Regular Decision at competitive schools: 2012 statistics are showing up

Parents Forum
101

<p>Unfortunately, it appears that many schools should have an asterisk place behind the reported statistics. The recent reports regarding a number schools such as **Cornell **counting every application while others are (correctly) eliminating the incomplete or withdrawn applications renders the comparison all but worthless. </p>

<p>In addition, serious questions remain about the manner in which schools account for their participation in programs such as Questbridge that could add several hundred (if not thousands) applications at the push of a pencil. </p>

<p>Because of the lower number of applications at LACs, the differences in methodology could increase or decrease the admit rates by ... several points.</p>

<p>PS Fwiw, anyone posting updated lists should make sure to start with a list that is as complete as possible, especially if the school was presented in this thread. Using selective lists does not help much.</p>

102

<p>Adding NYU:</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard: 7.1%</li>
<li>Yale: 8.3%</li>
<li>Princeton: ~9%</li>
<li>Columbia: 10.1%</li>
<li>Dartmouth: 13.2%</li>
<li>Brown: 13.4%</li>
<li>Penn: 16.4%</li>
<li>Cornell: 20%</li>
</ol>

<p>Others:</p>

<p>Stanford: 9%
MIT: 11.6%
Swarthmore: 15%
Georgetown: 18%
Bowdoin: 18%
Duke: 18.8%
USC: 21%
JHU: 22%
Vanderbilt: 23%
Vassar: 24%
Emory: 25%
Northwestern:25%
Tufts: 25%
Chicago: 28%
Barnard: 28%
Amherst 14.2
Swarthmore 15.0
Williams 16.3
Middlebury 18.3
Bowdoin 18.4
Pomona 15%
NYU 24%</p>

103

<p>I thought Stanford's press release said the base admission rate this year was 9.5 percent. I see both "9 percent" and "10 percent" above.</p>

104

<p>wow, those are low, i see amherst is now th elowest of hte little schools, and harvard...just ubsurd</p>

105

<p>2010E , 2008 , 2003 , 1998 , 1988 , 1982 , College</p>

<p>9% , 10% , 12% , 12% , 14% , 17% , Princeton
7% , 9% , 11% , 11% , 12% , 18% , Harvard
8% , 9% , 14% , 18% , 20% , 19% , Yale
9% , 11% , 13% , 16% , 19% , 18% , Stanford
16% , 18% , 22% , 30% , 33% , 41% , U Penn
na , 17% , 15% , 26% , 27% , 31% , Caltech
12% , 13% , 17% , 24% , 27% , 30% , MIT
19% , 23% , 26% , 31% , 29% , 25% , Duke
10% , 12% , 12% , 21% , 24% , 29% , Columbia
28% , 38% , 44% , 58% , 71% , 45% , U Chicago
13% , 16% , 23% , 20% , 23% , 25% , Dartmouth
na , 21% , 23% , 51% , 56% , 54% , Wash U
20% , 25% , 27% , 33% , 34% , 30% , Cornell
13% , 14% , 16% , 19% , 21% , 24% , Brown
25% , 30% , 34% , 32% , 40% , 47% , Northwestern
22% , 27% , 34% , 40% , 43% , 48% , Johns Hopkins
na , 24% , 23% , 24% , 26% , 24% , Rice
25% , 32% , 43% , 44% , 51% , na , Emory
23% , 34% , 46% , 60% , 58% , na , Vanderbilt
na , 27% , 36% , 40% , 39% , na , Notre Dame
18% , 22% , 21% , 23% , 22% , 24% , Georgetown
21% , 25% , 32% , 72% , na , na , USC
25% , 27% , 23% , 32% , 43% , na Tufts</p>

<p>I had access to a bunch of back issues of USNWR and found these admissions stats for the National Universities (sorry, I don’t have it for the LACs). </p>

<p>The first number is this year’s acceptance number that will be used as part of the 2010 USNWR ranking. Next is the number reported in the most current USNWR issue, followed by 5 years ago, then 10 years, then 20 years ago and then the very first issue in 1982. </p>

<p>I think all of us older CCers can thank our lucky stars that we aren’t applying to college now. :)</p>

106

<p>Lehigh had record low 27% admit rate this year....</p>

<p>The</a> Brown & White</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
No word on the number on the waitlist or the number accepted into the new RISD-Brown program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The following is from Thursday's Brown Daily Herald:
The program, which will allow them to study at both institutions and graduate in five years with a degree from each school, received about 400 applications in its inaugural year, said Lucy King, RISD's assistant director of admission. Of those, 30 to 50 applicants were admitted to both Brown and RISD, and from that pool, both schools chose the 18 who were admitted to the program, both admissions offices confirmed.</p>

108

<p>Here's UC news. </p>

<p>University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | UC releases 2008 freshman admissions data </p>

<p>There are links to articles about individual UC campuses. </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>



Campus              2007        2008 </p>

<p>Berkeley             23.2         21.5 </p>

<p>L.A.                 23.6         22.7 </p>

<p>San Diego                         41.5 </p>

<p>Santa Barbara                     49.2 </p>

<p>Davis               58.7          52.4

</p>

<p>Of note in the general UC press release and all the campus press releases is all the information about student ethnicity, including </p>

<p>


</p>

109

<p>This is a really interesting thread. Any speculations as to yields this year? Will the widespread use of the common application and withdrawal of early options at H and P produce significantly lower yields?</p>

110

<p>The breakdowns by the specialty colleges at the U.C.'s would actually be even more helpful.:)</p>

<p>For example, the engineering colleges at Davis & UC San Diego -- given the skyrocketing interest in bioengineering in CA. I hear that those applicants took it in the shorts, esp. at Davis. Would love to see those comparisons vs. last year, but they're probably not available yet.</p>

