USNWR 2009: Looking at the Top Strata III (RD and ED Acceptance Rates)

College Search & Selection
1

<p>The publication of the 2009 USNWR College Rankings provides an opportunity to compare schools based on a wide variety of data points. In this and in other threads, I urge the reader to think less about the absolute rankings and more about the nature and value-added of the data point being discussed. </p>

<p>For the matter of acceptance rates, the data below is unfortunately outdated…and it's only a year old! The past year saw the acceptance rates (ED and RD) drop significantly for many of these colleges, so take the below with a grain of salt. Furthermore, the relationship at each institution between their ED rate and their RD may not have been duplicated last year and there certainly is no guarantee that the ED/RD spreads will be the same from year-to-year. </p>

<p>Difference between ED and RD Acceptance Rates , RD Acceptance Rate , ED Acceptance Rate , National University</p>

<p>21% , 24% , 45% , Johns Hopkins
17% , 27% , 44% , Northwestern
16% , 21% , 37% , Cornell
14% , 11% , 25% , Columbia
14% , 15% , 29% , Dartmouth
13% , 16% , 29% , U Penn
9% , 14% , 23% , Brown
5% , 25% , 30% , Rice
4% , 27% , 31% , Emory
3% , 33% , 36% , Vanderbilt
-5% , 28% , 23% , Carnegie Mellon
na , 9% , na , Harvard
na , 10% , na , Princeton
na , 10% , na , Yale
na , 12% , na , MIT
na , 10% , na , Stanford
na , 17% , na , Caltech
na , 23% , na , Duke
na , 35% , na , U Chicago
na , 17% , na , Wash U
na , 33% , na , Notre Dame
na , 23% , na , UC Berkeley
na , 35% , na , U Virginia
na , 21% , na , Georgetown
na , 24% , na , UCLA</p>

<p>Difference between ED and RD Acceptance Rates , RD Acceptance Rate , ED Acceptance Rate , LAC</p>

<p>34% , 31% , 65% , Oberlin
32% , 45% , 77% , Bryn Mawr
30% , 36% , 66% , Wellesley
27% , 50% , 77% , Grinnell
22% , 18% , 40% , Williams
21% , 18% , 39% , Amherst
21% , 28% , 49% , Davidson
19% , 29% , 48% , Vassar
18% , 18% , 36% , Swarthmore
17% , 16% , 33% , Claremont McK
16% , 25% , 41% , Haverford
16% , 27% , 43% , Wesleyan
14% , 30% , 44% , Carleton
14% , 28% , 42% , Harvey Mudd
13% , 52% , 65% , Smith
12% , 30% , 42% , Bates
11% , 19% , 30% , Bowdoin
11% , 27% , 38% , W&L
10% , 32% , 42% , Colby
8% , 28% , 36% , Hamilton
5% , 16% , 21% , Pomona
5% , 41% , 46% , Macalester
4% , 21% , 25% , Middlebury
na , 15% , na , US Military Acad
na , 26% , na , Colgate
na , 12% , na , US Naval Acad</p>

2

<p>hawkette,
sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't think these figures are right. I looked at the US News data for several schools my D is interested in. I think the figure you're reporting as "RD acceptance rate" is the figure reported in US News as "Fall 2007 acceptance rate"---that is, the total or "blended" acceptance rate combining both RD and ED applications. In other words, (total ED + RD acceptances)/(total RD + ED applications).</p>

<p>Since in every case except (anomalously) Carnegie Mellon, the ED acceptance rate is higher than the total acceptance rate, the actual RD acceptance rate must be lower than the rate you report. The U.S. News online edition has a line for "acceptance rate excluding EA and ED students" (in other words, the RD rate), but that line is blank for each of these schools.</p>

<p>Just how much lower is the RD rate than the total acceptance rate you report? Can't tell from the data reported in US News. It would depend on how many slots they actually fill from ED applications.</p>

<p>Here's one example: Penn reports on their website that for the class of 2011, they had 22,646 applicants, of which they accepted 3,637 (16.1%).
But this includes 4,001 ED applicants, of which they accepted 1,178 (29.4%). But that means there were 18,645 RD applicants (22,646 total applicants - 4,001 ED applicants), of which they accepted only 2,459 (3,637 total acceptances - 1,178 ED acceptances). That gives you a RD acceptance rate of 13.2% --- NOT the 16.1% you report. So the difference between RD and ED for Penn is actually 16% (29%-13%), not the 13% you report.</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
I think the figure you're reporting as "RD acceptance rate" is the figure reported in US News as "Fall 2007 acceptance rate"---that is, the total or "blended" acceptance rate combining both RD and ED applications. In other words, (total ED + RD acceptances)/(total RD + ED applications).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is an important issue to check.</p>

4

<p>bc,
I think you're right. For the great majority of schools, I don't see the breakout for RD while I do see it for ED. So the RD numbers above are a blend and should be shown as the Total Acceptance Rate. I guess the conclusion is that the RD rate is even lower than what is shown above and thus these relationships (as unreliable as they are given the change in the environment last year) are wider than shown. </p>

<p>Having said all of the above, I believe that the data is correct for ED and for Total Acceptance.</p>

