Total Applications Growth/Decline, class of 2017

Applying to College
161

<p>tougis-- I admit I was consumed being a Ravens fan this weekend…I will try to squeeze this out in the next few nights.</p>

<p>Kalamazoo +13% (>2,400)
[Kalamazoo</a> College’s applications are up 13 percent for Class of 2017 | MLive.com](<a href=“http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/02/kalamazoo_colleges_application.html]Kalamazoo”>http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/02/kalamazoo_colleges_application.html)</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% (>18,000)
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)
Alma +11.1% (1,820)
NYU +11.2% (48,606)
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)
Juliard +0.82% (2,338)
JHU +0.52% (20,608)
Duke +0.4% (31,752)
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)
Hamilton -1.8% (5,017)
Elon -2.5% (9,791)
Dartmouth -2.8% (22,400)
Williams -3.3% (6,836)
Bucknell -3.6% (7,834)
Vassar -3.9% (7,600)
Amherst -8.2% (7863)
RPI -10.7% (13,600)
Boston College -26% (~25,000)</p>

162

<p>NYT has a 2/4 update that I just cross-checked with our list.<br>
<a href=“Application Tally 2013 - Graphic - NYTimes.com”>Application Tally 2013 - Graphic - NYTimes.com;

<p>It appears that the only NYT change (of substance) has been to Amherst, who had a few more apps (7,908) slightly softening their apps decrease to -7.7%. (Bet ya Amherst made a call.)</p>

<p>No other changes that I can see other than what appears to be a more precise app number for Case Western, now 18,226 (instead of >18,000), but the increase (somehow) stays at +25%.</p>

<p>Dear NYT, please get with the program! There are a ton of corrections and missing schools that we’ve found (with presumably quasi-reliable sources linked on various posts of this thread). I suggest you update your list for the sake of your readership. If nothing else, please make some phone calls to check these numbers. Some that I found:</p>

<p>Updates we’ve found more current than your numbers (some of these are material)
Barnard (plus your outdated numbers and calcs as-is are screwed up)
Bowdoin
CMC
Colgate
Tufts</p>

<p>Schools NYT hasn’t reported that we’ve found & cited sources
Boston College
Brandeis
Colby
Georgetown
Grinnell
Kalamazoo (OK, just found that one today)
Miami U
NC State
Northern Kentucky
Ohio State
Pepperdine
San Diego State
St Andrews
Union
UNC
UVa
U Washington</p>

<p>I will revise our list Amherst & Case Western in a subsequent post.</p>

<p>ps…I am a loyal NYT subscriber</p>

163

<p>revision of Amherst & Case Western with NYT data (note that neither position changes)</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)
Alma +11.1% (1,820)
NYU +11.2% (48,606)
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)
Juliard +0.82% (2,338)
JHU +0.52% (20,608)
Duke +0.4% (31,752)
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)
Hamilton -1.8% (5,017)
Elon -2.5% (9,791)
Dartmouth -2.8% (22,400)
Williams -3.3% (6,836)
Bucknell -3.6% (7,834)
Vassar -3.9% (7,600)
Amherst -7.7% (7,908)
RPI -10.7% (13,600)
Boston College -26% (~25,000)</p>

164

<p>Swarthmore +2.4% (6,632)
[The</a> Phoenix | Early Decision Applications Conclude for Class of 2017](<a href=“Map of Delaware River Basin courtesy of Swat Frack Action - The Phoenix”>Map of Delaware River Basin courtesy of Swat Frack Action - The Phoenix)</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)
Alma +11.1% (1,820)
NYU +11.2% (48,606)
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)
Swarthmore +2.4% (6,632)
Olin +2.4% (800)
Northwestern +2.2% (32,766)
Rice +1.4% (15,345)
Juliard +0.82% (2,338)
JHU +0.52% (20,608)
Duke +0.4% (31,752)
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)
Hamilton -1.8% (5,017)
Elon -2.5% (9,791)
Dartmouth -2.8% (22,400)
Williams -3.3% (6,836)
Bucknell -3.6% (7,834)
Vassar -3.9% (7,600)
Amherst -7.7% (7,908)
RPI -10.7% (13,600)
Boston College -26% (~25,000)</p>

