Okay so I was doing some math with colgates admitted students profile.
If you subtract the number of legacy (50% AR), international (15%), multicultural (URM?, 21%) and ED (50%) students, you have only 900 more spots for while, non-legacy RD kids.
However, if you also subtract the number of applications that these different groups submitted, white non-legacy RD only makes up 1800 students in the pool.
This means they must be cross calculating (don’t know if that term makes sense) the number of students admitted in these respective groups right?
Now I’m assuming passed on percentages about 500 of these students in multicultural, legacy and international were ED and assuming no international accepted student was a legacy (just based on odds and then number is so low), and that they can’t be considered multicultural because that would defeat the purpose of the separate categories (right?).
That means there are 2300 kids in the RD pool for 1120 spots. That would mean 49% of the white non-legacy kids are accepted RD which seems really high to me. What am I missing?
Colgate appears to have had 406 RD spots available for the class of 2020. If I understand your analysis correctly, your discrepancy appears related to this figure. Beyond this – and a distinctly separate factor mathematically – you would need to account for admissions yield to draw meaningful conclusions with respect to acceptance rates.
Let me see if I can do this more clearly and less wordy
8394 apps
-752 ED apps
-3699 multicultural apps
-1896 international apps
-206 legacy apps
= 1841 white non legacy apps
400 (more likely than 500) cross calculations between these groups and ED
= 2241 white non legacy apps
2410 acceptances
-376 ED
-800 multicultural
-237 international
-111 legacy
=886 white non legacy
+200 again for cross calculation and taking ED acceptance rate into account
=1086 white non legacy RD acceptances
1086/2241 = 48% acceptance rate
Made the numbers more exact but outcome was roughly the same @merc81
It seems that the entirety of the “international apps” would be encompassed by the “multicultural apps,” therefore the 1896 should probably be taken out of the calculation @a20171. (Then, based on your line of inference, you would want to lower the 400 figure.)
Though one category above encompasses the other, Colgate has conveyed distinct information through the inclusion of both. However, to remove ambiguity, they could perhaps have stated: “Domestic Multicultural Applications: 1803.”