HYPSM Cross-Admit Raw Data

.
Raw sample data from CC

Class of 2014

1. Stanford - also admitted to Princeton
2. Yale- also admitted to Princeton
3. Yale- also admitted to Harvard
4. Yale - also admitted to Princeton
5. Stanford - also admitted to MIT, Princeton
6. Yale - also admitted to Harvard
7. Harvard- also admitted to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT
8. Princeton - also admitted to Yale
9. Princeton - also admitted to MIT
10. Princeton - also admitted to Stanford
11. Harvard - also admitted to Princeton , Stanford
12. Princeton - also admitted to Stanford
13. Princeton- also admitted to Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT
14. Princeton- also admitted to MIT, Stanford
15. Princeton - also admitted to Harvard, Stanford
16. Harvard - also admitted to Yale, Princeton, and Stanford
17. Princeton - also admitted to MIT
18. Stanford - also admitted to Harvard and Yale
19. Yale - also admitted to Stanford
20. Yale - also admitted to Harvard, Stanford
21. Princeton - also admitted to Stanford
22. Yale - also admitted to Princeton
23. Yale - also admitted to Princeton
24. Yale - also admitted to Princeton
25. Princeton - also admitted to Harvard
26. MIT - also admitted to Harvard
27. Yale - also admitted to Stanford
28. Stanford - also admitted to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT
29. Harvard - also admitted to Yale, Princeton
30. Yale - also admitted to Princeton
31. Yale - also admitted to Harvard
32. Harvard - also admitted to Princeton and Yale
33. Yale - also admitted to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford
34. Harvard - also admitted to MIT.
35. Yale- also admitted to Harvard and Princeton.
36. MIT - also admitted to Harvard.
37. Yale - also admitted to Harvard and Stanford
38. Yale - also admitted to MIT and Stanford
39. MIT - also admitted to Yale, Princeton, Stanford
40. Stanford - also admitted to Harvard
41. Stanford - also admitted to Princeton
42. Yale - also admitted to Harvard and Princeton
43. MIT - also admitted to Princeton
44. Harvard - also admitted to Yale and Princeton.
45. Harvard - also admitted to MIT
46. Princeton - also admitted to MIT
47. Harvard -- also admitted to Princeton
48. Stanford -- also admitted to Harvard
49. Stanford -- also admitted to Harvard
50. Princeton-- also admitted to Stanford
51. MIT - also admitted to Yale
52. Yale -- also admitted to Harvard & Princeton
53. Stanford-- also admitted to Yale
54. Harvard -- also admitted to Yale
55. Yale -- also admitted to Princeton
56. Princeton - also admitted to MIT
57. MIT - also admitted to Harvard and Princeton
58. Harvard - also admitted to Princeton
59. Harvard - also admitted to Yale, Princeton and Stanford
60. MIT - also admitted to Harvard and Stanford
61. Princeton - also admitted to Stanofrd and MIT
62. Stanford - also admitted to Princeton
63. Yale - also admitted to Harvard
64. Harvard - also admitted to Yale and Stanford
65. Harvard - also admitted to Princeton
66. Harvard - also admitted to Yale
67. Stanford - also admitted to Yale, Princeton and MIT
68. Harvard -also admitted to Yale
69. Harvard - also admitted to Yale and Princeton
70. Yale - also admitted to Harvard, Princeton and Stanford
71. Harvard - also admitted to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT
72. Yale- also admitted to Harvard
73. Yale - also admitted to Harvard
74. Princeton - also admitted to Harvard and Yale
75. MIT - also admitted to Stanford
76. MIT - also admitted to Harvard and Stanford
77. Stanford - also admitted to Princeton
78. Princeton - also admitted to Harvard, Yale and MIT
79. Harvard -- also admitted to Yale, Princeton and Stanford
80. Harvard - also admitted to MIT and Princeton

