<p>It appears that Duke has finally decided to release one of its older CDS form:</p>
<p>ir.provost.duke.edu/facts/cds/CDS%202009-10.pdf</p>
<p><a href=“http://ir.provost.duke.edu/facts.html[/url]”>http://ir.provost.duke.edu/facts.html</a></p>
<p>With the wrong date on the link. Oh well. Not perfect.</p>
<p>What I noted on the CDS repository thread:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065319379-post394.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065319379-post394.html</a></p>
<p>Now, we have to be aware that is VERY new for them. Give them some time, and they’ll understand that the 2009-2010 means … this year.</p>
<p>Well, as many suspected, here come the “slight” discrepancies:</p>
<p>[Duke</a> University Admissions: Class of 2013 Profile](<a href=“http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2013profile.html]Duke”>http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2013profile.html)</p>
<p>**Class of 2013: **<br>
Applications 23,877
Accepted 4,222
% Accepted 18%
Enrolled 1,739</p>
<p>Common Data Set
Applications 10995 + 11285 = 22,280
Admitted 2120 + 2099 = 4,219
Enrolled 882 + 841 = 1,723</p>
<p>Well, 2 out of 3 is not that bad; they got admissons and enrollment to almost match. Were the “missing” 1,600 applications the same postcards WashU counts so gleefully, or phone calls?</p>
<p>PS The only reasonable/acceptable explanation (and that does not question the school’s integrity) for the difference might be that Duke forgot to add the 1.537 ED applications in the total. Fwiw, the number of ED applications and admissions match exactly on the two reports. However, if a school such as Duke can make such a mistake, one ought to worry about that entire IR department. They might consider hiring the people who revamped the CDS of Chicago!</p>
<p>My prediction, given their flawed methodology:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>WashU</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>UChicago</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>JHU</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
</ol>
<p>C’mon Chicago! You’ve scored with the applicants, keep that up and work on those guidance counselors. Oh, and some transparency would be nice . . . <em>cough</em> release our CDS <em>cough</em> . . . It really befuddles me how our administration can be so inept.</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>UChicago</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>WashU</li>
<li>JHU</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did something happen at Duke since May?</p>
<p>^and Northwestern…</p>
<p>Oops I would probably put Northwestern below Dartmouth. And I don’t know these are all just guesses really! I changed some of them because of the final acceptance rates, moving Stanford/Vanderbilt/Brown up and Duke down from where I had originally put them.</p>
<p>I dunno if Duke is gonna go up or down. Our acceptance rate fell to 14.8 percent, but I’m not sure if that is enough to make us climb above some other schools, cause money is a large factor, and Duke’s endowment has gone down a ton.</p>
<p>^now at 5 billion, so it increased a little. Duke’s planning on going on campaign soon, as Penn and Columbia are, so we’ll see what happens… </p>
<p>[Endowment</a> on track to show growth | The Chronicle](<a href=“http://dukechronicle.com/article/endowment-track-show-growth]Endowment”>http://dukechronicle.com/article/endowment-track-show-growth)</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure everybody’s endowment has fallen, not just Duke’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dead horse … but I hope you realize that the final acceptance rates used in the USN 2011 will be from the Fall of 2009, and that the positive changes in acceptance rates almost NEVER result in positive changes in the rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not that it will make any difference, but …</p>
<p>While nobody knows if Duke will go up or down, what is known is that Duke’s acceptance rate for the Fall of 2010 is NOT as low as 14.8 percent. The figure that will be used by USNews in the upcoming edition will be just below 20%. For the exact percentage, divide 4,219 by 22,280.</p>
<p>The focus on Acceptance Rates is silly. It only counts for 1.5% of the USNWR calculation. </p>
<p>Look at changes in things like 6-year Graduation Rate which makes up 16% of the ranking. A small change there, up or down, can have a real rankings impact.</p>
<p>^ Or a change in Peer Assessment…which makes up 25%. ;)</p>
<p>Like I said before, using acceptance rate as part of the methodology is silly. Schools need to fill up the seats in their incoming class and they do not know which applicant will enroll. If schools can see into the future, their acceptance rates would be much much lower than they are.</p>
<p>ucb,
PA scores may have the highest weight, but they don’t change. It’s a fixed outcome. New arrivals not welcome.</p>
<p>^ Because it takes a lot time to build a name in the academic world, aside from it’s an extremely expensive investment to take. </p>
<p>In short, school prestige requires both time and (lots of lots of) money.</p>