<p>^It’s always been my theory that artificially inflating medians decreases apps since it scares kids away because they think that they are below median.</p>
<p>I am surprised at the lower numbers for Pomona, especially when you look at the other increases at Stanford and the UCs. Also thought CMC increase would carry to other schools.</p>
<p>remaining 5Cs added to the list. My theory is blown about the westcoast upsurge. </p>
<p>source for Pitzer app count for last year (4227) not mentioned directly in the article in post #181: [First</a> Year Profile - Admission - Pitzer College](<a href=“http://www.pitzer.edu/admission/why_pitzer/first_year_profile.asp]First”>http://www.pitzer.edu/admission/why_pitzer/first_year_profile.asp) </p>
<p>Blue- what do you mean specificallly about artificially inflating medians? Do you mean that some of the schools showing app declines are inflating their SAT scores, thereby scaring applicants away?</p>
<p>Skidmore +42% (8,126)
Northern Kentucky >+30% (no app count)
Clark +27.8% (5,472)
Ohio State +25.6% (35,300)
Case Western +25% (18,226)
UChicago +20% (30,369)
Boston U +19.4% (52,532)
UCSC +16.9% (38,507)
UC Merced +16.6% (14,966)
U Washington +15.7% (30,073)
St Lawrence +14.4% (3,080)
Brandeis +14.2% (9,370)
UCSB +13.9% (62,402)
UC Riverside +13.2% (33,809)
UC Davis +13.1% (55,877)
Kalamazoo +13% (>2,400)
Tufts +12% (18,339)
UC Irvine +11.3% (60,619)
NYU +11.2% (48,606)
Alma +11.1% (1,820)
UCLA +10.8% (80,472)
UCSD +10.8% (67,403)
Babson +10.3% (6,080)
Pepperdine +10% (10,443)
UC Berkeley +9.7% (67,658)
Emerson +9.7% (7,756)
Claremont McKenna ~+9% (5,461 by NYT, back-calc’d to be ~5510 from CMC)
Vanderbilt +8.9% (30,870)
Lehigh +8.7% (12,548)
Rochester +8.2% (17,146)
San Diego State +8.0 (74,458)
Colgate +7.0% (8,346)
Miami U +6.3% (21,593)
St Andrews +6% (14,355)
Stanford +5.9% (38,800)
Bates +5.9% (5,194)
Trinity +5.7% (7,500)
NC State +5.5% (calc’d to be >21,384, count incomplete)
Columbia +5.1% (33,460)
Fordham +5.0% (35,229)
Bowdoin +4.7% (7,029)
Wesleyan +4.2% (10,942)
U North Carolina +4.0% (30,689)
U Southern Cal +3.7% (47,800)
Virginia +3.5% (~29,250)
Barnard +3.3% (5,609)
Colby +2.8% (5,390)
Yale +2.8% (29,790)
Middlebury +2.6% (9,075)
William & Mary +2.5% (14,000)
Union +2.5% (5,643)
Olin +2.4% (800)
Northwestern +2.2% (32,766)
Rice +1.4% (15,345)
Juilliard +0.82% (2,338)
JHU +0.52% (20,608)
Duke +0.4% (31,752)
Swarthmore +0.24% (6,632)
Brown +0.22% (28,733)
Villanova +0.21% (14,933)
Penn +0.00% (31,219)
Caltech -0.02% (5,536)
Georgetown -0.12% (20,025)
Scripps -0.29% (2,366)
Grinnell -0.57% (4,528)
Princeton -0.59% (26,505)
Holy Cross -1.3% (7,079)
Harvey Mudd -1.6% (3,537)
Hamilton -1.8% (5,017)
Elon -2.5% (9,791)
Pitzer -2.9% (4,103)
Dartmouth -2.8% (22,400)
Williams -3.3% (6,836)
Bucknell -3.6% (7,834)
Vassar -3.9% (7,600)
Pomona -4.8% (~7,100)
Amherst -7.7% (7,908)
RPI -10.7% (13,600)
Boston College -26% (~25,000)</p>
<p>Papa Chicken: Have you ever seen Harvard go this long without releasing the # of applicants? Do you think this means they won’t release any figures until decisions are released? Seems odd.</p>
<p>SocalP- yup, never seen it take so long, which leaves me to speculate that the total app count is not good news.</p>
<p>The reporting pattern
Last year (class of 2016): 1/27/12, first time in recent history seeing a decline, -1.9% - [Applications</a> to Harvard Drop for First Time in Five Years | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/26/admissions-applications-decline-2016/]Applications”>Applications to Harvard Drop for First Time in Five Years | News | The Harvard Crimson)
Class of 2015: 1/14/11, 15% increase- [Harvard</a> Receives Record Number of Applications for the Class of 2015 | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/1/14/number-percent-fitzsimmons-increase/]Harvard”>Harvard Receives Record Number of Applications for the Class of 2015 | News | The Harvard Crimson)
