<p>No. Princeton has never disclosed this number, though Harvard and Yale have on occasion.</p>
<p>The 599 admitted for 2010 were just a hair under 50% of the projected class of 1,220. </p>
<p>Assuming the historical 98/99% yield on the ED admits, that means Princeton is projecting a bit over 52% yield on the RD admits, and a 68% overall yield.</p>
<p>52%? That's significantly behind HYS, and even Penn. What was Columbia's RD yield for 2010?</p>
<p>It was about 47% last year; might be a bit higher this year, but all the data is not in. Further, it depends whether Fu is included or not.</p>
<p>so you're not going to correct the "significantly behind HYS, and even Penn" part? oh wait, that might make princeton look better. truth is, princeton's RD yield was more like 54% this year, which puts it, as always, ahead of penn, and likely competitive with stanford (certainly not "significantly behind" it). overall yield should be very competitive with both stanford and yale.</p>
<p>On what numbers do you base that "54%" claim? I thought I had shown you the error of your ways.</p>
<p>599 ED admits out of 1,792 total means 1193 RD admits --- assuming no waitlist action.</p>
<p>A target class size of 1,220, minus an estimated ED yield of 99% means 593 net from the ED pool, leaving 627 seats filled from the RD pool (including, of course, an unreported number of ED deferreds) for an estimated RD yield of about 52.5% (again assuming no waitlist action.)</p>
<p>Princeton has projected an overall yield of about 68% - meaning 1,220 of the 1,792 admits matriculating (again assuming no waitlist action.)</p>
<p>The RD yield rate couldn't be 54%, based on these numbers, unless the ED yield dropped to an unprecedented low of 95.9%.</p>
<p><a href="http://ivysuccess.com/princeton_2010.html%5B/url%5D">http://ivysuccess.com/princeton_2010.html</a></p>
<p>the same numbers i've always based it on.</p>
<p>You messed up there, lad, by making careless assumptions about "zero melt" that even Rapelye didn't count on!</p>
<p>Listen up, scottie ..... NO college - not Princeton, not Harvard, not Yale or anyplace else has zero melt!</p>
<p>You seem to think the tentative class of 1,639 will hold. It won't.</p>
<p>Didn't you read Rapelye's observation?</p>
<p>"We expect about 19 students to defer admission over the summer due to unexpected changes of plans," Rapelye said."</p>
<p>She expects 1,220 matriculants.</p>
<p>Some may be "deferrng admission" to accept a slot off the WL at HYS, scottie!</p>
<p>defer =/= decline.</p>
<p>In this case it seems to. "Yield" is based on those who <em>enroll</em> scottie.</p>
<p>Harvard may have 40 or more who "defer" ... and they are not considered as among those who <em>enroll</em>.</p>
<p>deferees have to be counted toward SOME class's admissions stats, however, and the most logical would be the one to which they were initially admitted (they did, after all, accept an offer of admission in that year). if they aren't, then the previous year's deferees would have to be counted toward the current year's stats. but since the number of deferees shouldn't differ much from year to year, the exact "accounting method" shouldn't matter (they're counted either way).</p>
<p>In any case, there will <em>not</em> be 1,639 members of the Class of 2010 at Princeton University in New Jersey this September, if the Director of Admissions, Ms. Rapelye, knows what she's talking about. She projected 1,220, even after getting the preliminary responses.</p>
<p>Defer does not mean decline, defer means not enrolling until a later school year. I don't think people who defer admission are attempting to gain admission at other universities, thus a deferral is still a gain for the admissions dept.</p>
<p>I'm afraid not, in this case, tokeo.</p>
<p>As previously noted, Princeton declines to report how many ED applicants are deferred and how many of those deferrees are eventually admitted and matriculate.</p>
<p>By way of comparison, we know that for the Class of 2009 Harvard admitted 885 SCEA and, eventually, 94 more SCEA deferreds.</p>
<p>Yale admitted 670 SCEA and, eventually, 240 more SCEA deferreds.</p>
<p>This means that the <em>actual</em> admit rate for those applying early was about 23.4% at Harvard, and about 27.5% at Yale.</p>
<p>It further means, given the likely yield rates, that about 53% of Harvard's class of 2009 was filled by original early pool applicants, and that about 57.5% of Yale's class of 2009 was likewise filled by original early pool applicants.</p>
<p>There is little doubt that the comparable percentage at Princeton is as high - ot higher - than the percentage at Yale.</p>
<p>Unfortunately you can't prove it Byerly.</p>
<p>I'm sure that eats away at you somehow.</p>
<p>The truth will out, eventually. These things can't be kept hidden forever. Congress may require release of the information at some point.</p>
<p>College C***fidential has an estimate, but I don't know what it was based on.</p>
<p>Byerly's figures on this issue, for the schools he writes about, seem to be carefully compiled and thoughtfully analyzed. If there are disagreements about the details, please point to publications by Princeton (or the Common Data Set people, or the government) that prove Byerly wrong. He was simply answering the question raised by the OP.</p>
<p>Byerly unbiased and impartial? Haha good one!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Byerly unbiased and impartial?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did anyone say so in this thread?</p>