2016 Admissions Data

<p>Early</a> Line on Early Admissions - NYTimes.com</p>

<p>Given the increase in ED 1 apps, and assuming Emory accepts about 200~ ED II apps, Emory will have less than 700 spots to fill from its RD pool (of probably 16,000+ apps). Looks like a substantial decrease in the RD acceptance rate is coming.</p>

<p>Do you think Ed 2 will remain at around 30%?</p>

<p>Looking at this, I'm so glad I applied ED1</p>

<p>Thanks for posting this, emoryhelp. A 17.36% increase in ED1 applications is remarkable!</p>

<p>Do you know if Emory Admissions themselves have released any commentary on the ED rounds this year? I seem to recall an article in the wheel from Jean Jordan discussing this last year.</p>

<p>Also, if Emory admitted 431 students through binding Early Decision 1, and are planning on admitting approximately 200 more students through Early Decision 2, this means that about 600/1331 (> 45%) of the students will be admitted through binding Early Decision.</p>

<p>...that's substantially greater than the 38% of the class of 2014 admitted Early Decision. <a href="http://www.emory.edu/admission/admission/_cms/admissions_pdfs/profile_10-11.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.emory.edu/admission/admission/_cms/admissions_pdfs/profile_10-11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Glad to see our efforts at lowering our acceptance rate are going to be successful.</p>

<p>Also glad to see that will be competing with the Ivies by matching how much of our class will be filled with Early Decision applicants.</p>

<p>Columbia- 45%
UPenn- 47%
Dartmouth- 42%
Even HYP are all greater than 46%...though their early applications aren't binding.</p>

<p>But most importantly, I'm glad to see that our incoming class will really want to be here! :)</p>

<p>Lower acceptance rate means nothing if "quality" of the class does not increase at all. If it doesn't, we are merely putting on a fascade (a marketing campaign to get more apps). I would like to see them "yield" (as opposed to admit) a more interesting class than the last. As in one more academically diverse than those before and perhaps more statistically qualified (though that it isn't the problem really). Perhaps some students that are more interested in creativity or innovation to a degree by which we begin to generate a much more pronounced entrepreneurial (along with an intellectual) spirit on campus. Students that go beyond doing things to merely stick on their resume for a job or prof. school. That's when we become truly competitive with some of those other schools.<br>
Until then, our "numbers" can say that we are similar all they want, but the culture is all too different. Hopefully the new prompts on the Emory app. will eventually help reshape incoming classes a little bit. Getting beyond the pre-prof. culture should be a next step for Emory as to be a truly reputable institution, we also need students(not just faculty) to be well represented in academia (not just the professional world). I mean, sorry for the rant, but just saying that these numbers don't tell us that much even though it is nice to see that more students "actually" want to come. Numbers aren't our real problem, it's who compose these numbers and which we choose to admit. For example, not all students with a 1350+ are created equal. One can be the pre-prof. with no will to take a risk or do something interesting that gains themselves and Emory attention and others can be the pre-profs. or non pre-profs. that do. We need more students who instead of merely saying: "I wanna be a doctor/lawyer/businessperson and I heard Emory was good for that", also say: "I have a passion for X may wanna do something really cool with it that perhaps no one has thought of, and Emory will help me". I sometimes question if the former party (and thus many at Emory) have a legit passion beyond their social life. Many of the Ivies and their peers (thus our peers) attract more of the 2nd group. Emory needs to find a balance.
I hope the provost was serious when he said all of this:
Provost:</a> Admissions is an art as well as a science</p>