anxious2017, the only reason you created this screen name is to lamely attempt to put a negative spin on Stanford. Why so much envy? The college your kid attends is a fantastic institution. There is no need to try to take away from Stanford.
@anxious2017 those are not accurate early numbers for this year…
@googledrone Lets keep away from personal attacks and PLEASE leave the family/children out.
I have nothing against Stanford or any other college for that matter.
@anxious2017 sorry but googledrone is correct. you have an anti-stanford agenda and feigning otherwise is laughable:) but please carry on:)
Let me post what I just did.
HYPSM’s Yield/Admit Ratio for Class of 2020
- Stanford
Number of Early Applications: 7822
Early Admits: 745
Early Admit Rate: 9.5%
Total Number of Applications: 43977
Waitlist Admits:51
Total Admits: 2114
Admit Rate: 4.8%
Class Size: 1750
Yield Rate: 82.8%
Yield/Admit Ratio: 17.3
- Harvard
Number of Early Applications: 6173
Early Admits: 918
Early Admit Rate:14.9%
Total Number of Applications: 39041
Waitlist Admits: 75
Total Admits: 2106
Admit Rate: 5.4%
Class Size: 1667
Yield Rate: 79.2%
Yield/Admit Ratio: 14.7
- Yale
Number of Early Applications: 4693
Early Admits: 795
Early Admit Rate:16.9%
Total Number of Applications: 31445
Waitlist Admits:
Total Admits: 1972
Admit Rate: 6.3%
Class Size: 1373
Yield Rate: 69.6%
Yield/Admit Ratio: 11.1
- Princeton
Number of Early Applications: 4229
Early Admits: 785
Early Admit Rate: 18.6%
Total Number of Applications: 29303
Waitlist Admits: 17
Total Admits: 1911
Admit Rate: 6.5%
Class Size: 1312
Yield Rate: 68.7%
Yield/Admit Ratio: 10.6
- MIT
Number of Early Applications: 7767
Early Admits: 656
Early Admit Rate: 8.4%
Total Number of Applications: 19020
Waitlist Admits: 26
Total Admits: 1511
Admit Rate: 7.9%
Class Size: 1113
Yield Rate: 73.7%
Yield/Admit Ratio: 9.3
@theglowingdragon Those are accurate numbers for the growth in early applications this year for those schools.
@sbballer No personal attacks please.
@anxious2017 just calling a spade a spade… don’t mind trash talking but don’t feign innocence:)
Let’s move on. This thread is about Stanford.
It seems that no-early-number bothers some people. Let us try it figure out using the 2nd grade math. For the ivies and mit, the application number increases are (hopefully we know how to calculate percentage change)
yale +9%
mit +8%
princeton +18%
dartmouth +4%
brown +5%
cornell +10%
harvard +5%
columbia +16%
so the average is +9%. If stanford is not that drastic different from them, an average number is a good estimate. Last year, stanford had an early number of 7822, so this year’s number could be projected as 7822*1.09=8525, and if the early admit number stays the same as 745, then the early admit rate for stanford would be 745/8525=8.7%.
I have a nagging unsubstantiated wild-guess feeling that part of holding back the #s this year is possibly due to a big change in the number of applicants deferred – moving more toward the model several of the other schools above use and deferring a lot more. Shaw has said he isn’t about that, but at least 5 kids from my school were deferred this year (that I know of) so without the info I just wonder. We’ll see!
The change in transparency is troubling. Why the change in releasing information? What changed? We obviously have not been told the whole story, or any part of the story for that matter. Transparency should be at the heart of any university.
If Stanford releases the following information, then I will conclude that the change in policy is not intended to protect the admissions staff: the number of early applicants, number of early accepted, number of early deferred. It would be helpful if the school also released the number of deferred who are eventually accepted. This information has come out in some years but not others. None of this information is required by the Common Data Set, and none violates individual’s confidentiality. Most of Stanford’s competitors release this information. Columbia has historically been an exception.
As a longtime observer of Stanford admissions, I am not a big fan of Rick Shaw. I think he is a politician who feels that he is not monitored. (I have it on pretty good information that he is not closely monitored by the administration.) Not a good combination. I guess almost anyone would become arrogant when 40,000 people are begging for his blessing. Hope I’m wrong. Eventually, we will find out more about this situation.
P.S. My feelings about Shaw are not personal. I have two children. Only one applied to Stanford and was admitted (early).
@fredthered Well said. The lack of transparency is very concerning. If you read the article that OP posted, Lisa Lapin clearly says they never did press releases for early admissions, which is not correct. The Stanford Daily points out they have made releases from Shaw’s office in the last 5 years. Why lie ? (Of course you can split hair over what is a press release and what is not) .
Even Shaw’s answer to The Stanford Daily sounds like a typical politician.
It is kind of surprising and I’m not really sure what the reason is. And the statement from Lisa Lapin did have kind of a defensive tone to it, to my ear.
I wonder if it’s just that the new president, for whatever reason, doesn’t like releasing the information. It seems like the university is also taking a tougher line on the band than it has in the past and that also seems to coincide, at least in terms of timing, with the change at the top.
I guess it’s possible there was either a big increase in early applications, which admissions might not want to publicize so as not to scare off regular applicants, or alternatively there was a drop in early applications, which admissions obviously might not want to publicize. A drop seems unlikely given the increases this year at peer schools and recent trends in Stanford applications, but in absence of data, who knows.
@ewho I highly doubt Stanford only had an early apps increase equal to the average or below average of its peer group this year. Since the average is around 9% (9.11% to be exact including Penn, which was not included above), I would say that given the recent trends of Stanford’s popularity there would be at least a 11-12% increase in apps.
Then again the ultra-low acceptance rate might have end up discouraging many more applicants from applying, so the increase could have been less than one would expect. Also maybe this could be the reason for not releasing the early data, i.e. to prevent students from being discouraged to apply because of the super-low chances?
It doesn’t bode well for the future of the University. An administration that is not open in communication and more importantly is seen as suppressing free speech - has a lot of parallels with dictatorship. (The ban of the Stanford Band is widely seen on campus as a suppression of free speech)
Stanford has hired Tessier-Lavigne for one reason - to cement its relationship with the growing Biotech industry in the bayarea, just the way Hennessy did with the computer/software industry.
First of all… I agree transparency is the best policy
Free speech at university campuses does not exist. . let’s not kid ourselves… all universities encourage intolerance and suppress free speech with safe places… and trigger free zones.
pet therapy, counseling services after a Trump victory… Seriously? I don’t remember any university offering counselling services and pet therapy after Obama won in 2012!
This is a problem on the majority of university campuses which encourage a state sponsored sanitized version of “free speech”
@Penn95 I’m sorry for forgetting penn as I did quickly on my phone. Stanford’s pool is very large, so to increase 9% may not be so easy. I am actually not quite sure about my calcularion. I did this just to calm down some people who tried to speculate based on the wrong propositions.
Upon now, only the early admit rate among all the measures Stanford does not have the title: mit might still hold the most difficult school to get in the early admission. Mit also accepts international students this year in the early round, so there is a spike in early app.
To pass mit, stanford needs more than 745/(657/8394)=9267 app, which would be an 18% increase from last year.
Stanford released less info every time it passed a benchmark in the past.
But I agree with others that they should release the data. There is nothing to hide.
MIT allows early applicants to apply to as many schools as they want. Different situation.
^^ The admission measures such as admit rate etc are applied to all different ways the schools use. Give stanford time.