<p>The RD rate was 7.2%</p>
<p>Poor them.</p>
<p>you are becoming humorous every day</p>
<p>Can't see what's good about disappointing even more people, and becoming actually less selective as a result. It isn't good for Princeton, and it isn't good for the applicants, either accepted or rejected.</p>
<p>it is called the forbidden fruit</p>
<p>"with 50 percent of the admitted students being offered need-based financial aid" </p>
<p>That's kind of low, considering Princeton's list price.</p>
<p>If previous figures run true to form, roughly half of those will be for those in the $100-$160k income range. (Don't get me wrong - I think it is a good thing that they are doing it - it just isn't a very big good thing.)</p>
<p>mini, can you clarify...how does Princeton (or any insanely selective college) become less selective this way. And how could they fix that anyway? </p>
<p>On another note, my little guesstimate calculations were close to correct...I would have put the RD acceptance rate at 6%, but 7% is certainly sad enough. I did like the statement that they sent along with the rejection letter that basically lamented how insane admissions are, although it did make me reflect that they and the other super selective schools could probably take 75-90% of the applications and throw darts at them to choose who they would accept and come out with just as good a class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
mini, can you clarify...how does Princeton (or any insanely selective college) become less selective this way. And how could they fix that anyway?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Buried under an avalanche of extraneous "Ivy or bust" applications, neither the students nor Princeton can efficiently match the applicants who are best suited for Princeton and for whom Princeton is best suited as a college. Less selective.</p>
<p>"it just isn't a very big good thing."</p>
<p>mini: I am glad that you are not incharge of dept. of financial aid for the whole country. With mini methodology only the Pell Grantees would get admitted and given all the aid....essentially turning these institutions in to community colleges.</p>
<p>Full discloser: I am in that range and I don't get a squat.</p>
<p>"Buried under an avalanche of extraneous "Ivy or bust" applications, neither the students nor Princeton can efficiently match the applicants who are best suited for Princeton and for whom Princeton is best suited as a college. Less selective."</p>
<p>Bingo! Except a little worse than that, as it can't account for the vagaries of yield.</p>
<p>Oh. I understand what you mean now, although personally I wouldn't call that selectivity, though I would say that it leaves the school and the applicants worse for the wear, for sure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Except a little worse than that, as it can't account for the vagaries of yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is why binding Early Decision is the most efficient mechanism for matching students and colleges. The commitment part forces (or should force) students to actually think about their choice and the smaller pile of applications gives the college the luxury of a full consideration of each applicant.</p>
<p>Not a day goes by that I don't say a silent thanks to the Princeton admissions office for admitting my son. It was a perfect match for him in every way. That is why I am also grateful that he was able to apply ED. Even though he's become a stand out at Princeton I think he could have easily gotten lost in the flood of applicants in RD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which is why binding Early Decision is the most efficient mechanism for matching students and colleges. The commitment part forces (or should force) students to actually think about their choice and the smaller pile of applications gives the college the luxury of a full consideration of each applicant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, yes, but the ED option is only available to students who do not have to compare financial aid offers. So in practice, having the opportunity to apply ED is a leg up for the affluent, similar in effect to the advantages given to legacies and URMs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So in practice, having the opportunity to apply ED is a leg up for the affluent, similar in effect to the advantages given to legacies and URMs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Binding ED at a 100% need school also works for applicants who can't attend without, and expect to get, a full-ride need-based aid deal.</p>
<p>In Princeton's case they are known to be the most generous with financial aid and it's all in grants, so there's not a concern that you would get a better package elsewhere. However, ED at most places means giving up the chance to compare packages and/or bargain.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Binding ED at a 100% need school also works for applicants who can't attend without, and expect to get, a full-ride need-based aid deal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Theoretically, yes. But in practice, maybe not.</p>
<p>There are kids who post on this board whose financial aid packages, each of which supposedly meets full need, have varied by as much as $10,000 between one school and another, despite comparable costs of attendance at those schools. Also, some of the schools who commit to meeting a student's "full need" actually expect part of the need to be met through loans. A $20,000 package that consists of $20,000 in scholarships and a $20,000 package that consists of $15,000 in scholarships and $5,000 in loans both meet the same need, but the financial impact on the family differs substantially.</p>
<p>Seems to me Princeton could have saved a lot of people (maybe half the applicant pool) several months of anxious waiting and their application fee with a little quick and dirty prescreening and a polite, "Don't bother to apply." But then their acceptance rate would be 20% and that is contrary to their apparent goal of a zero acceptance rate. The lower it gets, the prouder they get. According to my projections, their acceptance rate in the year 2027 will be .003%</p>