Class of 2013

1) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Stanford
2) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
3) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Stanford
4) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
5) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: MIT
6) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
7) Stanford - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale, MIT
8) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: HYSM
9) MIT - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard
10) MIT - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
11) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO:Harvard, Princeton
12) MIT - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
13) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard
14) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
15) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Stanford
16) Stanford - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
17) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
18) MIT - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale, Princeton
19) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard, Princeton
20) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale, Princeton, Stanford
21) Stanford - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
22) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard
23) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
24) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: MIT, Stanford
25) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton,Stanford, MIT
26) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: MIT
27) Harvard-ALSO ADMITTED TO : MIT
28) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale, MIT
29) Princeton-ALSO ADMITTED TO: MIT
30) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
31) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale, Stanford, MIT
32) Stanford - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
33) MIT – ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
34) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard
35) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
36) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard
37) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
38) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Stanford
39) MIT - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard
40) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
41) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard, Stanford
42) MIT - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
43) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
44) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
45) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Stanford
46) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard
47) MIT - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Princeton
48) Harvard- ALSO ADMITTED TO: MIT
49) Harvard - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale, Princeton
50) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale
51) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Stanford
52) Stanford - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard, Princeton
53) Yale- ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard, Stanford, MIT
54) MIT- ALSO ADMITTED TO: Harvard
55) MIT- ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
56) Princeton- ALSO ADMITTED TO: Stanford, MIT
57) Stanford - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton
58) Princeton - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Yale
59) Yale - ALSO ADMITTED TO: Princeton

Class of 2012

1. Yale – also admitted to Harvard
2. MIT – also admitted to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford
3. Yale – also admitted to Princeton
4. Princeton – also admitted to Harvard
5. Princeton – also admitted to Harvard, Yale, Stanford
6. Yale – also admitted Princeton, Stanford
7. Yale – also admitted to Stanford
8. Stanford – also admitted to Harvard
9. Stanford – also admitted to Yale
10. Yale – also admitted to Princeton, Stanford
11. Harvard – also admitted to Princeton, Stanford, MIT
12. Stanford – also admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT
13. Harvard – also admitted to Yale, Princeton, Stanford
14. Harvard – also admitted to Princeton, Stanford, MIT
15. MIT – also admitted to Princeton
16. Harvard – also admitted to MIT
17. Yale – also admitted to Harvard, Princeton
18. Yale – also admitted to Princeton
19. Princeton – also admitted to Harvard, Stanford
20. Princeton – also admitted to Harvard
21. Yale – also admitted to Harvard
22. Princeton – also admitted to Harvard, Yale
23. Yale – also admitted to Harvard, Stanford
24. Princeton – also admitted to Stanford
25. Stanford – also admitted to Yale, Princeton
26. Stanford – also admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT
27. Princeton – also admitted to Stanford
28. Princeton – also admitted to Yale, MIT
29. Princeton – admitted to MIT
30. Harvard – also admitted to Yale, Stanford, MIT
31. Yale – also admitted to MIT
32. Harvard – also admitted to Princeton, Stanford
33. Yale – also admitted to Harvard
34. Princeton – also admitted to Stanford
35. MIT – also admitted to Harvard
36. Princeton – admitted to Yale
37. Harvard – also admitted to Yale, Princeton
38. Stanford – also admitted to Harvard, Princeton, MIT
39. Yale – also admitted to Harvard, MIT
40. MIT – also admitted Yale
41. Princeton – also admitted to Harvard
42. Stanford – also admitted to Yale
43. Harvard – also admitted to Princeton
44. MIT – also admitted to Harvard, Stanford
45. Stanford – also admitted to MIT
46. Harvard – also admitted to Princeton, Stanford
47. Yale – also admitted to Princeton
48. Harvard – also admitted to Yale, Princeton
49. Stanford – also admitted to Princeton
50. MIT – also admitted to Harvard
51. Harvard – also admitted to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT
52. Princeton – also admitted to MIT
53. Harvard – also admitted Yale, Princeton, MIT
54. Princeton – also admitted to MIT
55. Harvard – also admitted Yale, Princeton, Stanford
56. Princeton – also admitted to Yale, Stanford, MIT
57. Stanford – also admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT
58. Yale – also admitted to Harvard, Princeton
59. Yale – also admitted to Harvard, Princeton
60. MIT – also admitted to Princeton

.

