HARVARD COLLEGE TODAY reported receiving 35,022 applications for the class of 2017—a total more than 2 percent above the number of students who applied to the class of 2016. In a news release, dean of admissions and financial aid William R. Fitzsimmons attributed the increase to “historic levels of financial aid,” which he cited as a major factor in students’ decision to apply to Harvard.
“Students and their families have many questions about the affordability of college in challenging financial times,” Fitzsimmons said, according to the release. “Students, as always, contribute to the cost of their own education through term-time and summer work—and have the option of loans as well. Alumni generosity enables the College to provide $172 million this year to meet the financial needs of our remarkable undergraduates.”
According to director of financial aid Sarah C. Donahue, more than 60 percent of Harvard students receive need-based aid, and on average their families pay $11,500 annually. In addition, Harvard’s financial-aid program requires no contribution from the 20 percent of families with annual incomes below $65,000, and asks an average of no more than 10 percent of income “from the majority of families receiving financial aid.” Families with incomes greater than $150,000 are also eligible for aid, Donahue said, depending “on their particular circumstances, such as having multiple children in college or unusual medical or other essential expenses.”
The demographics of this year’s and last year’s applicant pools are generally similar, Donahue said, but she noted that this year’s pool seems to have greater economic diversity than last year: “We see a 37 percent increase in the number of students requesting a fee waiver” (the fee sent in with the application)—“an indication of more applicants from low- and modest-income backgrounds.”
Director of admissions Marlyn E. McGrath also noted similarities with last year’s applicant pool. “Minority students remain a significant segment of the applicant pool, the gender breakdown is still about 52 percent male, and geographical distribution is about the same, except for a slight decline in the number of applicants from Canada,” she reported. But a review of applicants’ stated academic preferences, she said, showed more students interested in mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering than last year, as well as a 26 percent increase in prospective computer scientists. “The pattern of increases in these four areas began with the establishment of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,” she explained, “and it is clear that SEAS has raised the level of visibility of our superb and expanded offerings in these fields of study.”
Regular applicants as well as early applicants whose applications were deferred will be notified of admission status on March 28. The College announced in December that 895 students were granted admission to the class of 2017 under the early-action application program—an increase of 16 percent from the 774 admitted early last year.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/02/harvard-college-applications-increase
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/02/aid-fuels-record-applications/
ReplyDeleteSorry, NYCFan, that I deleted your comments, by accident.
Why do you think that H admitted so many in the early round? to raise its yield? as you frequently say that the early admits tend to stay.
The yield can't go much higher. I suspect that with the second year of the SCEA program, the fraction of top applicants applying early rose a bit.
ReplyDeleteEven what you said is true, I do not feel that way. As for several H's early admits I know, none of them are truly outstanding as I think that they should be.
ReplyDeleteWhy did they wait so long to tell the total number of applications? Stanford and MIT have not yet said anything.
Some schools reporting app numbers early include incomplete apps and those which may have been withdrawn. If you wait you get a more accurate number.
ReplyDeleteHarvard has a pretty good idea of the people they want, and its not always the top SAT scorers (although the majority of 800-scorers apply to Harvard.) They do a pretty good job of attracting and landing the people they want.
Harvard reported very early along with other schools last year, so what you said should not be the reason for inconsistency, and they should know how and when to report as they have done this for more than 300 times.
ReplyDeleteYou also stated the obvious fact that Harvard does not always take the top SAT scorers, and they probably does not take the best students. Of course, they are running the admission like an alcoholic running the bar.
Better check your facts. Harvard reported after Yale, Princeton, Stanford and most others last year, as they generally have in the past.
ReplyDeleteI won't bother responding to the rest of your post.
That is right. Harvard reported 6 days after Yale did last year, and this year, it was a month behind.
ReplyDeleteYou don't speak for Harvard.
...and before Stanford both this year and last, I might add!
ReplyDeleteThat was my question initially. I dont know why Stanford and MIT have not reported, and I did not give a reason to make Stanford look good.
ReplyDeleteI gave you the reason ... for Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc: you just didn't like it.
ReplyDeleteYou probably could come up with a better explanation other than that other schools did not know how to count “correctly”. Stanford never released its early number till the early decision day, and MIT probably will never release its number till Pi day (March 14) this time. If Stanford and MIT “can not” count this year while they could in the past, there must be a reason that they do not want to do so. The same for Harvard too as it released a month late this time compared with last year. I would not come up with any reasons to glorify any of them for being not releasing its number.
ReplyDeleteFor the reasons stated, app numbers released early are seldom accurate, no matter what the school involved.
ReplyDeleteThe same is true for early matriculant numbers and early yield rate claims, since wait list data and "summer melt" cannot be known until later.
As you know,I have taken you to task in the past for prematurely compiling lists and analyzing the data before it is complete.
You may want to answer the question "Why they released so late or not released at all", rather than shifting the topic to whether it is accurate or not. After a month delay, Harvard may still not get the number right, we don't know. We are not arguing the facts that most of the schools may not know how to count, this certainly including Harvard too.
ReplyDelete(sigh)
ReplyDelete