<p>what would be interesting if next year for ED if number still drop, Penn adcoms push back. 2 percent drop in apps? increase the percentage of the class from ED to 65 percent.</p>
<p>can't we afford to?</p>
<p>For those who don't think the 1.5% drop is bad enough to deserve any thoughts, have a look at this:</p>
<p>""Yale University so far has received 4,820 applications to its early-action program this year, up 36% from last year. </p>
<p>The University of Chicago has received 4,349 applications, up 42% from last year. </p>
<p>Georgetown University says it has received 5,925 applications, an increase of 30% from last year. </p>
<p>The University of Notre Dame received 4,247 early-action applications this year, up 12% from last year. </p>
<p>Boston College says it is expecting about 7,000 early-action applicants this year, up 16% from last year. </p>
<p>The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is expecting that once applications have been counted, it will see a 10% increase from 3,493 early applications last year."</p>
<p>Maybe seniors are just lazier this year. Of the people at my school, less than 10 people (out of 560) applied early to top schools.</p>
<p>because there is a great probability that you'll get killed before you even make it to the freshman orientation</p>
<p>6y6y6, those are all non-binding early action programs. They really aren't comparable to a binding early decision program like Penn's. Additionally, it's highly doubtful that Penn is losing potential ED applicants to EA programs at schools like Georgetown, Notre Dame, or Boston College.</p>
<p>You need to put this in perspective. Penn's ED applications increased dramatically by 21% in 2005 (that's 21, not 2.1). They then decreased by 2.5% in 2006. However, there were 2,000+ more applicants overall in 2006, the admit rate went down from 17.8% to 16.1%, and the yield increased to 66.5%. So the 2.5% decrease in ED applications really didn't diminish the overall admissions picture. Let's see how the complete admissions cycle pans out this year, and how things trend over the next couple of years, before we start worrying that the sky is falling. :)</p>
<p>Thank you, I just forgot that they're all EA. </p>
<p>But still...? </p>
<p>Dartmouth ED has increased this year.</p>
<p>i'm pretty sure all the ivys with binding ED options experianced increases in the number of applicants, except for Penn</p>
<p>I was going to apply ED, even sent in everything except the supplement - but then I decided to do Questbridge but that was after I started reading about the crime, the issues with Stetson, and they were the only Ivy that seemed least interested in me (even after sending request upon request for applications and info by mail - NOTHING). The deadline for ED came and went and like 2 weeks later I get an email saying "oh if you still want to do ED we will extend the deadline until 11/15". I explained to them that I have committed myself to Questbridge and that I would like to be considered for regular and never got an answer back. No big deal but it moved from 1st on my list over the summer to not even finishing the application now. And believe me I'm not a lazy senior - I've applied to 20 schools and did a huge application for Questbridge.</p>
<p>grtskt, what issues with Stetson? From what I've heard so far, he hasn't had a dramatic impact on the admissions process since he's just an interim dean. Is that true?</p>
<p>Stetson was around for like 30 years. A different guy is the interim dean.</p>
<p>It should be pointed out that the RD increase last year was because Penn opened it up to the Common App</p>
<p>the problem is not going down for few percentage, instead , is " it doesn't go up!"</p>
<p>
Well, it was partially attributable to that. But Penn still accepted the same number of RD applicants as it had the year before, and its yield on those RD admits actually went up a bit. So the overall increase wasn't just "casual" common app applicants who had no real interest in attending Penn.</p>
<p> [quote=ohyeah] the problem is not going down for few percentage, instead , is " it doesn't go up!"
</p>
<p>Again, lets see how the overall application numbers pan out this year, and then see how they hold up over the next couple of years, before we determine that there's a "problem". Small variations from year to year really don't tell us much.</p>
<p>It might just merely be slightly worse recruiting on Penn's part. One of the jobs of the office of admissions is to recruit as many students to apply as possible so that the school can drive down their acceptance rate. It might just be that rather than focusing on unimportant statistics, Penn's admissions officers allocated their time more efficiently...</p>
<p>just a thought...</p>
<p>I think it's the crime. It's been very well publicized recently. But then again, all the hate crimes at Columbia didn't cause a drop in ED applicants (4% increase).</p>
<p>That's because "hate crimes" are a sad farce, injuring nobody but the members of the victimization-industrial complex (and of course any 'injury' simply serves to get yet MORE funding and institutional support for 'diversity' 'sensitivity' 'ethic studies' and other hogwash that ultimately makes the professional victim class even more powerful and more oversensitive, all at the expense of the Core that makes Columbia so great and me so envious of it from time to time)</p>
<p>To call that "crime" compared to the real, serious crime that Penn must deal with is laughable.</p>
<p>Bages, you've just made one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard on this site (and that's saying a lot). You ignore about 400 years of unfortunate American history - racist and xenophobic attacks against blacks, Irish, Italians, hispanics, Asians, Muslims and Jews. None of it is ever justified. </p>
<p>Overcoming these hatreds are a reason that American society is still (despite our best efforts sometimes) a beacon for people all over the world. They either want to come here or model parts of their culture after us. </p>
<p>So, be a dear and keep your racist rantings [disguised as concern for Penn's admissions office] to yourself.</p>
<p>^I didnt quite understand the sentence..'overcoming...efforts'
Are you like really adverse towards internationals??</p>
<p>Not at all. American society has - through long and painful decades become more and more true to its ideals - equal treatment under the law, opportunity for people to advance, true and open possibilities for all. People forget but only one or two generations ago, women, Hispanics, blacks, and Jews were overtly and completely forbidden from large sectors of society (higher ed, business world, finance, certain beaches, neighborhoods, voting booths, etc.). At the beginning of the 20th century, southern Europeans and Irishmen were described as the scum of humanity and many politicos/businessmen/academics tried their very very best to keep them out of the country.</p>
<p>Fortunately, the conservative bias towards the status quo which historically favored one religion/ethnicity is fading (but not gone - hence the OP and its biased creator). It won't be gone soon enough. </p>
<p>All people, including internationals as you call them are welcome; they make America stronger.</p>
<p>It's getting cosy in here since we've started to get some serious analyses tracing back the whole history of the United States of America.</p>
<p>We shall see...</p>
<p>Btw, the new Dean of Admission is Kaplan. It implies that they're gonna pay more attention to your SAT scores this year. jk :D</p>
<p>Oh please. To call someone "racist" because they disagree with institutionalized "diversity" and "sensitivity" programs and a dilution of the Western canon is poor rhetorical form at best and intellectually disingenuous at worst.</p>