The Battle for Applicants -- An Earlier Article about SCEA

http://thebrownspectator.com/harvard-early-admissions/



By Andrew K on February 1, 2007

On September 12th, 2006, Harvard College announced that its early admission program would be coming to an end. Shortly thereafter, Princeton’s trustees (who happened to be meeting that weekend) decided to follow suit. As they describe (see http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_101106rapelye. html), they assumed that following in Harvard’s footsteps immediately would make them appear on the top of their game, as Yale, Stanford, and others would surely follow. Princeton could pretend that it, like Harvard, had been a trend-setter. But as it happened, no peer institutions took the plunge. This has left many to wonder what will happen now that Harvard and Princeton have effectively become non-contenders in the early admissions game. Princeton, which filled 48% of its class of 2011 through its binding Early Decision program, appears to be especially vulnerable after this change. In fact, if Princeton welcomes even a very-modest 5% of those deferred from the early cycle to the regular, a full 60% of the class of 2011 will have applied early.

Because of intense competition for the best students, colleges do everything in their power to appear attractive. And, just as a selling point for a pair of designer pants might be its $800 price tag and the fact that only twenty have been made, a college’s appearance of selectivity can be one of its most important features; call it elitism. When a student applies through a single-choice early admission program, even a non-binding one such as Harvard’s Single Choice Early Action (SCEA), he is essentially declaring first-choice college, or at least strong preference. Taking advantage of this fact, admissions departments that select heavily from the early-application pool will be able to grant far fewer offers of admission overall, as a larger percentage of those offered admission will matriculate.

There are, of course, other advantages to early admission programs. In addition to the convenience factor for students, they are a great asset to the admissions department in terms of predictability and class building. Even for most schools in the Ivy League, more than half of applicants admitted in the regular cycle will enroll elsewhere. At schools like Chicago, Johns Hopkins, and Duke, this number is about three quarters (with an overall yield percentage in the low 30s, even after the early decision programs are factored in). Because of their nearly-perfect yield, early decision programs allow admissions departments to ensure that they create a balanced and diverse class (for example, that there are enough musicians to keep the orchestra program alive, while not having a violinist in every other room). Also, by creating a separate (early) admissions cycle, these programs allow the admissions department to better spread out its work, and read applications more thoroughly (and, indeed, even reread deferred applications from the early pool).

With all of these advantages, then, why would schools even consider ending early admissions? Critics have presented two main arguments. First, affluent students with college consultants are more likely to use early admissions programs; poorer students are often unaware of the existence of such programs, or that they confer advantages in terms of likelihood of admission. Additionally, those poorer students who do apply to a binding program will not have the ability to “shop around” for financial aid at different colleges (for example, asking Brown to match Columbia’s offer). For these reasons, certain segments of the Brown community want the University to drop its program, as well.

But while there are indeed equity issues in the admissions process, ending early admissions programs will not solve them. As Yale University stated in its announcement that it would not terminate its SCEA program, issues of attracting applicants are best addressed with recruitment efforts. Additionally, and perhaps closer to the core of the problem, are the “soft” admissions criteria that colleges use. Nearly every component, such as having taken the “right” classes, having engaged in the “right” extra-curricular activates, and having worked at the “right” jobs, is predisposed to favoring wealthy applicants, whose families can devote conscious effort to sculpting their resume during high-school (and, indeed, even earlier). This is hardly specific to the early cycle of the admissions process.

Secondly, the concern about financial aid shopping is, oddly enough, not relevant to early programs like Harvard’s. While one may not apply to early programs elsewhere under the terms of Harvard SCEA program, one is not committed to attend if admitted, and may apply to regular-cycle programs at any other school. While binding ED programs such as Brown’s and Princeton’s do not allow this choice, a switch to SCEA would seem a far more logical compromise as compared to scrapping the program entirely.

With the equity argument so incredibly weak, despite its being the only reason cited by Harvard for terminating its program, it is clear that there must have been other, less altruistic motivation. Indeed, it would seem that there are many. Sixty-five percent of students admitted to both Harvard and Yale choose to enroll at Harvard, according to numbers released recently by the New York Times. From there, victories only become more lopsided: Brown, for example, wins only eleven percent of cross-admits, and only Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, and Cal Tech do better. In the past, changes at Harvard have heralded changes everywhere else. Were other universities to end their early admissions programs (most of which are binding Early Decision), Harvard would have access to a much larger applicant pool, where it would clearly be positioned on top.

In light of this, Princeton’s hasty decision to abandon its ED program, upon which it has been so dependent, appears all the more ridiculous. Applicants who might previously have applied to Harvard or Princeton through their early admissions programs will now apply to Yale or Stanford, both of which have non-binding SCEA programs, as these applicants have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so. And many of these early applicants to Yale and Stanford, having been admitted, will decide not to bother with Harvard and Princeton after all. For Brown, which already has trouble against Stanford (we win only 25% of cross-admits), an end to early admissions would be even more damaging.

