<p>^ You cannot draw such conclusions, and especially not when some statements are not supported by the actual statistics. There are simply too many variables to add such granularity to the comparisons. Different schools count the applications differently. For instance, there is much leeway to count the Questbridge applications. In the past, Pomona could count almost every QB applications since there were no limitations. Other schools only counted the matched applications. The differences could be substantials. Some schools were also counting all the Common Applications vs counting only the ones that included the supplements. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that there are no real reasons to go beyond the simple ratio of admissions to applications. Discussion about size are also mostly irrelevant. For instance, how would you compare Harvey Mudd to Caltech to MIT or Cornell. And would anyone dare to say that Cornell is more selective than Caltech because it gets more applications? And then why not throw Cal and UCLA in the discussions about size of applicants’ pool. </p>
<p>Simply stated, CMC has a low admit rate because it only has to admit 600 to 700 students to fill its classes, and that more than 6,000 students believe it to be a great place to apply! :)</p>