165

<p>Papa, that Swarthmore percentage is off a decimal point - should be .24%. Apps increased from 6616 to 6632.</p>

166

<p>Right you are pkdof13. Must have been crosseyed earlier. I will fix on the list tomorrow, but please be my guest. Thanks for your quality control.</p>

167

<p>revision to correct my decimal-place transposition error on Swarthmore</p>

<p>note that we are still in search of

  • initial apps reports for Harvard, MIT, Pomona, and many other LACs (among others)
  • school reports corroborating/updating the NYT data for Stanford, Williams, Vanderbilt & more</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)
Alma +11.1% (1,820)
NYU +11.2% (48,606)
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)
Julliard +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)
Hamilton -1.8% (5,017)
Elon -2.5% (9,791)
Dartmouth -2.8% (22,400)
Williams -3.3% (6,836)
Bucknell -3.6% (7,834)
Vassar -3.9% (7,600)
Amherst -7.7% (7,908)
RPI -10.7% (13,600)
Boston College -26% (~25,000)</p>

168

<p>Not that it matters much, but I think it’s “Julliard”</p>

169

<p>No, it’s actually Juilliard.</p>

170

<p>Alas, spelling was never my strong sute. I will fix next update.</p>

<p>I’m banking this link on Miami U which reports a slightly lower apps number (21,354), and resultant growth rate of 5.1%, instead of 21,593 & 6.3% first reported in post 152. Given the close timing of the articles, not sure which one to believe, so I will stick with the 6.3% for the time-being until subsequent reports clarify the situation.
[Fall</a> 2013 applications break admissions records, again - News - The Miami Student](<a href=“http://www.miamistudent.net/news/fall-2013-applications-break-admissions-records-again-1.2982603]Fall”>http://www.miamistudent.net/news/fall-2013-applications-break-admissions-records-again-1.2982603)</p>

171

<p>Tougas/Socal </p>

<p>I think that history has shown us that there has been the perception of early admissions thresholds in the past, but they were ultimately eclipsed due to competitive pressure and changes in consumer psychology. I believe that there is a high probability that Harvard is going to breach the 50% threshold due to a shift in perception of EA plans and competitive pressure from Stanford and other peers.</p>

<p>As Socal states, this could be viewed as a shift in yield/selectivity management strategy. </p>

<p>The reason that I believe that Harvard is moving in this direction is that it has not only reinstated its program, but it is now saying things like:</p>

<p>“It appears now that early may not be early at all but the ‘new normal’ for some students who feel ready to apply by Nov. 1.” </p>

<p>The Harvard Crimson, a historic critic of EA is saying:</p>

<p>“At the end of the day, we are more supportive of Harvard’s early action program than ever in light of the recent numbers.”</p>

<p>Harvard’s EA press release also reads like an advertisement for their EA plan. It leads with the number of students admitted, rather than the growth of applicants and it addresses all the traditional critiques of EA plans in the body. </p>

<p>[Progress</a> in Early Action | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/12/7/progress-early-action/]Progress”>Progress in Early Action | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson)
[895</a> admitted through Early Action | Harvard Gazette](<a href=“http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/12/895-admitted-through-early-action/]895”>895 admitted through Early Action – Harvard Gazette)</p>

<p>This would be consistent with a strategy of actively recruiting diversity into their EA pool and drawing more heavily from it rather than focusing on increasing the overall number of applicants. It would also be consistent with deemphasizing or eliminating a press release on the total number of applicants and waiting for the availability of yield/selectivity numbers before delivering their message. </p>

<p>This is all speculation on my part, but to me it makes economic sense to spend your marketing dollars on recruiting the applicants you want most into the pool where you get the highest yield.</p>

172

<p>OK tougis, I’ve created my spreadsheet. Some notes first:

  • I only pulled in numbers from the above list; that is I have not gone back to original sources to get a more precise growth rate or apps counts for last year.
  • some of the numbers above are rough. However, I used them.
  • I dumped No Kentucky because I have no app #
  • I tallied total apps for this year & calculated last year’s apps from the growth rates.</p>