Class of 2014: 1/14/10, 5% increase- [Harvard</a> Receives Record-Breaking Number of Applications | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/1/14/fitzsimmons-admission-admissions-students/]Harvard”>Harvard Receives Record-Breaking Number of Applications | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>So I would predict apps dropping by more than last year, or ~2% plus. Their admissions stats (rates) are typically published in March…we’ll see, but I’d bet they report apps numbers sometime soon.</p>
<p>note- I don’t believe we’ve seen anything out of MIT either</p>
<p>So – what about Washington University at St Louis? I heard they had an avalanche but do not know for sure. Wellesley? some of the other women’s colleges? Davidson? Many are still missing from your list. I guess I’m always amazed by how many great colleges there are in this country.</p>
<p>ardentgardner- the press releases & reports have slowed. The two main sources of apps info come from the NYT blog, previous linked in posts above, and individual reports publicized by colleges & universities. Some schools are media shy, and publish later when RD decisions are released, or never give their numbers (wouldn’t surprise me if Wash U was in that category as they are not transparent) So, if anyone sees further releases of info on the web, please post them!</p>
<p>One new one: GWU
[Applications</a> plataeu for third straight year - The GW Hatchet](<a href=“http://www.gwhatchet.com/2013/02/21/applications-plataeu-for-third-straight-year/]Applications”>http://www.gwhatchet.com/2013/02/21/applications-plataeu-for-third-straight-year/)</p>
<p>George Washington +0.87% (21,946)</p>
<p>source for last year’s apps number (not in above article) to enable growth calculation: <a href=“Institutional Research | The George Washington University”>Institutional Research | The George Washington University;
<p>Thanks, Papa Chicken! Your work on this is much appreciated.</p>
<p>[Aid</a> fuels record applications | Harvard Gazette](<a href=“http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/02/aid-fuels-record-applications/]Aid”>Aid fuels record applications – Harvard Gazette)</p>
<p>Thanks for the link cltdad. It all makes sense now. Looks like both Stanford and Harvard made the right move in terms of early action admissions decisions. They clearly know what they’re doing. </p>
<p>Harvard had a 14.8% increase in early applicants, but that was more of a shift from RD to EA than an actual increase. Total Harvard applicants increased by only 2%. It looks like RD applicants to Harvard increased a mere 0.3%. So it is logical for Harvard to focus more on the EA pool. </p>
<p>Stanford, on the other hand, had a moderate increase to their EA pool of 3.8% and a total increase of 5.9%. It looks like their RD pool increased by 6.3%, so it is logical that they would want to save more spots for the RD pool applicants.</p>
<p>It’s going to be neck and neck in terms of the final acceptance rate. It’ll come down to whether Stanford anticipates another spike in yield. My best guess is that Harvard is going to end up with either a 5.7 to 5.8% acceptance rate and that Stanford will end up slightly higher at 5.9% or 6.0%. </p>
<p>And I feel sorry for the RD applicants to Harvard. It looks like they face an acceptance rate of less than 4%.</p>
<p>Harvard +2.1% (35,022)
[Record</a> 35,000 Apply to Harvard College | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/22/record-high-applications-2017/]Record”>Record 35,000 Apply to Harvard College | News | The Harvard Crimson)
curious, I wonder why they waited so long to announce? Very close to last year (+1.9%).</p>
<p>re-sort
Skidmore +42% (8,126)
Northern Kentucky >+30% (no app count)
Clark +27.8% (5,472)
Ohio State +25.6% (35,300)
Case Western +25% (18,226)
UChicago +20% (30,369)
Boston U +19.4% (52,532)
UCSC +16.9% (38,507)
UC Merced +16.6% (14,966)
U Washington +15.7% (30,073)
St Lawrence +14.4% (3,080)
Brandeis +14.2% (9,370)
UCSB +13.9% (62,402)
UC Riverside +13.2% (33,809)
UC Davis +13.1% (55,877)
Kalamazoo +13% (>2,400)
Tufts +12% (18,339)
UC Irvine +11.3% (60,619)
NYU +11.2% (48,606)
Alma +11.1% (1,820)
UCLA +10.8% (80,472)
UCSD +10.8% (67,403)
Babson +10.3% (6,080)
Pepperdine +10% (10,443)
UC Berkeley +9.7% (67,658)
Emerson +9.7% (7,756)
