<p>Not sure how this will make the candidates feel, but Smith announced today that they have received a record number of applications for the Class of 2016, the second year in a row this has happened. Good luck everyone! :D</p>
<p>I can’t decide if this is good or bad!</p>
<p>that is really scary…incredibly scary actually</p>
<p>@Bossf51-How do you know this? Is it on the website?</p>
<p>It’s on the Smith Facebook page.</p>
<p>Sad. More applicants rejected who would really flourish there.</p>
<p>definitely doesn’t make me feel great 
actually makes me feel sick to my stomach.</p>
<p>Obviously this makes it tougher to get in to Smith. But it does indicate a continued high level of interest in the school on behalf of young women both here and around the world.</p>
<p>Ugh, greaaat… I mean, I know this is good for the school and all, but it’s not good for us!</p>
<p>Does anyone know the actual number of applications for the Class of 2016? Last year’s number was 4,128 I believe.</p>
<p>Grand. More competition. Happy for Smith, though.</p>
<p>@Danielle2400 they have not announced the total yet…but yes that figure is correct from last year.</p>
<p>This year the projected class is 640. Last year due to a high yield they ended up with 695.</p>
<p>So far 130 have gotten in via EDI. That is down from 169 last year, perhaps by design?</p>
<p>So basically approximately 510 more slots available via ED II and RD.</p>
<p>We know 228 applied EDI. So that means close to 4000 more have applied in total. </p>
<p>Usually the yield is around 37% which would mean 1730 admitted. If you assume at least 4,200 applied the acceptance rate would be 41%, down from last year’s 45%.</p>
<p>Sorry if my assumptions or math are wrong. I am a bit of a stats freak but since baseball doesn’t start for another couple months I have to have a substitute! ;)</p>
<p>*note all figures stated come from the New York Times and the Smith Admissions page.</p>
<p>I did read an article that as more and more students apply ED at all colleges, the ED acceptance rates for this year have been lower than in past years. Which could explain why fewer were accepted ED I. At any rate, for those that are awaiting applications, my main advice would be to not waste energy worrying about what you can’t change. You’re all wonderful, and you’ll all be able to meet whatever decision comes your way with dignity, I’m sure.</p>
<p>The New York Times College Blog just posted the 2012 application numbers for a number of colleges including Smith. I believe the number of applications listed for 2011 and 2012 in their chart are wrong. Those numbers may have been improperly transposed or placed in the chart space intended for another college. I believe that the percentage increase in the number of applicants from last year to this year of 3.27% is accurate. If so, using last year’s confirmed number of 4,128 would reflect a 3.27% increase meaning that the total number of applicants is 4,263. That is a new record for Smith College.</p>
<p>Saw that too…curious, why do you believe the increase percentage is correct? Thanks.</p>
<p>@Bossf51
It is my understand from someone that spoke to an admissions rep that applications were up over 3% from last year’s total. Hopefully, the NYT will clarify the numbers.</p>
<p>^^
Here you go. <a href=“https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0ArlRBr9Qvz0mdHBXYXN1blFfRUxjTmxtdFVxVzBOMFE&output=html[/url]”>Application Tally - Google Drive;
<p>The NYT numbers as to previous applications for 2011 and 2012 are wrong. Last year as per Smith’s own numbers there were 4,128 applications, a record. Smith anounced a few days ago that the 4,128 number was eclipsed by applications for the class of 2016. The unknown factor is the percentage of increase over 2011. If the NYT percentage increase of 3.24% is correct that would mean that the total applications for 2012 reached 4263. Given the figures for increases over the last few years that number would be consistent
with what would be expected. Hopefully the NYT will check the accuracy of the figures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t look at the numbers closely. Good catch. I’m not surprised the NYT published incorrect or distorted information. They often do.</p>
<p>Not sure why they don’t just release the number…odd.</p>