5

<p>If you know the total % of ED admits, you can use algebra to work backward to get the RD acceptance rate.</p>

<p>Given:</p>

<p>ED + RD %
ED %
get % of admits that are ED, and you're home free.</p>

6

<p>dunnin,
In a few cases the colleges and USN provides this, but generally this level of detail is not provided. Tant pis!</p>

7

<p>Here's the problem with making this applicable, Hawkette.</p>

<p>Not all ED are created equal. ED includes just about all recruited athletes, and most legacies.</p>

<p>Let's say Super Duper College accepts 6,000 students on average, with 2000 in the ED group. So out of a hypothetical ED acceptance group of 2000, half could be athletes and legacies. Let's say for argument's sake that 100% of the atheletes and 50% of the legacies are admitted, for a blended acceptance rate of 80%. This group is comprised of 800 admits. That leaves 1200 spots open to regular applicants. You see the problem? Even if the ED % admittance is 40%, you can still have "regular" ED applicants accepted at only 15% or 20% rate.</p>

8

<p>Dunnin, is that true for athletes? On our campus, some recruited athletes end up getting their paperwork complete at the later end of the admissions season. Well after the usual ED date. Maybe those are just the oddball cases which I only hear about because, well, they are the oddball cases...but I wasn't sure. </p>

<p>Granted, my campus doesn't offer ED so it's moot for us.</p>

9

<p>See, as always when discussing this issue, </p>

<p>Amazon.com:</a> The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite: Christopher Avery, Andrew Fairbanks, Richard Zeckhauser: Books </p>

<p>for many more details and a lot of references to other interesting studies of the college admission process.</p>

10

<p>These are real RD rates, not composite rates</p>

<p>Ivy League Admissions Statistics – Class of 2012 </p>

<p>School-RD Rate-ED/A Rate-% Early Fill</p>

<p>Brown 12.00% 22.70% 37.60%
Columbia 8.40% 23.10% 44.20%
Cornell 18.70% 36.80% 37.30%
Dartmouth 11.80% 28.00% 36.70%
Harvard 7.10% n/a n/a
Penn 13.80% 29.20% 47.80%
Princeton 9.30% n/a n/a
Yale 5.60% 18.10% n/a</p>

<p>also
School-RD Rate-ED/A Rate</p>

<p>Stanford 8.25 16.22
MIT 10.90 13.29</p>

11

<p>dunnin,
Thanks for pointing out one of the caveats related to some of the Acceptance Rate data, however, I will say that the use of Early Acceptance programs and how they treat legacies and athletes varies considerably from college to college. </p>

<p>descartesz,
Where did your data come from? Should we now calculate the Total Acceptance rates from the info you provided?</p>

12

<p>Bcos legacies and recruits are in the ED pool, one should be extremely cautious about drawing any conclusions. For example, after backing out hooked candidates (legacies and athletes), the ED differential for one of those schools is only a few percent, not the 2x that appears. (Yes, there is still a small ED advantage, but not 2x worth.)</p>

13

<p>Hawkette:</p>

<p>Ivy</a> League Admission Statistics</p>

<p>Also Ivy</a> League Admission Statistics</p>

<p>BlueBayou:
Indeed, yes, the Early applicant pool is different. Supposedly even the "unhooked" applicants tend to be more qualified on average than in the RD pool. Hence the admission rates can be misleading: higher rates do not equate with better chances.</p>

<p>Still, you get a sense that an RD applicant has "missed the party" at a school like Penn, where almost half of its slots are already taken up by early offers.</p>

14

<p>A 5.6% RD acceptance rate at Yale - that is just nuts.</p>

<p>I think a lot of those schools have posted the number of applications and acceptances for ED; it would just take some time to do all the calculations.</p>

15

<p>^ I suggested that my D consider Yale as a "super reach." Her reaction: "Look at that acceptance rate. Why even bother?"</p>

<p>As Yogi Berra is reputed to have said about his erstwhile favorite restaurant, "No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded."</p>

16

<p>^Yeah, I thought of the same quote when I saw that figure.</p>

17

<p>A chronic limitation of such listings is their failure to break out the statistics for the separate colleges of multi-college universities individually ,though these admissions pools are primarily evaluated separately by the specific college.</p>

<p>An applicant to Carnegie Mellon's theater department does not have the same odds of admission as an applicant to its Arts & Sciences College. An applicant to Penn's Nursing program does not have the same admissions odds as an applicant to Wharton. etc. The aggregated numbers may be virtually meaningless in informing the individual applicant who is applying to just a particular one of the university's diverse colleges. That applicant will be part of that one college's applicant pool, and not some fictionalized aggregated pool which is not used in practice, as a primary matter at least.</p>

18

<p>Hey. Does anyone know the ED acceptance rates 4 Duke, Brown, and Penn comparatively?</p>

<p>I know Brown & Penn r already posted, but does ne1 know the rates 4 all those skools that r listed N/A. </p>

<p>Basically, wat skools hv the biggest difference between ED & RD rates (ED bein the higher number)?</p>

19

<p>Anyone have the world series stats from 2003?</p>