Claremont McKenna ~+9% (5,461 by NYT, back-calc’d to be ~5510 from CMC)
Vanderbilt +8.9% (30,870)
Lehigh +8.7% (12,548)
Rochester +8.2% (17,146)
San Diego State +8.0 (74,458)
Colgate +7.0% (8,346)
Miami U +6.3% (21,593)
St Andrews +6% (14,355)
Stanford +5.9% (38,800)
Bates +5.9% (5,194)
Trinity +5.7% (7,500)
NC State +5.5% (calc’d to be >21,384, count incomplete)
Columbia +5.1% (33,460)
Fordham +5.0% (35,229)
Bowdoin +4.7% (7,029)
Wesleyan +4.2% (10,942)
U North Carolina +4.0% (30,689)
U Southern Cal +3.7% (47,800)
Virginia +3.5% (~29,250)
Barnard +3.3% (5,609)
Colby +2.8% (5,390)
Yale +2.8% (29,790)
Middlebury +2.6% (9,075)
William & Mary +2.5% (14,000)
Union +2.5% (5,643)
Olin +2.4% (800)
Northwestern +2.2% (32,766)
Harvard +2.1% (35,022)
Rice +1.4% (15,345)
George Washington +0.87% (21,946)
Juilliard +0.82% (2,338)
JHU +0.52% (20,608)
Duke +0.4% (31,752)
Swarthmore +0.24% (6,632)
Brown +0.22% (28,733)
Villanova +0.21% (14,933)
Penn +0.00% (31,219)
Caltech -0.02% (5,536)
Georgetown -0.12% (20,025)
Scripps -0.29% (2,366)
Grinnell -0.57% (4,528)
Princeton -0.59% (26,505)
Holy Cross -1.3% (7,079)
Harvey Mudd -1.6% (3,537)
Hamilton -1.8% (5,017)
Elon -2.5% (9,791)
Pitzer -2.9% (4,103)
Dartmouth -2.8% (22,400)
Williams -3.3% (6,836)
Bucknell -3.6% (7,834)
Vassar -3.9% (7,600)
Pomona -4.8% (~7,100)
Amherst -7.7% (7,908)
RPI -10.7% (13,600)
Boston College -26% (~25,000)</p>
<p>median = +4.7% (Bowdoin)</p>
<p>Tufts’ final count is 18,410.
It takes a while to get the final count because they still do get some applications on paper. And it takes awhile to verify that those applications are all complete and thus count in the total of applications. I thought I read that somewhere…</p>
<p>Cal Poly, SLO +9.4% (40,404)</p>
<p>Tufts update source: [Inside</a> Admissions · Tufts University Admissions Department](<a href=“http://admissions.tufts.edu/blogs/inside-admissions/author/lee-coffin/]Inside”>http://admissions.tufts.edu/blogs/inside-admissions/author/lee-coffin/)</p>
<p>NaniwaJin- please post the Cal Poly SLO source, as I can’t find it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>they tried to make Cornell feel better by being the last to announce this year. Harvard finally gave up as it got a bit out of hand. Almost March! </p>
<p>All the while Columbia is still massaging their ED numbers to be released.</p>
<p>Applications Submitted via CSU Mentor During Initial Filing Period Fall 2013</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.calstate.edu/pa/documents/App_Data_Fall13.pdf[/url]”>http://www.calstate.edu/pa/documents/App_Data_Fall13.pdf</a></p>
<p>If the average increase is between four and five percent, might this mean that students are simply applying to more colleges, rather than that the population of applicants is increasing? Are there statistics on how many colleges students apply to on average, and how much that has been changing year over year? What might the implications of such statistics be for colleges, if they want to maintain about the same yield?</p>
<p>slight update to
Wesleyan +4.5% (10,969)
[Application</a> Rates Increase 4.5 Percent for Class of 2017 - News - The Wesleyan Argus](<a href=“http://wesleyanargus.com/2013/02/25/application-rates-increase-4-5/]Application”>The Wesleyan Argus | Application Rates Increase 4.5 Percent for Class of 2017)</p>
<p>Applications to Pitzer may be down a little because its admission rate went from about 24% to 15% in one year, perhaps scaring off some applicants. I saw a list that ranked it as the 5th most selective LAC in the country, after Amherst, Pomona, CMC, and Swarthmore.</p>
<p>responding to…</p>
<p>"I am surprised at the lower numbers for Pomona, especially when you look at the other increases at Stanford and the UCs. Also thought CMC increase would carry to other schools. "</p>
<p>WPI applications up 12%, including 17% increase in female applicants 
49% jump since 2008
7,585 applications
[WPI</a> Achieves Record-Breaking Number of Undergraduate Applications - WPI](<a href=“http://www.wpi.edu/news/20123/2013admins.html]WPI”>http://www.wpi.edu/news/20123/2013admins.html)</p>