<p>Summary data from the list of schools on our list (minus No Kentucky):

  • total apps= 1,648,466
  • calculated last year apps= 1,537,723
  • Apps increase= 7.2%</p>

<p>So, was that what you were interested in?</p>

<p>If I get a chance, I’d also like to load up undergrad enrollment and calc a ratio of apps to enrollment per school. That should be interesting. That’s some work though, so give me some time.</p>

<p>Here is one other manipulation which is enabled by having this stuff in a spreadsheet. Sort by # of apps…</p>

<p>UCLA +10.8% (80,472)<br>
San Diego State +8.0 (74,458)<br>
UC Berkeley +9.7% (67,658)<br>
UCSD +10.8% (67,403)<br>
UCSB +13.9% (62,402)<br>
UC Irvine +11.3% (60,619)<br>
UC Davis +13.1% (55,877)<br>
Boston U +19.4% (52,532)<br>
NYU +11.2% (48,606)<br>
U Southern Cal +3.7% (47,800)<br>
Stanford +5.9% (38,800)<br>
UCSC +16.9% (38,507)<br>
Ohio State +25.6% (35,300)<br>
Fordham +5.0% (35,229)<br>
UC Riverside +13.2% (33,809)<br>
Columbia +5.1% (33,460)<br>
Northwestern +2.2% (32,766)<br>
Duke +0.4% (31,752)<br>
Penn +0.00% (31,219)<br>
Vanderbilt +8.9% (30,870)<br>
U North Carolina +4.0% (30,689)<br>
UChicago +20% (30,369)<br>
U Washington +15.7% (30,073)<br>
Yale +2.8% (29,790)<br>
Virginia +3.5% (~29,250)<br>
Brown +0.22% (28,733)<br>
Princeton -0.59% (26,505)<br>
Boston College -26% (~25,000)<br>
Dartmouth -2.8% (22,400)<br>
Miami U +6.3% (21,593)<br>
NC State +5.5% (calc’d to be >21,384, count incomplete)<br>
JHU +0.52% (20,608)<br>
Georgetown -0.12% (20,025)<br>
Tufts +12% (18,339)<br>
Case Western +25% (18,226)<br>
Rochester +8.2% (17,146)<br>
Rice +1.4% (15,345)<br>
UC Merced +16.6% (14,966)<br>
Villanova +0.21% (14,933)<br>
St Andrews +6% (14,355)<br>
William & Mary +2.5% (14,000)<br>
RPI -10.7% (13,600)<br>
Lehigh +8.7% (12,548)<br>
Wesleyan +4.2% (10,942)<br>
Pepperdine +10% (10,443)<br>
Elon -2.5% (9,791)<br>
Brandeis +14.2% (9,370)<br>
Middlebury +2.6% (9,075)<br>
Colgate +7.0% (8,346)<br>
Skidmore +42% (8,126)<br>
Amherst -7.7% (7,908)<br>
Bucknell -3.6% (7,834)<br>
Emerson +9.7% (7,756)<br>
Vassar -3.9% (7,600)<br>
Trinity +5.7% (7,500)<br>
Holy Cross -1.3% (7,079)<br>
Bowdoin +4.7% (7,029)<br>
Williams -3.3% (6,836)<br>
Swarthmore +0.24% (6,632)<br>
Babson +10.3% (6,080)<br>
Union +2.5% (5,643)<br>
Barnard +3.3% (5,609)<br>
Caltech -0.02% (5,536)<br>
Claremont McKenna ~+9% (5,461 by NYT, back-calc’d to be ~5510 from CMC)
Clark +27.8% (5,472)<br>
Colby +2.8% (5,390)<br>
Bates +5.9% (5,194)<br>
Hamilton -1.8% (5,017)<br>
Grinnell -0.57% (4,528)<br>
St Lawrence +14.4% (3,080)<br>
Kalamazoo +13% (>2,400)<br>
Scripps -0.29% (2,366)<br>
Juilliard +0.82% (2,338) [I think the spelling is finally fixed]<br>
Alma +11.1% (1,820)<br>
Olin +2.4% (800)</p>

