<p>I can see everyone on the early pools, so can Harvard.</p>
<p>really? that’s interesting!</p>
<p>*Remember, guys, it’s easy to figure out Stanford admissions. Here, in order, is what they admit:</p>
<ol>
<li>Athletes, of any color, with good stats</li>
<li>Athletes, of any color, with less than good stats</li>
<li>Athletes, of any color, with marginal stats</li>
<li>Really Smart Asian.*</li>
</ol>
<p>Care to back that up with actual data or evidence?</p>
<p>MIT, like Dad2 points out, is picking purely on numbers to select (with due respect) the quant jocks, science geeks, etc. It merely looks for the highest stats and accepts based on the best academic record and science ECs.</p>
<p>is this the practice of the MIT admissions committee, or your own conception of the MIT admission policy? i’m sure an admissions officer would stress that MIT looks well beyond the numbers in the process.</p>
<p>For example, there were 60 people from New Jeresy accepted by Yale early. I can tell which schools they are from, their names too, and much more.</p>
<p>okay, thanks for letting me know :). i didn’t know that stanford releases the names and school names of its admits for all to see :/</p>
<p>@Pantherpride.</p>
<p>I don’t think that our class (2015) is necessarily more “competitive” or academically superior to any other class. The trend just seems to be that people have been applying to more (top) schools in recent years, but I think the percentage of “strong” applicants should remain fairly constant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My friend turned down Stanford for MIT this year. You might want to recheck your statistics.</p>
<p>agree with GoldOwl that people are just sending in applications to more schools. but at the same time, because “strong” applicants are also doing the same (sending in more applications), it doesn’t really mean that admissions is not getting harder.</p>
<p>I bet that Harvard could have lower number of applications this year, the same for Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>it could… or not. as i’m sure limabeans would agree, assumptions derived from personal preferences often have little bearing on reality.</p>
<p>the number’s released btw. seems like harvard is still going to have a lower admit rate.</p>
<p>
Wrong bet…
So you are using an example against an example?</p>
<p>harvards number of applications up 14% to nearly 35k if anyone cares</p>
<p>^ Does Harvard still send out copies of the Common App to everyone with its invitation to apply? I know they were still doing it last year; I don’t recall any of its peers doing that but I may not be remembering correctly. Anyway, I bet Harvard will only let Stanford’s admit rate drop below Harvard’s over H’s dead body. ; )</p>
<p>^ Yes, Harvard sent out copies of applications this year.</p>
<p>@limabeans
Pretty sure he means that Harvard was the only school where >50% of cross-admits chose it over Stanford</p>
<p>^i believe that is correct.</p>
<p>Argh… ten years ago, I would have been a shoo in for Stanford too, haha. Most of us would.</p>
<p>32,000 competing for 2300 spots eh? Let the nail chewing begin. Ohhhh god, I want April 1st to come. The wait is worse than the writing.</p>
<p>No, that was for last year. This year, it’s 34,200 competing for the 2300 spots. (But look at the bright side: next year, there will be even more applications for the same number of spots.)</p>
<p>Then 34,000 for a small fraction of the 2,300 because I’m unhooked. :P</p>
<p>Just curious (and b/c someone mentioned it) what is Harvard’s reasoning for sending out paper copies of their application? To encourage people to donate to their Admissions Department? :P</p>
<p>Woot!!! We’ll destroy H this year haha! :D</p>
<p>Sorry RD’ers but this feels pretty awesome. :)</p>
<p>^H wants as many applicants as possible. for them, it’s worth having to hire the few extra people to read applications. their prestige is based in part on admit rate being the lowest and yield rate being the highest. it makes sense for them to have as many applicants as possible, no matter whether they are likely admits or not</p>
<p>I am completely unsurprised. Stanford’s reputation has been improving over the last few years and it will probably continue to do so.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that having the lowest acceptance rate doesn’t necessarily make a school the most selective.
Some schools are self-selecting- ONLY great applicants apply there. MIT is like this; people who aren’t motivated, extremely intelligent and hard-working apply there. Stanford, on the other hand, attracts, I think, more average applicants because it’s seen as a fun, happy place to be. So MIT ends up rejecting more good applicants even though it has a higher acceptance rate. In this sense, schools like MIT are more selective than Stanford.
^that’s all conjecture, I just get the impression that’s how it is</p>
<p>Why is there such a surge in applicants this year?
You’d think with the economy there’d be less kids, what with the ivies high price tags.
I don’t get it.</p>