouth. Duke and ND good increases. Might Stanford expect dividends next year from its football success.</p>
<p>Anyone put together the actual numbers? That would be interesting. Among ivies it looks like Cornell is the most popular with almost 40000 applications.</p>
<p>Changes 2015 2014
Brown 31,000 30,136
Columbia 34,587 26,178
Cornell ??? 36,337
Dartmouth 21,700 18,778
Harvard 35,000 30,489
Penn 31,600 26,938
Princeton 27,115 26,247
Yale 27,230 25,869
Stanford 34,200 32,022
MIT 17,800 16,632</p>
<p>Chicago 21,669 19,374
Duke 29,526 26,784
Northwestern 30,529 27,615</p>
<p>
What troubles did SD have last year? I did notice some rather erratic admission pattern last year, at least for international applicant in my area.</p>
<p>should have explained myself better instead of being in a hurry…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No ‘trouble’ directly related to or ‘erratic admissions patterns’…</p>
<p>I didn’t notice the LA Times article today titled, “UC Moves Toward Holistic Review of Applicants” until someone told me about it. But it’s on the same subject I posted on earlier today, oddly enough, so I’ll just quote [from it](<a href=“UC moves toward holistic review of applicants”>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0120-uc-regents-20110120,0,7342195.story</a>):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, I like this quote by a Regent:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Btw, there’s no such thing as race-blind admissions at UC. Even if administrators weren’t supposed to ‘peek’ at the applicant’s race, they still do in various ways.</p>
<p>I obviously think that we should all be respectful of everyone’s race/background. My chief complaint is that the UC administration is 24/7 about diversity, and is always cooking up ways to increase its diversity factor, and even having a 3.4uw/1600 (2400) applicant leap-frog a 3.9/2150. This is at the extreme, but it happens more than one would think. So because there are lower (edit: lesser quality students - I agree that all have potential and some more latently than others) admitted under holistics, this cannot -> more academically successful frosh class.</p>
<p>Where’s Ward Connerly when we need him.</p>
<p>Columbia + 32%
Penn + 17%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Notre Dame + 14%
Uchicago + 13%
Northwestern + 11%
Tufts + 11%
Duke + 10%
Caltech + 8%
MIT + 7%
Stanford + 7%
UCLA + 6.4%
Berkeley + 5.2%
Yale + 5%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3% </p>
<p>Caltech 2015:
<p>School, # of App, Proj # of Admits, Proj Admit Rate (%)</p>
<p>Harvard, 35000, 2184, 6.2
Stanford, 34200, 2340, 6.8
Columbia, 34587, 2472, 7.1
Yale, 27230, 2000, 7.3
Princeton, 27115, 2285, 8.4
Brown, 31000, 2820, 9.1
M.I.T., 17800, 1676, 9.4
Dartmouth,21700, 2165, 10.0
Penn, 31600, 3847, 12.2
Duke, 29526, 4207, 14.2
Chicago, 21669, 3623, 16.7
Northwestern, 30529, 6380, 20.9
Cornell, N/A, 6673, N/A</p>
<p>I used last year’s data for the numbers of admits, except the estimate data for Princeton and Yale as they never officially published anything. Waitlist admits are considered for most of the schools.</p>
<p>^^-^^</p>
<p>Actually, Princeton has been one of the best (and first) in disclosing information. They even place links to the CDS of other schools on their site. </p>
<p>Princeton admitted 2,311 students last year. </p>
<p><a href=“http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2010.pdf[/url]”>http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2010.pdf</a></p>
<p>Thanks. You know that I don’t read their CDS. :)</p>
<p>So, initially Princeton admitted 2148 students and then they took 163 students from the waitlist. Good to know.</p>
<p>Updating…</p>
<p>Yale admitted 2039 in total (99 from the waitlist).</p>
<p>School, # of App, Proj # of Admits, Proj Admit Rate (%)</p>
<p>Harvard, 35000, 2184, 6.2
Stanford, 34200, 2340, 6.8
Columbia, 34587, 2472, 7.1
Yale, 27230, 2039, 7.5
Princeton, 27115, 2310, 8.5
Brown, 31000, 2820*, 9.1
M.I.T., 17800, 1676, 9.4
Dartmouth,21700, 2165, 10.0
Penn, 31600, 3847, 12.2
Duke, 29526, 4207, 14.2
Chicago, 21669, 3623, 16.7
Northwestern, 30529, 6380, 20.9
Cornell, N/A, 6673, N/A</p>
<ul>
<li>No info on Brown’s waitlist number.</li>
</ul>
<p>Georgetown came in with “only” a 7% increase and 19,300 applications, despite holding the line on requiring its own application and not accepting the common application.</p>
<p>UPDATING</p>
<p>Bowdoin 8% rise in applications</p>
<p>Columbia + 32%
Penn + 17%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Notre Dame + 14%
Uchicago + 13%
Northwestern + 11%
Tufts + 11%
Duke + 10%
Caltech + 8%
MIT + 7%
Stanford + 7%
UCLA + 6.4%
Berkeley + 5.2%
Yale + 5%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%
Bowdoin + 8%</p>
<p>Rice sent an email to Alumni volunteers and said the unofficial number is an increase in 12%</p>
<p>Columbia + 32%
Penn + 17%
Dartmouth + 16%
Harvard + 15%
Notre Dame + 14%
Uchicago + 13%
Rice +12%
Northwestern + 11%
Tufts + 11%
Duke + 10%
Caltech + 8%
MIT + 7%
Stanford + 7%
UCLA + 6.4%
Berkeley + 5.2%
Yale + 5%
Brown + 3%
Princeton + 3%
Bowdoin + 8%</p>