Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

New York Times Article on Year 2007's Early Round Trends

tokenadulttokenadult Registered User Posts: 17,471 Senior Member
edited November 2007 in Parents Forum
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/education/28admissions.html
Some educators think the decline at Yale a year ago was caused by the news, the previous spring, that the university had become the first Ivy League school to admit fewer than 10 percent of its applicants in its early and regular rounds combined. But Mr. Brenzel does not accept that theory.
Post edited by tokenadult on

Replies to: New York Times Article on Year 2007's Early Round Trends

  • cookiemomcookiemom Registered User Posts: 662 Member
    Thanks for the post and the link, Tokenadult. The Stanford numbers are still a surpise - I thought for sure they'd go way up.

    The other surprise is that MIT has not been able to COUNT their early apps yet! If they're having that much trouble, can't they send for someone up the street at Harvard to help them?
  • tokenadulttokenadult Registered User Posts: 17,471 Senior Member
    Yeah, the Stanford numbers still surprise me too.
    There were about 10 percent more early-action applications this year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, compared with the 3,493 last year, said Stuart Schmill, the interim director of admissions, although the final tally has not yet been determined.

    That does raise the interesting question of exactly how and when a count becomes official. If the application deadline is a postmark deadline, one has to wait for applications to trickle in, but it's been a while now since the deadline.
  • maineparentmaineparent Registered User Posts: 898 Member
    Hmmmn.... I can't help but speculate even though the head of admissions at Yale won't.
    I think Georgetown's numbers are up because there is an increased awareness of politics, power, Washington DC because of the current administration and all that goes along with it. That is the place to go if you want to be where the political action is.

    I think Stanford's numbers are consistent because sooo many of their applicants come from California in the first place. The kids from the east coast that are going to lob an app to Stanford are still the same..... the changes in the top schools and their policies don't really affect kids from California, so the overall impact is negligible.

    I think Yale's numbers were off last year due to the sense it was a lost cause (the first Ivy school to have <10% accepted) and the whole Taliban student issue. I think their numbers are coming back again because Harvard and Princeton have done away with an early cycle.....BUT I also think that if you visit New Haven....you will see a NEW New Haven. Money has been spent.. and they finally tore down the old rusty stadium as you approach the city from the east.... Yale bought the Bayer facilities....and they are very visibly active in China. Yale has $$ and Yale is spending $$. I think Levin is really good at his job.

    I will be interested in hearing more about how kids fare in the Georgetown "lottery" cause I have been harboring an interest in that school for my S#2. It is just disappointing to find out one is part of a herd....
  • PhatAlbertPhatAlbert Registered User Posts: 699 Member
    I think, though I'm not sure, that a lot of the issues with schools counting early applications has to do with how they classify incomplete applications.
  • xiggixiggi Registered User Posts: 25,441 Senior Member
    Haven't we covered this one before?

    Part of Yale's big jump in early applications can be traced directly to the school's recent participation in programs that generate hundreds --if not more than 1,000 qualified early applications. Stanford, in turn, does not consider the participants of programs such as Questbridge to be part of their early round. A subtle difference, which Dean Shaw is too much of a gentleman to use as an explanation.
  • tokenadulttokenadult Registered User Posts: 17,471 Senior Member
    I wonder how the Common Data Set Initiative rules suggest treating Questbridge applications?
  • xiggixiggi Registered User Posts: 25,441 Senior Member
    Probably no different from the CDS being able to dictate the terms of likely letters or athletic LOIs. I think that it's up to the school to decide the terms of their admissions.
This discussion has been closed.