This is not to argue against change in Brown’s early program, however. When Brown switched from early action to binding early decision for the class of 2005, the number of early applications it received fell by about 2000 applications, or 50% of the total (Brown Daily Herald, “Brown Early Decision Applications,” 12/5/05). When Yale and Stanford switched from ED to SCEA, a reverse trend occurred, and both schools received significantly more applications from poorer students. If Brown were to switch to SCEA, it would certainly end up with a lower yield: early applicants to Brown might apply elsewhere during the regular cycle, and, to their detriment of course, be attracted away from College Hill. However, yield from SCEA is always substantially higher than from the regular application cycle, and, taking account of the overall much increased applicant-pool size (and diversity), Brown would probably end up admitting a smaller overall percentage of students after the switch than before. We might need a few more admissions-department staffers, but with Harvard and Princeton acting as they have, the University’s potential to attract top-quality students could not be better.

HYPSM Admit Rates for Classes of 2010 -2014

This chart is from Yaledailynews.com, where the admit rates for class 2014 are not official.

HYPSM Preliminary Yield to Admit Ratio (YAR) for Class of 2014

.
YAR ... Admit(%) ... Yield(%) ... School
11.0 .... 6.9 .......... 76 .......... Harvard
10.0 ... 7.2 ........... 72 .......... Stanford
8.9 ..... 7.5 .......... 67 .......... Yale
7.0 ..... 8.2 ........... 57 ......... Princeton
6.6 ..... 9.7 ........... 64 .......... MIT

All data were from before taking people from the wailtlist, except Princeton's and Yale's yields which were from after taking people from the waitlist.
.

Admission, students reflect on pilot interview program at Stanford

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/05/27/admission-students-reflect-on-pilot-interview-program/

As Stanford’s admission rate dropped to a historically low rate this year — just 7.2 percent — some applicants added an extra element to the usual essays and transcript that comprise the application: an admission interview.

Now, Stanford’s Office of Undergraduate Admission has announced the third year of the pilot interview program that, if expanded, could extend interviews to all applicants.

“Right now it’s a pilot program,” said Richard Shaw, dean of Undergraduate Admission. “That’s exactly what it is. It’s been a pilot and it continues to be one. We’ve not made any final determination as to whether it would be a larger program.”

The pilot program began two years ago and was first available to some applicants for the Class of 2013; it was offered again for the Class of 2014 and will be available to the incoming applicant Class of 2015. Stanford alumni conduct interviews in the applicant’s area, then do a write-up of the experience and send it to the admission office.

While Harvard and Princeton have instituted programs that offer interviews to everyone who applies, interviews for Stanford are currently offered to applicants in 12 areas: Atlanta, Denver, London, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, Philadelphia, Portland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. were just added for the applicants of the Class of 2015.

“They’re pretty broadly distributed across the nation,” Shaw said of the interview locations. “They’re primarily metropolitan areas and very importantly, we have strong alumni presence in them.”

Shaw emphasized that the interviews are not required components of the application. However, he did note that the vast majority of applicants offered an interview chose to take it.

Shaw said the admission office would wait until its third year before any decisions are made on whether or not to implement the program more broadly.

“So far we feel pretty strong success, but there’s no preconceived notion that it will go forward,” he said. “We’re still evaluating.”

Stanford received more than 32,000 applications for spots in the Class of 2014, about a 5.4 percent increase over the 30,348 received the previous year.

Because of high application numbers, Shaw is hesitant to expand the program to cover all applicants in this nascent stage. Undergraduate Admission is still determining if it has the capacity to employ this program worldwide. The concern affects Stanford’s home state in particular, where there are currently no interview locations due to the sheer volume of applications Stanford receives from California each year.

Shaw estimated around 2,500 applicants received interviews this year. This raises the question of whether or not those 2,500 people received an unfair advantage over ones who were not interviewed.

“Really, what it does is it adds texture to the application, as we get a summary of the experience of meeting the person in the process,” Shaw said. “In general, it isn’t a make-or-break deal. It’s one piece of information among all other pieces of information that candidates give to us.”

