Princeton Waitlist

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
1

<p>Anyone heard anything about the Princeton waitlist?</p>

2

<p>I heard they weren't taking anyone this year off the waitlist, but that's all I heard.</p>

3

<p>FRONT PAGE WALL STREET JOURNAL a month ago: 100% matriculation NO ONE admitted from waitlist</p>

<p>that means princeton was in high demand this year.</p>

4

<p>clearly it wasn't 100% matriculation: that would mean everyone who was accepted chose to attend. However, it is safe to say that their yield rate, which was 69%, was higher than expected.</p>

5

<p>I would say it was <em>exactly</em> as expected, at this time of year. The Princeton yield rate will probably end up a hair behind Yale's and Stanford's, and roughly at the same level it was last year. </p>

<p>It should also be recognized that the Class of 2010 yield rate benefitted by the decision to fill virtually half the class (599 admits) from the mandatory ED pool, for which the yield rate approaches 100%, by definition.</p>

6

<p>yeah, you are right byerly. it should be exactly as expected.</p>

7

<p>wrong, byerly.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=189614%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=189614&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

8

<p>No, actually, I don't think Byerly is quite right. Princeton did have an increase in its matriculation rate (it was certainly above what was expected) and it had nothing to do with Early Decision. Here are the numbers for the last two years, gathered from Princeton’s website and articles in the Daily Princetonian:</p>

<p>Class of 2009:</p>

<p>16,510------Total applications
1,807-------Total admitted (including 593 from Early Decision out of 2,039 applicants)
10.9%-------Admitted Percentage</p>

<p>1,221-------Preliminary May 2005 figure for total enrollment
67.57%-----Preliminary May 2005 percentage for yield
0-----------Number of students actually taken from the waiting list</p>

<p>1,229-------Final October 2005 figure for total enrollment (from Common Data Set)
68%--------Final October 2005 percentage for yield (from Common Data Set)</p>

<hr>

<p>Class of 2010:</p>

<p>17,478------Total applications
1,792-------Total admitted (including 599 from Early Decision out of 2,236 applicants)
10.25%------Admitted Percentage</p>

<p>1,239--------Preliminary May 2006 figure for total enrollment
69.14%------Preliminary May 2006 percentage for yield
0------------Number of students likely to be taken from the waiting list</p>

<p>?------------Final October 2006 figure for total enrollment
?------------Final October 2006 percentage for yield</p>

<hr>

<p>Several things stand out here. There were only six additional students accepted through Early Decision, which would have added one third of one percent to the matriculation rate, certainly not accounting for the more than 1.5% increase in the May 2006 preliminary report. Note also that the matriculation rate actually rose over the summer last year and will probably do the same this year. </p>

<p>You’ve repeatedly pointed out that the May figures for yield are preliminary. In May of 2005, the University had not heard back from all students who had been offered admission. When all the results were in, there were more students accepting their offers than had appeared to be the case when the preliminary figures were reported. I would expect similar patterns to hold again this year so that the final matriculation rate reported next October in the Common Data Set might actually rise half a percent or so, causing it to approach 70%. Whatever the final yield is, it will definitely be higher than last year and probably very close to Yale’s (if one can believe the reports on CC about the number of students taken off Yale’s waiting list to date, i.e. 46). Of course, Princeton, Yale and Stanford have matriculation rates significantly lower than Harvard’s (though higher than virtually all other top schools in the country). You are certainly correct in noting that Yale’s May preliminary figures for yield will drop significantly after the wait list acceptances have been added in.</p>

<p>I would have to say that there is some room for error here, since I’m not certain how these figures account for students who defer for a year and then enter with the following year’s class. At any rate, all doubt should be erased when the Common Data Set figures appear next fall. Of course, it’s tough to make exact comparisons since Harvard doesn’t cooperate by reporting on the Common Data Set form.</p>

9

<p>Not only will the yield number be virtually the same as last year, but it will be virtually the same as the year before ... around 68%. </p>

<p>During this time, the number of binding ED admits has crept up from 581 to 593 to a record 599. </p>

<p>And we get no report from Princeton as to the number of RD admits who similarly came from the early pool - as ED-deferreds. Generally speaking, the yield rate from this sub-group can be expected to exceed that for the RD pool as a whole. Of the top elites, Princeton is the most dependent on the early pool to buttress the overall yield rate:</p>

<p>The RD yield rates last year: :<br>
Harvard-67.9%;
Princeton-52%;
Yale-57.1%;
Stanford-55.7%;
Penn 48.4%</p>

<hr>

<p>Schools do not appear to follow a uniform policy in accounting for applicants who have been admitted but have deferred a year. Technically, of course, they are not matriculants, and should not be counted as such. As a practical matter, the deferees are offset, in most years, by a roughly equal number of deferees from the year before who return to matriculate. </p>

<p>If the number so returning is higher than the number deferring in a particular year, this could have the effect of causing the yield rate to appear a bit higher. (Of course, the reverse is also true.)</p>

10

<br>


<br>

<p>well, i simply disagree. see, again, the linked thread.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>you neglect to mention, however, that the target class size, and with it the actual class size, has "crept up" over this time from about 1175 to about 1220. as a result, the percentage of the class admitted ED has actually fallen.</p>

11

<p>Princeton is still pushing the envelope to the max with 49% of the class filled via binding ED. The goal, for psychological purposes, is to stay under the magic 50% line. </p>

<p>Consultants have advised that if potential RD applicants learn that more than half the seats have already been given away to the much smaller ED pool, they will become disheartened and may not apply. That is why even the most ardent ED advocates strive to keep the numbers under 50%.</p>

<p>It is not always realized, however, that a substantial number of ED applicants are later admitted from the RD pool, after being deferred. Therefore, the actual fraction of original ED applicants in the matriculant group exceeds 50%.</p>

12

<p>correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't harvard once customarily take 60+% from its open EA pool, before it changed a few years ago from open EA to the less student-friendly SCEA option?</p>

13

<p>are Byerly and f.scottie on their respective college's payrolls for Public Relations?</p>

<p>take a guess</p>

14

<p>The problem is, Byerly, the facts appear to be against you. If you’re simply guessing that Princeton’s matriculation rate will be 68% for the Class of 2010 then so be it. As I say, we’ll know within a few months. How’s this? I’ll bet you a virtual beer that you’re wrong and that the increase this spring in the preliminary yield figures will follow the same pattern as last year with the final matriculation rate ending up being slightly higher than the 69.14% reported this spring. But you’ll have to admit you were wrong (I’ll remind you of your earlier post!) if the yield figure ends up as I am projecting. I’ll gladly do the same. Are you a betting man, Byerly?</p>

15

<p>Your earlier post predicted 69.64%. I believe - "approaching" Yale's anticipated yield rate. Is that the number you are willing to wager a virtual beer on?</p>

<p>If so, you're on.</p>

<p>I predict the same rate as last year: 68.013% (1229 matriculants, 1807 admits.)</p>

<p>The one who is the closest, based on the CDS number, wins a virtual beer.</p>

16

<p>You're on Byerly. Now...being a Boston/Harvard guy, you do, I suppose, drink virtual Sam Adams?</p>

17

<p>The Black Lager.</p>