<p>
[quote]
For the second year in a row, Princeton University has received a record number of applications for admission, totaling 17,478 for the class of 2010.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well it seems the number have increased again. Naturally the RD rate is going to fall and competition is going to get much tougher.</p>
<p>Good Luck RD'ers :)</p>
<p>A record 599 were admitted via binding ED - who will constitute virtually half the class if they matriculate.</p>
<p>Assuming a 98.5% yield on the ED admits, this leaves 610 slots (1,200 - 590) to be filled from the RD pool.</p>
<p>With a larger number of deferreds presumably in the pool this year, Princeton might hope to improve its RD yield rate of 52% for the class of 2009. If it is projected at 54% for the class of 2010, that would make it necessary to admit around 1,125 from the RD pool.</p>
<p>Without considering the deferreds, this would translate into an advertised admit rate of about 7.3% or 7.4% compared to 8.4% last year. When the deferreds are included, the "true" admit rate will probably be more like 6.8% or 6.9%.</p>
<p>The point is that these deferred admits have to be accounted for somehow. Ideally, they would be listed in a separate category. Absent that, it might be more helpful to consider their number as additional applicants admitted from the early pool.</p>
<p>Last year, for example, Yale admitted 710 of 3,926 SCEA applicants for an advertised admit rate of 18.1% from the early pool. But later, 249 of the SCEA applicants were admitted after being deferred. Thus it mat be argued that the actual admit rate for those who applied early was 24.4%.</p>
<p>Yale and Harvard are, to my knowledge, the only Ivies to report both the number of early applicants deferred and the number of those deferrees later admitted.</p>
<p>I think I'm going to be sick.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>how would 6.9% adjusted RD admit rate compare to HYSM for the class of 2010 (i.e. controlling for the early deffered - later admitted subpopulation as just demonstrated for Y)? Probably pretty much in the same ballpark.</p>
<p>On another note: do you think the share of the RD admits from the deferred pool is larger at HY than at P (I mean it should not, as you have repeatedly shown that the share of early admits in practically all top schools is close to 49%). Actually, there are good reasons to believe that the share of early deferreds, admitted on RD is rather comparable across these schools.</p>
<p>Here are estimated RD admit rates for the Ivies last year (Class of 2009) - including deferred early applicants:</p>
<p>Brown: 11.8%
Columbia (CC only): 8.3%
Cornell: 24.1%
Dartmouth: 14.6%
Harvard: 5.5%
Penn: 16.8%
Princeton: 7.7%
Yale: 6.7%</p>
<hr>
<p>I would not assume that the number of early round deferreds are either equal in number, or admitted at the same rate, or in proportionate numbers, at the Ivies. The only hard numbers I have seen are for Harvard and Yale. Harvard admitted 94 deferreds last year, I think, while Yale admitted 249. </p>
<p>One can safely assume that the deferreds who are admitted tend to matriculate at a higher rate than "regular" RD applicants, both because they have previously signalled that the school is - in fact or strategically - their "first choice", and because they have not, by definition, been admitted anywhere else either ED, EA or SCEA.</p>
<p>when they said 'population explosion' i didnt know i'd have to face the consequences so soon.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One can safely assume that the deferreds who are admitted tend to matriculate at a higher rate
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No question, but Harvard does not seem to care very much, if they only admit <100 from the deferred pool (that's what? some 7% of all admits?).</p>
<p>The reason probably is that the yield rates for EA and RD converge like at no other school (at Pton you said it was like 98% ED vs. 52% RD, an infinitely bigger spread)</p>
<p>We are talking about the RD admit rate. This stat is influenced by: </p>
<p>(1) the number of slots still open after X number of slots have been filled from the early pool;</p>
<p>(2) the number of applicants deferred from the early to the RD pool;</p>
<p>(3) the number of "regular" RD applications received;and</p>
<p>(4) the anticipated RD yield, which is influenced by</p>
<p>(5) the fraction of the RD admits who are, in fact, early round deferees, who can be counted on to matriculate at a higher rate.</p>
<p>ahhhhhh. </p>
<p>thats all i have to say</p>
<p>wow. that is a painful thread to read. i am not gonna get in. lol</p>