“I think, frankly, interviews can go either way, but again, it’s just a factor among many,” he added. “I think to the extent that it hurts or helps a student’s chances for Stanford, it’s probably more generally neutral than it is one way or the other.”

Shaw also asserted that the admission rate among the interviewees was in line with the overall admission rate.

Alumni who conduct the interviews undergo training programs, which include meetings and manuals to ensure that interviews are as comprehensive and consistent as possible.

“Most don’t see more than three interviews in an area a year,” Shaw said. “Then they actually do a write up of the interview process and get that information to us so we get a sense [of the applicant].” Shaw also sees the interview process as a way to introduce Stanford programs to individuals who may not be as familiar with the University.

Christine Chung ‘13 was one student who underwent an interview last year.

“I met with a recent graduate, I think, because she was really young,” Chung said. “We met at Borders and grabbed some coffee. It was really chill. It wasn’t formal at all.”

Chung discussed her interests with her interviewer, who recommended on-campus activities and groups to her should she be accepted. However, she did not find the interview all that important.

“I didn’t think it was a big deal,” she said.

“I don’t know how much colleges in general benefit from the interviews or if they mean anything…I guess it doesn’t hurt to have more information on the application,” Chung added.

Yield rate sees slight decline at Yale for Class of 2014

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2010/05/27/yield-rate-sees-slight-decline/



About 67 percent of admitted students have decided to join the class of 2014 in the fall, down slightly from the 68.7 percent matriculation rate recorded at this time last year, Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeff Brenzel said Monday.

With more than 60 students offered admission off the waiting list, Yale has made more than 2,000 offers of admission and has received acceptances from about 1,350 students, of which some have decided to postpone entry until the following school year, Brenzel said. The admissions office will make a decision at the end of the month whether to admit more students from the waiting list, he added.

Brenzel declined to give an explanation for the decline in the current yield rate, adding that the admissions office will release the final rate in September, when the full class of 2014 has matriculated. Last year, the final yield was 67.9 percent, with 1,307 students matriculating from a pool of 1,958 admits.

“I am extremely pleased with the results for the year, and we look forward to welcoming another astonishing Yale class in the fall,” Brenzel said.

In comparison, Harvard’s matriculation rate remained steady at about 76 percent this year, while the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell also saw their yield rates remain largely unchanged from last year at 64 percent, 63 percent and 49 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, a record 72 percent of students accepted Stanford’s offer of admission, and Dartmouth College posted a yield of 55 percent, up seven percentage points from last year.

Over the past five years, Yale’s yield rate at this point in time has declined marginally but steadily from just over 70 percent for the class of 2010. While the six college counselors interviewed noted that Yale retains a strong pull on high school seniors, the slight downward trend may be the result of students applying to more schools, Yale’s decision to retain its early action program and the current economic conditions, they said.

“There are schools giving away some fairly significant merit aid this year, and in financially tough times, that is what some families are looking for,” said Frank Sachs, director of college counseling at The Blake School in Minneapolis. Sachs noted that while the slight decline in Yale's yield rate does not “cheapen” the Yale brand, there have been instances in the past where students have turned down Yale for schools such as the University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis, which both offer generous merit aid packages.

Nancy Beane, college counselor at the private Westminster Schools in Atlanta, Ga., added that students are also applying to more schools than before and consequently have a wider variety of college choices.

Only Harvard appears to have a “special pull” on students, Sachs noted. This year, half of the students at his school accepted to Yale chose to matriculate, while all those admitted to Harvard accepted the offer of admission, he said.

Still, Sandy Bean, coordinator of the college and career center at Woodrow Wilson Senior High School, a public high school in Washington, D.C., said none of her students accepted to Harvard this year chose to matriculate. Similarly, of the two students admitted to Harvard last year, one chose Yale while the other matriculated after being reject by Yale – his top-choice college, Bean said.

The slight declines in Yale’s yield may be better explained by the University’s decision to retain its early action program, she said. Yale’s non-binding early acceptance option makes it easier for students to commit to other schools later in the admissions cycle, Bean explained.

“It may be a bit more of a plum to get into Harvard or Princeton, which no longer have non-binding early action programs,” Bean said.

This year, Yale recorded an admit rate of 7.5 percent, equaling the previous year's rate, and placed 932 applicants on the waiting list, up from 769 the year before.

