<p>from today’s Brown Daily Herald</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.browndailyherald.com/media/paper472/news/2006/01/27/CampusNews/Regular.Applicant.Pool.Rises.8.Percent-1515327.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com[/url]”>http://www.browndailyherald.com/media/paper472/news/2006/01/27/CampusNews/Regular.Applicant.Pool.Rises.8.Percent-1515327.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com</a></p>
<p>It confuses overall apps with RD apps.</p>
<p>In fact, RD apps rose about 6.6% to about 15,870 for the Class of 2010, compared to 14,881 last year. To that, you add the 2.379 binding ED apps already received to get to 18,250 TOTAL apps for 2010.</p>
<p>In fact, Brown had 16,900 TOTAL apps last year - not 16,900 rd apps.</p>
<p>Given his position as an "insider", I'm surprised the OP didn't catch the error and call it to our attention rather than rebroadcasting it here.</p>
<p>Byerly, do you have any justification or proof for what you're saying? Any sources? I'm more inclined to believe the Brown Daily Herald, considering it is Brown. And I would think information that circulates at Brown about Brown is probably more accurate than your "hearsay." All I'm asking for is somewhere with the real statistics.</p>
<p>Well, kid, you can start here!</p>
<p>The story is inaccurate - both in the headline and in the text body - in that it has appatrently confused TOTAL applications with "Regular Decision" applications. The caption applied to this thread by "DCircle" is similarly misleading.</p>
<p>Last year's TOTAL applications were 16,900, and last year's RD applications were roughly 14,880.</p>
<p>This year's TOTAL applications are 18,250, apparently, but this year's RD applications (ie, the TOTAL less the previously-reported 2,379 ED applications) were less than that - roughly 15,870.</p>
<p>The RD applications (contrary to the headline and the story) were,to repeat , 15,870, for a 6.6% increase - not an 8% increase - over last year.</p>
<p>If there were ACTUALLY 18,250 RD apps for the class of 2010, that would constitute an increase of 23% over last year, not the 8% claimed. Possible, perhaps, but unlikely.</p>
<p>All right, kid.</p>
<p>The DP screws up. So what else is new? They didn't get 20,000 RD apps after all!</p>
<p>"Yesterday's story about the undergraduate admissions ("Applications up 8 Percent from Last Year," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 1/25/2006), incorrectly said that regular decision applications increased, 8 percent from last year. The number of overall applications including early decision applications increased 8 percent, while the number of regular decision applications increased by around 5 percent. The number of regular decision applications was about 16,150 while total applications are estimated at 20,300."</p>
<p>Byerly, perhaps the mistake was in the article you posted, not in the one dcircle posted.</p>
<p>I don't think so, since all news stories, and stats reported to USNews, reflected a total app number of 16,900 last year. </p>
<p>Just as the Penn paper printed a correction when they made a similar error last week, the BDH should publish a clarification.</p>
<p>60% female! that's what i like to hear</p>
<p>The Brown Daily Herald has edited the online story about the number of RD applications received to fix the errors made in the January 27 issue of the paper.</p>
<p>Yeah they published a correction the other day.</p>
<p>is 60% female enough to help the males out a little bit?</p>
<p>You bet. :)</p>
<p>:) first good news that all the numbers have brought in this entire process...sorry ladies</p>