111

<p>The end of early admission at Harvard and Princeton may lower yields, but it can't lower yields THAT much. There were fewer than 1,200 students admitted early to both combined, and only the Princeton students were bound. Assuming that at least SOME of the Harvard admittees applied to SOME other schools (I suspect a majority of them applied to SOME other schools), there are probably about 900 more highly qualified students out there than there were last year, with multiple applications (and probably multiple acceptances). But how many of them applied to and were accepted to any one college (other than Harvard or Princeton)? 100? 200? Probably not more than that. Numbers like that aren't going to make a huge difference in the yield of any institution, except perhaps Stanford, Yale, Columbia.</p>

<p>Remember, most highly selective schools have a yield of 30-40% on their RD admittees. Their expected yield from any 200 acceptances is about 70. So maybe some schools will get 70 fewer kids enrolling -- that's probably a couple points on yield, and that's going to be at the colleges most affected.</p>

112

<p>Because of the uniqueness of the application process at the UC system, the statistics of each individual school have little relevance outside California and are hardly comparable to other public or private schools.</p>

113

<p>JHS - Okay but what about increased use of common app?</p>

114

<p>Princeton and Harvard getting rid of their early programs could possibly have a big impact on yields this year. If we use JHS's number of 1200 students and assume that these students probably applied to 10 schools (and I think that's a conservative estimate), that's 12,000 more applications out there, most likely at the most selective universities and LACs in the country. These applicants - likely to be admitted to many top schools - are going to bump out other students...this has a trickle-down effect in the admissions hierarchy. I think you're going to see larger than usual waitlists this year as a result - many admissions folks at the most selective colleges and universities are really nervous about yield this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Harvard and Princeton are - I'm sure many of their would-have-been-early-admits are getting big merit money they otherwise would not have seen from other schools had they gotten in to Harvard or Princton in December.</p>

115

<p>I'm having trouble picturing admissions folk at Harvard being "really nervous about yield" -- unless it's that they're really nervous that EVERYONE they admitted will enroll.</p>

116

<p>Agree with JHS. That's why Harvard is not accepting transfers this year.</p>

117

<p>Hanna has described Harvard, unofficially but based on good sources of information, as having an aspiration of having yield increase up to 100 percent. It does get closer to that goal than most colleges.</p>

118

<p>Adding Washington and Lee W&L</a> Admissions Home :: Washington and Lee University</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard: 7.1%</li>
<li>Yale: 8.3%</li>
<li>Princeton: ~9%</li>
<li>Columbia: 10.1%</li>
<li>Dartmouth: 13.2%</li>
<li>Brown: 13.4%</li>
<li>Penn: 16.4%</li>
<li>Cornell: 20%</li>
</ol>

<p>Others:</p>

<p>Stanford: 9%
MIT: 11.6%
Amherst 14%
Swarthmore: 15%
Washington and Lee 15%
Pomona 15%
Williams 16%
Georgetown: 18%
Bowdoin: 18%
Middlebury 18%
Bowdoin 18%
Duke: 18.8%
USC: 21%
JHU: 22%
Vanderbilt: 23%
Vassar: 24%
NYU 24%
Emory: 25%
Northwestern:25%
Tufts: 25%
Chicago: 28%
Barnard: 28%</p>

119

<p>While I agree that admissions folks at the most selective colleges and universities are really nervous about yield this year, the impact at Harvard and Princeton should be lessened by the positions at the pinnacle of admissions. What could be the worst case scenario for HYPS? Instead of looking at the waiting list as a mere afterthought, they may have to scratch the surface a bit and poll the interest of one of the many very qualified students who accepted a spot on the waiting list. Not a great cause for consternation! With their new financial aid initiatives, it remains extremely doubtful that the attraction of fat merit aid package will place a huge limitation on the HYPS mystique. </p>

<p>Are they nervous? Probably only about the possibility of reduced bragging rights about their stratospheric yields. Even an erosion in that overrated statistic would still leave the HYPS school with a yield that is several times larger than what MIGHT surface this year at schools that are usually listed as "competitors." </p>

<p>I believe that the real nervousness must be palpable at schools such as Pomona or Amherst that have much lower historical yields and might not be able to match the new financial packages offered by many schools or the cheaper cost available at a few public schools.</p>

<p>But, at the end of the day, little will change as students are bound to attend the most prestigious school they can afford. The impact will be felt well below the rarified air of the best Ivies and Palo Alto.</p>

<p>PS I remain unsure about the relevance of discussions about yield on CC. While this is something extremely important for Adofficer and his bosses, the impact on families is trivial.</p>

120

<p>Journalists LOVE to report news such as this:</p>

<p>
[quote]

One source of anxiety for U.S. high school seniors, always high this time of year, is growing after elite colleges put record numbers of applicants on waiting lists. Part of the reason the wait lists are overloaded is colleges' increased uncertainty about the so-called yield, or percentage of admitted students who will actually enroll. </p>

<p>The expanded waiting lists -- Yale put 1,052 students on hold, up 22 percent from last year; Princeton placed 1,526 on hold, up 93 percent </p>

<p>McGrath declined to say how many applicants Harvard put on the wait list, or how many may yet be invited to attend.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>However, should the most salient part not be: </p>

<p>
[quote]
Amherst placed 1,400 students on its wait list, up 40 percent from a year ago, to help fill a class of 440. The school offered admission to nobody from last year's list.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Princeton's decision of placing 1,526 on hold is nothing short of cruel punishment for 80 to 95 percent of the students sent to that Spring purgatory. Shame on Princeton and the other schools that see no harm in using a ridiculously lengthy lists only to flatter bruised egos and keep a few GCs happier in April.</p>