Yield falls to 56.9 percent for Class of 2014 at Princeton

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/05/27/26181/

The yield for the Class of 2014 stood at 56.9 percent as of Wednesday, Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said in an e-mail. The University has accepted 137 of the 1,415 students it placed on the waitlist, yielding a current 8.71 percent overall acceptance rate. Of the students admitted from the waitlist, 108 have accepted the offer.

The year’s initial yield of 55.4 percent is almost 3 percentage points lower than the initial yield for the Class of 2013, which was 58.3 percent. Rapelye attributed the decrease to this year’s current 8.71 percent acceptance rate — the lowest ever in the University’s history — and “one of the strongest classes ever as measured by grades and test scores.”

“When the admit rate goes down, the yield is often affected,” Rapelye explained. “We are really happy to be admitting these students off the waitlist.”

While there are still 867 students currently on the waitlist, Rapelye said she is unsure whether the University will offer admission to any more of them. Last year, the Office of Admission offered places in the incoming class to waitlisted students in two rounds. This year, it will close the waitlist on June 30.

“In the last five years, [the University has] taken as many as 148 students off the waitlist,” Rapelye said, adding that waitlist acceptances for a given year are determined by national admission trends. “It really depends on what other schools are doing, and whether the students on our waitlist have accepted other schools’ offers of admission.”

Applications to the Class of 2014 increased by 19.5 percent compared with last year. The University initially admitted 8.18 percent of the 26,247 applicants to the Class of 2014, making this year's admission process the most selective in University history.
Harvard, which admitted 6.92 percent of its applicants in late March, reported an initial yield of roughly 76 percent. Stanford took 7.18 percent of its applicants initially and saw a record yield of roughly 72 percent. Yale, which initially admitted 7.50 percent of applicants, has not yet released its yield rate.

HYPSM Cross-Admits

.
Here are the data of 202 HYPSM cross-admits from different years.

Overall	H	Y	P	S	M
# of Committed:	44	52	43	33	32
# of Admits	113	115	122	99	86
Cross-admit yield (%):	38.94	45.22	35.25	33.33	37.21
Class of 2012	H	Y	P	S	M
# of Committed:	13	15	15	10	7
# of Admits	37	34	43	30	25
Cross-admit yield (%):	35.14	44.12	34.88	33.33	28.00
Class of 2013	H	Y	P	S	M
# of Committed:	13	16	15	9	10
# of Admits	31	34	37	26	25
Cross-admit yield (%):	41.94	47.06	40.54	34.62	40.00
Class of 2014	H	Y	P	S	M
# of Committed:	18	23	15	11	9
# of Admits	45	44	48	36	24
Cross-admit yield (%):	40.00	52.27	31.25	30.56	37.50

How many cross-admits are among HYPSM? There should be about 1400, a much smaller number than 2000 of what I initially estimated. A mistake I made when I used Stanford’s numbers -- I did not realize that Stanford not only lost to the rest of HYPSM, but also to other schools in certain percentage that can not be neglected. Class of 2012 was the first class that HP removed their EA, and hence H’s yield dropped to 76% from 80+%, and P’s yield dropped to 59% from 65%. Both lost more to other HYPSM, especially to YS, than before the EA was removed.

For class of 2014, H’s initial yield before taking people from the waitlist was 76+%, or H lost about 2110*(1-76%) = 506. On the CC match game of the class of 2014, H lost 45-18 = 27, or 27/506 = 5.3% of total loss at H. I assume that H did not lose too many to schools other than YPSM (can not say the same for YPSM, especially M). Reasonable assumption would be less than 10% of the total loss. So, there were about 460 loss of cross-admits to YPSM. For three years, H won about 40% of the cross admits, or H admitted 460/60% = 767 cross-admits. This also represented 45/76 = 59% of the total number of cross-admits (H admitted 45 / 76 for class of 2014, and 113 / 202 of past three years. So, I am guessing that H admits 55%-60% each year.) Now the total would be 767 / (59% to 55%) = 1300 to 1400.

The numbers for HYP from CC are more reasonably unbiased than those for SM, as the HYP boards are about equally active. There were no obvious biased observations against any of those 3 schools. The testing ratios are in 30-50% and sample size of 5.3% of the population, which make the common misconception of H winning Y by 70% impossible.

