dfree124

@superpiglet that's their class size, which is the #accepted x %yield, which is why it's much lower than the #accepted.

superpiglet

got it, sorry about the confusion!

45 Percenter

It's a blog written by education reporters from The New York Times, and it's SIGNIFICANTLY more reliable than numbers randomly offered by anonymous posters on an internet bulletin board, especially when no supporting source is linked by those posters.

And FYI, although I assume you already know this, there is NO place--nada, zilch, null set--that one can obtain admissions data that is ultimately supplied by any source OTHER than admissions offices.

So what's your point?

phantasmagoric

^ to be fair, though its speculation on admissions is often wrong, CC is obsessed with hard data, and as a result the (existing) data is overwhelmingly accurate, because it's curated by a community of neurotic people who love to point out when something is provably incorrect. Case in point, superpiglet's error was caught in the post after it.

xiggi

My point, 45percenter, is that your statement about the bloggers at the Choice is off the mark when it comes to accuracy. Anyone who has more than a halting understanding of this type of data can appreciate when the people who collect the numbers for Jacques post erroneous numbers. Simply stated, the blog is full of hits and misses, and they do not seem to know nor care if the numbers are plausible.

Since you suggested to engage in the futile exercise to compare the numbers discussed above to the post-WL data, perhaps you could check the numbers at the Choice to the historical information.

And, fwiw, when it comes to education and accuracy in reporting, the Times is ... Well, the Times. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

RML

Our friend, xiggi, can't sleep at night that Berkeley has lower than 20% admit rate. lol...

Having said that, I kind of agree with him that it's too early to say whether the numbers are accurate or not.

xiggi

Oh, RML, I do not stay awake worrying about Cal as their mission is not to dip below an artificial yardstick of selectivity. Simply stated, they should never be compared to schools that do NOT have massive Spring admits or even larger transfer admits from various JUCO or CCs. Different animals wearing different stripes.

However, it remains that the numbers reported should be accurate and not represent a partial admission rate.

45 Percenter

Are you aware of any specific inaccuracies in the admit rates posted by the NY Times? And by inaccuracies, I mean that an admit rate listed by the Times was different than the one provided to it by the relevant admissions office. And I'm not talking about the entire blog, but just its annual tabulation of admit rates.

45 Percenter

I agree that it's way too early for accurate final admit rates--hence the suggestion (futile as xiggi might find it) that it would be interesting to compare these initially reported rates with the final ones after all waitlist activity. That would provide a clear indication of which schools, if any, are relying on extensive waitlist activity over the summer to artificially depress initial admit rates in the spring.

My point about the NY Times' table of initially reported admit rates (which The Times gets directly from the admissions offices) is that it's simply a more reliable source for those initally reported admit rates than a list thrown together by anonymous posters on an internet bulletin board. I wasn't claiming that the admit rates reported by the colleges themselves--albeit as reported by The Times--are the true admit rates, although that's what xiggi seems to think I was saying.

ToBePremed

Updated Georgetown.
Source: Georgegown.edu/news/

5.9%--Harvard
6.6----Stanford
6.8----Yale
7.4----Columbia
7.86---Princeton
8.9----MIT
9.4----Dartmouth
9.6----Brown
11.9---Duke
12.0---Vanderbilt
12.3---UPenn
12.4---Claremont McKenna
12.8---Pomona
15.3---Northwestern
15.4---WUSTL
15.7---Pitzer
16.1---Bowdoin
16.2---Cornell
16.5---Georgetown
16.7---Williams
17.4---Olin
17.7---Johns Hopkins
18-----USC
18-----Washington and Lee
19.6---UC Berkeley
19.7---Wesleyan
21.0---Barnard
21.2---Tufts
25-----Bates
25.7---University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
27.1---Hamilton
27.4---University of Virginia
29.0---Babson
29-----Colby
30-----University of Richmond
32.7---George Washington
34-----University of Rochester
34.7---Macalester
35-----NYU
39-----Occidental
41-----University of Florida
45.5---Boston University
51-----Elon

RML

Really, xiggi? Would you still have posted in this very thread had you not seen Berkeley's below 20% admit rate? lol...


And, it is not a hidden secret that Berkeley does admit a few extra students for Spring admits. How is that any different from your beloved privates that accept thousands of WL? lol

ThousandMiles

vanderbilt and duke harder than Penn this year? wow

45 Percenter

^ Admit rates, alone, don't tell the whole story of relative selectivity--especially these inital rates which, at least in some cases, are subject to fairly significant change after waitlist activity over the summer. You really have to look at other stats such as SAT ranges, GPA ranges, and class ranks (to the extent they're provided) of admitted and enrolled students at various schools to determine how relatively selective they are.

xiggi

RML, I cannot possibly explain to you how admissions numbers are compared ... year after year. And again and again. Let this refresh your memory.

Initial Acceptance Rates - Class of 2015

It is really not that hard to figure out the differences between WL admits and deferred admissions.

NocturnalOwl

Is it that hard to believe that Duke is more selective than Penn this year (not saying that acceptance rate is the entire picture)? I was always under the assumption that they were always very similar in terms of selectivity.

Sent from my HTC Vision using CC