<p>agreed Sue22, the PR machines do seem to create some craziness. And observing the news releases as they develop over time on this application issue does point to the schools that apparently most value PR. Same cast of characters over the years, with a few new ones like BU and CWR that have impllemented new marketing/recruiting campaigns. Most others (the vast majority of the college/university world), it appears, allow the facts to speak for themselves in due time without contemporaneous spin. </p>
<p>Take Duke…they had relatively ‘poor’ ED showing (drop of 3.8%), which I observed was criticized by alums on some blogs (i.e., admissions leaders heads should roll.) The first factual report on Duke total apps came out (post #1, 1/10/13) without spin, factualy describing the slight growth, which I would imagine could have further fueled the criticism. But shortly thereafter, numerous positive-spin articles came out (all on 1/17/13) with headlines something like this: “Duke sees record number of applications (again)” That headline is indeed true, and the one I am sure Duke admissions wanted to convey to its critics and the outside world.</p>
<p>I should add to the above that some schools, UVa & Williams come to mind, that do regularly & swiftly publish their admissions stats, but do not seem to have headline spin in mind, putting out the plain facts. [My personal thanks to them…timely & unspun transparency is good.]</p>
<p>It is because of their uniqueness that it is a disservice to compare them to other schools. It is total lunacy for the USNews and others to lump them in the LAC category, and entirely inappropriate to use the “reported” statistics on admissions in the tables as they shine in terms of irrelevance. The inflated numbers (or deflated if you wish) for selectivity are entirely misleading. Were the schools in a special category, it would not matter in the least, and they could interpret the numbers as they wish. </p>
<p>Fwiw, USNews should be better served by eliminating all schools that are reporting partial and misleading data (including Middlebury and Cal with the obfuscation of Spring admits) or forcing them to supply correct data. Obviously, the entire problem starts with the nebulous definition of the survey that permits to list ALL applicants for one year but NOT list the non-Fall admits. A loophole currently employed by more than a few. </p>
<p>And, of course, they should do the same for all schools that are test optional and report the test scores on a willy-nilly basis.</p>
<p>
Not at all, given that the same offenders do it over and over again!</p>
<p>good find truth123. Chicago’s total apps increase is almost dead-on with their EA growth, as a percentage.</p>
<p>we should be seeing a bunch more soon, given historic reporting. Of course I’d imagine there would be less rush to publicize if the numbers were less than expected or desired, as the data below suggest.</p>
<p>Some reporting history
Northwestern: +3.5% on 1/17/12, +10.5% on 1/11/11
Harvard: -1.9% on 1/26/12, +15% on 1/14/11
Princeton: -2% on 1/30/12, +3.3% on 1/19/11
Cornell: +3.5% on 1/26/12 , <+1% on 1/28/11
Vanderbilt: +15% on 2/3/12, +14% on 2/11/11</p>
Colleges are encouraging more applications per student by streamlining application processes by: using the common app, eliminating mandatory interviews, eliminating application fees, and reducing/eliminating essay questions <br>
Every college has a regional footprint biased toward certain parts of the country/world. That results in uneven growth in applicants across colleges. It also incents colleges to try to expand their footprint by focusing recruiting on high growth or underserved regions. The two geographies that seem to be mentioned most are California and international.<br>
Every college has a range of majors they provide or are best known for. Due to economic factors students are gravitating more to pre-professional majors, so schools with these programs are seeing an increase in applications. This started many years ago with business majors and more recently expanded to engineering majors as well as nursing.
Cities in general are making a comeback. In the olden days colleges in or close by major cities were less desirable, now they are more desirable. Some cities were always desirable while some cities have been revitalized.</p>
<p>I believe a spike in applications is typically caused by one or more of the streamlining tactics, a new recruiting effort in a particular geography, or increased awareness caused by either a planned marketing program or an unplanned event such as a sports championship or other newsworthy accomplishment by the college. The other trends most likely cause more gradual movements.</p>
<p>You can add the combination of the perception of a heightened reputation, the increased ease of application, the higher chance of admission, and the attraction of an unrestricted early admission process especially when used a defensive mechanism from the high rejections at the most prestigious schools.</p>
<p>If looking for an example of the above, Chicago could be a poster child. In tandem with changing the long term admission “chief” and the old guard, the school realized it could “upgrade/game” its reporting system to the CDS members (and jump in the ranking) while still keeping under wraps for the commoners, abandon most ill-effects of its pretentious pseudo-intellectualism", curb the impact of the arrogant “uncommon” application, and finally invest massively in recruiting and marketing. That is the roadmap to drop from 50 percent admission rates to perhaps single digits, and move away from the image of being the school you attend after exhausting all other possibilities! </p>
<p>While the applicant pool has decreased or remained stable, a ton of students are now throwing a “no risk” and easier application in the direction of Illinois.</p>
<p>Re: University of Chicago surge in apps, well I can tell you it must have been from a marketing perspective(mass mailings) my d while a good student, 2000 range SATs by no means a University of Chicago caliber student, was DELUGED with mailings from them. </p>
<p>Also of recent note, has been the extension of deadlines the past week via emails from 2nd tier schools. Almost begging for an application from her.</p>
<p>other school’s which bombarded her with emails/mailing was Notre Dame and Cornell</p>
<p>I tend to agree with the thesis that short term ups & downs should be expected. Quoting a Chronicle of Higher Education writer:
</p>
<p>The article did not expound on why the Ivies seem to have cooled off relative to some other ‘hot’ schools. I’d guess that based upon their early adoption of recruiting & marketing efforts years ago, they have saturated their markets so to speak, and with the leveling off of US college-going HS graduates, we may see further stagnation in applicant growth (not withstanding efforts to increase international supply.)</p>
<p>For grins…albeit reading way too much into a few data here, the recent Princeton slight decline report fits the theory that app declines are posted later. Princeton’s 1/26/13 -0.6% announcement fits neatly between its prior 2 years of announcements, stats- & dates-wise. On that theory then, given today’s date, I predict:
Northwestern should report <+3.5%
Harvard <-1.9%
Cornell <+1% (we still have the rest of the day to go, though)
<p>wow mathstarftw, quite a news scoop. I can’t find any online references for those 3 at my usual source spots…the school’s news releases & the student newspapers. How did you come by this info? Please post your sources.</p>
<p>I believe they’re continuing to update the numbers. Some big winner include Clark, BU and Skidmore. I’ll let you do the work of updating your chart here!</p>
<p>[Added: In the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna, “Nevermind.”]</p>