Class of 2017 - March and April Acceptance Rates

Applying to College
101

<p>One note when looking at the NYT admit data…as we learned from the CMC reporting history, admit stats now (spring) may be different than what eventually ends up on the CDS after waitlists are admitted.</p>

<p>I spot checked some of the NYT 2012 numbers (last season), also provided in the NYT 2013 tables linked by xiggi, against CDSs, and for those that had waitlist admits last year, a few NYT #'s tie closest to the pre-wait CDS # (Penn, Pomona, Swarthmore), and a few tie to the post-waitlist number (Amherst, Dartmouth) [I cannot rationalize the numbers for Smith between NYT & their CDS.] So just be forewarned that its a bit of apples and oranges with the admit numbers, not that this granularity matters much in the big picture.</p>

102

<p>Acceptance rates exhibit a race to the bottom as more students apply. For most institutions, the number of spots has stayed relatively constant. So while supply is pretty constant, demand has picked up. But the key question is what is driving demand?</p>

<p>My view is that it’s a function of many students applying to a blanket of institutions coupled with more individuals applying to colleges. For example, 1990 had the largest cohort of individuals born and so when those individuals applied to college, there was a surge across the board (e.g. 2008).</p>

<p>But there are other factors that play a role. All institutions market their universities. Some have expanded more globally or in different areas of the country.</p>

<p>Others have actually switched to a common application (Columbia did this and witnessed a massive surge of applicants).</p>

<p>U of Chicago did something similar. What’s interesting about U of Chicago is that they have those “quirky” essays. It’s very possible their acceptance rate was 45% 10 years ago. Indeed, circa 2007/2008, U of Chicago’s acceptance rate was around the same as institutions such as Northwestern and Tufts. And last year, their acceptance rate was around 16%. </p>

<p>U of Chicago and Tufts are both known for those kinds of quirky essays which traditionally had limited an applicant pool. But with a rising demand for college and the proliferation of the common app, this has created a large surge in applications. Lucky for U of Chicago, people have likely become accustomed to their quirky essays.</p>

<p>On the flip-side, take an institution like Boston College. They introduce an essay component this year which includes a 250 word prompt. Really, no big deal. Yet the number of applicants dropped significantly (26%). For one essay! One really short essay! That’s insane. </p>

<p>Perceptually, these institutions seem way more selective. But they were already selective to begin with. So when you have a bunch of applicants (and assuming a good chunk are qualified on a numbers basis (GPA, SAT)) then what you have are basically intangibles setting someone apart. And this is highly subjective and can be dependent on a lot of things. </p>

<p>So as top institutions focus more on the intangibles (and perhaps even giving more weight to those things) then this creates a lot of confusion for students (resulting in the myriad of excuses or just utter confusion). Even if someone gets into an institution that you think wasn’t as good of an applicant, that’s a very anecdotal / biased perspective. In aggregate (e.g. on average - you know, what matters more), the quality of students in these top institutions is improving (e.g. the number in the top 10% of their class, the average SAT scores, etc.).</p>

<p>I don’t think many things have fundamentally changed. I just think that the notion that high scores and grades were the golden ticket has always been a flawed notion. And I think this is becoming more evident for people who now are just settling for “it’s a crap shoot.”</p>

<p>In all probability, selective institutions likely prefer dynamic students versus static students. That’s not a shocker. But there are still individuals that can’t seem to fathom that.</p>

103

<p>

</p>

<p>Chicago did a NUMBER of things, including dropping the offputting “uncommon” image and claims of superiority from the “intellectual” register, making changes in a staff that was clinging to yesteryear’s policies, actively “negotiating” with the USNews and presenting different numbers (or presenting the same numbers differently) that resulted in a drastic rise in the ranklngs, massively increase their reach-out budget, adopt the Common Application, and most importantly maintain the “free EA admission” at the same time that Harvard and Princeton sought to have a one time RD admission cycle and presenting a much higher admission rate that its “new peers.” </p>