<p>Thank you for posting that disgustingly low number...it will help me keep Princeton in perspective. I need to find some more match schools that I genuinely like.</p>
<p>Wowwww....</p>
<p>:|
now this information makes me an optimist.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think the EA/ED/SCEA yield rate has anything to do with it, really. We are talking about the RD admit rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>I guess you lost the implication of your own argument out of sight:</p>
<p>The higher the (anticipated) yield, the less applicants a school has to admit in the first place, the lower the admit rate in other words. In this sense, the two are inversely related.</p>
<p>As for RD admission of deferred early applicants it was specifically your (correct) argument that they help a school keep the admit rate low, BECAUSE they are as likely to enroll under RD acceptance as they would have been under early acceptance, which by definition supposedly is higher than for the regular RD crowd (remember all your own arguments with 'the winner takes it all etc.' ? - in other words that schools like Princeton still lose a fair amount of (#regular') RD admitted applicants to its rivals).</p>
<p>My observation on Harvard was simply this one: the more the (adjusted) RD yield rate (some 80% if I remember correctly) converges with the anticpated early yield rate (some 90% according to your indication) - note the difference to Princeton 98% ED vs. 52% RD, the less a school has to be concerned about this dilution effect you described, the less they need to care about the 'cosmetic' effects in the stats when making their admission choices between a deferred early and a regular candidate.</p>
<p>If your point is that a binding ED school gets a bigger yield rate bump, proportionately, than an SCEA school or an open EA school, then I agree with you - at least in theory.</p>
<p>But the ultra high SCEA yields at Harvard, Yale and Stanford expose this "reform" as essentially phony. Once you limit yourself to a single early application - binding or not - you sharply reduce your odds of getting in anywhere else given the absurdly low RD admit rates.</p>
<p>The deferred early admits probably DO matriculate at a higher rate than other RD admits, but probably well below the rate for "original" SCEA or ED admits. Why is this so? Because they often have several admission letters in hand at the time they make a choice, and I've observed a phenomenon: sometimes "a little of the love dies" after the initial rejection, whereas the other schools have never sent a negative message.</p>
<p>Princeton will always take more from the ED round then H and Y to satisfy their own needs (which will include legacies).</p>
<p>In turn alumni giving will remain the highest which has filtered down to provide undergrads with the best education and quality of living combined of any school anywhere.</p>
<p>Also it should be pointed out that their ED pool have consistently shown a desire to attend only Princeton. The University prides itself on having a small college feel to it. This is something very important to the current administration. The matriculating students always bring a smorgasbord of talents which add to the whole Princeton experience. That is something which transcends numbers and admit rates.</p>
<p>blahblahblah</p>
<p><< ...their ED pool have consistently shown a desire to attend only Princeton>></p>
<p>Like they have a choice? </p>
<p>If the Princeton early applicants are that much more devoted than the early applicants at other schools, as you say, why does Princeton prevent them from considering other choices, as Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Caltech etc do? Surely there can be little to fear from defections, could there?</p>
<p>^ very mature.</p>
<p>My conservative friend Byerly likes to indulge himself in the numbers game where he usually wins hands down.
He means no harm but rather he just loves his Alma Mater and enjoys even more reciting statistics showing it to be the hardest school to get in. </p>
<p>He himself would be tickled silly with a child of his own attending Princeton:)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the Princeton early applicants are that much more devoted than the early applicants at other schools, as you say, why does Princeton prevent them from considering other choices, as Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Caltech etc do? Surely there can be little to fear from defections, could there?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They lock themselves in precisely for the reasons that I mentioned in my last post. I doubt whether Rapelye is really concerned with the numbers competition as some (our friend Lawrence included) might want to think.</p>
<p>I know blah-blah-blah.</p>