173

<p>A few other sub-groups…</p>

<p>National LACs (n=23)

  • total apps= 141,464
  • calculated last year apps= 136,766
  • Apps increase= 3.4% (1.8% if I remove Skidmore)
  • Median apps growth= 2.8% (Colby)</p>

<p>Ivies (n=6, missing Harvard & Cornell)

  • total apps= 172,107
  • calculated last year apps= 170,411
  • Apps increase= 1.0%
  • Median apps growth= 0.0% (Penn)</p>

<p>non-Ivy National Private Universities (n=21)

  • total apps= 505,153
  • calculated last year apps= 478,340
  • Apps increase= 5.6%
  • Median apps growth= 8.2% (Rochester)</p>

<p>UC’s (n=9)

  • total apps= 481,713
  • calculated last year apps= 429,435
  • Apps increase= 12.2%
  • Median apps growth= 13.1% (UC Davis)</p>

<p>Other (non-UC) Public National Universities (n=8)

  • total apps= 256,747
  • calculated last year apps= 235,050
  • Apps increase= 9.2%
  • Median apps growth= 5.5%-6.3% (NC State/Miami U)</p>

<p>I have not bucketized regional & specialty stragglers.</p>

<p>So, increased “interest” as expressed as applications growth seems to be most pronouced in this group order:</p>

<p>UCs
non-UC National Public U’s
closely followed by non-Ivy National Private U’s
National LACs
Ivies</p>

<p>Note- I have not run the data, but I’d bet a regional analysis would show big increases in the west coast, and lowest growth in the east/northest.</p>

174

<p>Has anyone yet figured out what the story on Skidmore is? That’s a huge jump in applications for a school that, as far as I can tell, didn’t change their application procedures in any significant way.</p>

175

<p>Sue22- I think they dropped their extra essay requirement & presumably increased outreach. That’s all I have heard.</p>

176

<p>Many thanks for all your trouble, PC! That’s exactly the info I was looking for. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>Mastodon, here’s what I mean about the natural ceiling. Naturally, schools love ED applicants–they know they’ll come, which is yield heaven. But say there are 10,000 kids now applying to a couple of top schools that will take, say, 1,000 in total from that pool, and ED pressures result in the applicants splitting up into 7K/3K buckets. One of those schools will have to build its class from only 3K apps, so its selectivity will go down during that round. Because if all the best candidates go the ED route, schools won’t be able to remedy their shortage of top candidates in the RD round: everybody will be spoken for already. </p>

<p>Now, the 7K college will end up deferring/waitlisting a bunch of kids, but you won’t be able to take them in the next round if you’ve filled your Freshman class already with ED applicants.</p>

<p>That’s just one of the weirdnesses that can arise if ED gets too out of hand. As it is, it takes actuaries to decide who the hell to accept: the predictive models just get harder and harder to put together…</p>

<p>Anyhow, while I completely agree with you that the growth of ED (with it becoming the “new normal”) is bad for students generally (even those with plenty of $$), I think Xiggi is right that it stops being in the colleges’ interest at some point too.</p>

177

<p>Thanks Papa, I had missed that they dropped an essay.</p>

178

<p>Don’t feel bad on spelling Juilliard incorrectly. So did the NY Times: [ADMISSIONS</a> DATA - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/category/admissions-data/]ADMISSIONS”>Admissions Data - The Choice Blog - The New York Times)</p>

179

<p>[5Cs</a> Release Admissions Statistics](<a href=“http://tsl.pomona.edu/articles/2013/2/8/news/3538-5cs-release-admissions-statistics]5Cs”>5Cs Release Admissions Statistics - The Student Life)</p>

<p>Pomona: -4.78%
Mudd: -1.6%
Pitzer: -2.93%</p>

180

<p>Weird that CMC, which got caught fudging stats, had a big increase in apps, while Pomona, Pitzer, Scripps, and Mudd all decreased. </p>

<p>I guess the moral is…!!</p>