<p>All those factors contributed to students who had little interest in subjecting themselves to the quirky (I call it moronic) application and to that insufferable “pseudo-intellectualism-uber-alles” environment did look at Chicago as a “why not” alternative to most sought after schools. The result has been plenty more applications. And based on the posts in the College Confidential, not much change in enrolling plenty of insecure and insufferable HYPS rejects. </p>

<p>In Chicago, the game of admissions went from the worst implementation to its finest version. Except for the remaining lack of transparency and the omnipresence of smoke and mirrors.</p>

104

<p>Could one make that case that the application and selectivity stats of colleges (U Chicago, Tufts, Barnard, BC, et al.) which require one or multiple essays, and especially those whose prompts ask an applicant to truly think and reflect, are, in essence, more “impressive” than the stats of colleges which require no essay from the general applicant (thinking of Wash U)? </p>

<p>It seems we’re seeing a greater correlation between the “ease” of the application process and the numbers of applicants to a school–except in the case of the first three schools mentioned, whose numbers went up noticeably this year despite the relative “difficulty” of applying. BC’s diminished numbers will likely rebound. (Trying to sound math-ish here and probably failing miserably, artist-type that I am…)</p>

105

<p>to xiggi’s points on U Chicago, have a look at the graph in this article:
[Record</a> low acceptance rate: students still drawn by ?life of the mind? ? The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“Laureate discusses themes in contemporary poetry – Chicago Maroon”>Laureate discusses themes in contemporary poetry – Chicago Maroon)</p>

<p>Things started changing when the long-time admissions dean, Ted O’Neill, stepped down after admitting the class of '13. Note the starting point on the graph is that class, with about 27% admit rate…now 8.8% just 4 years later. Now that the school is 3 times more selective by this measure, is it that much better in those 4 years?..I think not.</p>

<p>Being a stats hound, I must admit to loving a deep wade in the numbers. But I believe its important to remember that admissions selectivity, as demonstrated with Chicago and many others, can be easily affected, in material ways, by things that have absolutely nothing to do with desirability of attending.</p>

106

<p>Wow. What spin from Chicago´s powers that be.</p>

107

<p>From this:</p>

<p>O’Neill’s admissions philosophy has always reflected the character of the University. </p>

<p>“Of course, everything we have worked for in admissions, [including] our resistance to trying to seek more applications, even if they are unsuitable, just for the sake of looking better in the eyes of US News and World Report, our understanding that standardized test scores are not the honest measure of a student’s ability or soul—these are the things of which our office is proud,” he said in an e-mail interview."</p>

<p>[O?Neill</a> to leave admissions office in June ? The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“Delays keep Proof from silver screen – Chicago Maroon”>Delays keep Proof from silver screen – Chicago Maroon)</p>

<p>To This:</p>

<p>"“I doubt we’re going to see these kinds of surges year after year. I think that’s probably not realistic. I think where it will level off I can’t predict—we may go up or down in terms of applications next year, and then level off. I suppose you could say we should be able to get as many applicants as the Ivies, but I think we’ve already surpassed a number of the Ivies in application numbers,” he said.</p>

<p>Four Ivy League schools—Cornell with 40,006 applicants, Harvard with 35,022, Columbia with 33,460, and UPenn with 31,219—surpassed the College in terms of applicants. However, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, and Princeton all received fewer applications than UChicago.</p>

<p>For Boyer, numbers aren’t the whole story.
“I’m not so concerned about the numbers as I am that we are communicating about the school and telling the kids that might consider coming here. If everyone who likes our kind of education knows about us, then I’m satisfied.”</p>

<p>Sad.</p>

108

<p>UCLA’s acceptance rate drops lower than Berkeley’s.</p>

<p>“UCLA had the lowest admittance rate across the system, accepting 20.1 percent out of an applicant pool of over 80,000. UC Berkeley accepted 20.8 percent of applicants.”
[UC</a> Berkeley accepts fewer in-state applicants for fall 2013 - The Daily Californian](<a href=“http://www.dailycal.org/2013/04/18/uc-berkeley/]UC”>UC Berkeley accepts fewer in-state applicants for fall 2013)</p>

109

<p>And the salient fact about admissions to the UC system remains that this is the first time that fewer than **60 percent of all UNDUPLICATED applicants ** were offered admission. The previous years were 68.2 and 63.5 percent. </p>

<p>Summary
For fall 2013, the University of California admitted a record 82,850 applicants for freshman admission out of a similarly record-setting applicant pool of 139,915.</p>

<p>California 99,132 60,089 60.6%
Out-of-State 21,929 11,787 53.8%
International 18,854 10,974 58.2%
Total 139,915 82,850 59.2%</p>

<p>All in all, getting admitted at a UC school is not as hard as many pretend it to be. And this does not even account for the massive transfer admissions as schools such as Berkeley, nor is the result dramatically influenced by Merced, as there are only 10,000 admissions for its 15,000 applicants.</p>

<p>PS Do not expect the released figures to match the CDS of next October, as the organization allows the UC schools to obfuscate the Spring admits.</p>

110

<p>Here are the UC campus (preliminary) admit numbers reported:
<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2013/fall_2013_admissions_table2.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2013/fall_2013_admissions_table2.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Berkeley 20.8%
Davis 39.4%
Irvine 41.1%
Los Angeles 20.1%
Merced 65.6%
Riverside 54.7%
San Diego 36.8%
Santa Barbara 38.8%
Santa Cruz 48.6%</p>

<p>per xiggi mention of incongruity with the CDS reporting, here’s a table footnote:

On the eventual CDS, I suspect this will translate to the same # of apps, but fewer admits (because some are spring & not counted on the CDS), yielding a lower admit rate than reported above. Likewise, the SAT, class rank and other stats for the spring admits will not be counted in the CDS breakdowns, likely yielding an academically-stronger looking group. It just ain’t right!</p>

<p>Also note in the linked report that, universitywide, the number of admits for in-state remains steady over 3 years, but # of admits from out-of-state and international have grown 52% and >100%, repectively, over the 3 years reported. In-state admits comprised 82% of the admit pool in '11 and 73% in '13.</p>

111

<p>It is indeed not right. This loophole is created by the CDS for no valid reasons. Middlebury also relies on it to submit lower rates. </p>

<p>Pushed farther, schools could implement staggered admissions with increased delayed admissions and skew all comparative data.</p>

112

<p>In a information meeting, Emory’s Dean of Admission stated that their class of 2017 acceptance rate was ~25%, with a 20% RD rate.</p>

113

<p>According to an admissions advice website these are some more admit rates:</p>

<p>University of Wisconsin-----51%</p>

<p>University of Rochester-----31%</p>

<p>University of North Carolina-----25.3%</p>

<p>University of Florida-----44%</p>

<p>University of Georgia----53%</p>

<p>For NYU only an estimate was given: </p>

<p>NYU Estimate-----39%</p>

114

<p>NY Times has NYU @ 30% for 2013</p>

115

<p>Miami University of Ohio…66.3%</p>

<p>based on released acceptance /committed info May 2, 2013</p>

116

<p>From a news article…</p>

<p>Elon University 53.7%</p>

<p>Lewis & Clark 62.1%</p>

117

<p>Any numbers on Harvey Mudd?</p>

118

<p>Any numbers on Cal Tech?</p>

119

<p>Cal tech = 8%</p>

<p>There’s a bunch of them on this site… Don’t really feel like listing them out though</p>

<p><a href=“2013 College Acceptance Rates - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com”>2013 College Acceptance Rates - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com;

120

<p>We are moving to Cincinnati and my daughter has very particular criteria in mind for a high school. First, she is searching for a high school whose transcript reports only the letter grade on a grading scale with an “A” being designated as a 95% or above.
Secondly, is anyone aware of a school in the area that does not report class rank at all?
Thirdly, she wants to make sure to attend a school that would allow her to take seven periods of AP courses.</p>

<p>Does anyone know of schools within four hours’ driving time of Cincinnati that fit the above qualifications?</p>