For class of 2014, Stanford admitted 2300, and the initial yield was 72+%, that means it lost about 2300(1-72%) = 644. From the three-year data, Stanford admitted 36 / 76 = 51% of the total cross-admits (class of 2014) to 33% of 99 / 202 = 49% (three years combined). So roughly 50% of the total cross-admits – 1400*50% = 700. The yield of the cross-admits is roughly 11 / 36 = 30% (class of 2014) to 33 / 99 = 33% (three years combined), or 700*33% = 231. A loss of 700 - 231 = 469 to HYPM. The rest of the losses 644 – 469 = 175 was to other schools, a relative large number neglected in the original analysis. The number is also matched with the Stanford's report for class of 2102 that for about 640 Stanford lost -- 173 to H, 117 to P, 80 to Yale and 70 to MIT -- 440 total to HYPM, hence 640 - 440 = 200 to schools other than HYPM.

For class of 2014, Princeton was aggressive as it could to fight for the cross-admits, it even took the ones admitted at Stanford or Yale from its waitlist. It admitted 2148. Roughly 1400*48 / 76 = 884 were HYPSM cross-admits with cross-admit yield of 31%, or 274 committed to come. It lost 884 – 274 = 610 HYPSM cross-admits. A reasonable loss of 150 – 200 to all other schools, like what Stanford did, was likely. This totaled to about 800 losses – a 62% yield – little higher than what it initially reported. This means that either the number of cross-admits was little higher or P lost more to other schools.

At this time, there are no reports for Yale, so I am venturing to guess those numbers. For class 2014, Y admitted 1940. Of those admitted, 1400*44 / 76 = 810 were HYPSM cross-admits, and its cross-admit yield was 52%, or 421 committed, i.e., it lost 810 – 421 =389 to other HYPSM. Plus about 200 to all other schools, it lost about 589, or with (1940 – 589) / 1940 = 69% yield, the actual yield could be a little higher.

MIT’s data should be separated from the rest of HYPSM since it admitted much smaller portion of the cross-admits, and for class of 2014, it had initial yield of 64%. This implies MIT lost much more to schools other than HYPS.

All those numbers are estimates for computation purposes. They serve no purpose to be exact.

.

Before I explain why H did not get the 70% of cross-admits, I need to make some reasonable assumptions that both of us have to agree. Otherwise, we will have no common language to base on.

.

The first assumption is that H did not admit the entire HYPSM cross-admits.

.

I am more familiar with class of 2012 than the other classes, so I will use this class to make the point.Personally, I knew 5 H cross-admits, two went to Y. two YS cross-admits, both went to S. For 7 HYPSM cross-admits, H did not get two and only got 3. There should be no particular reasons that H did not want those cross-admits, the number of cross-admits I believe is about the size of one class at H. The famous Dalton school did not get a single student into H. I am sure there were many HYPSM cross-admits, so H did not get the entire cross-admits.

.

Private School Rejects

.

Total 59 got in H from New Jersey, more than 10 from the schools with average SAT scores below 1540. Most of the kids in those schools do not know 10-4+6 is.Again, H got enough of those non HYPSM cross-admits.

.
http://mathacle.blogspot.com/2009/03/harvards-class-of-2012-from-new-jersey.html

.

The second assumption is that the Stanford report is accurate and the results do not change drastically from year to year.

.

The second assumption is that the Stanford report is accurate and the results do not change drastically from year to year.

.

The most important info comes from the Stanford's report (refer to MinRpt from now):

.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/june18/minutes-061808.html

.

It disclosed too much information about the cross-admits, as they may not even realize what they did.

My following analysis may show how Stanford accepts its students, it is by no means to criticize Stanford’s admission practice, as I believe Stanford will be surpassing Harvard in a very short time period to become the most selective university in the States.

General facts about Stanford Class of 2012:
Admits: 2400
Matriculates -- 1703
Legacies – 345
First in their families (FITF)– 431
Admit rate: 9.49%
Yield: 70.95%

I could not locate the report for the legacies and first in their families, but I believe those numbers are accurate as they were in my original analysis post.

From the MinRpt, Stanford lost to
Harvard -- 27%
Yale – 12.5%
Princeton – 18.2%
MIT – 11%

There were 160 Stanford /Yale cross-admits, 80 went to Stanford, and 80 went to Yale.

This means that there were about 80/12.5% = 640 total non-matriculates. This number contradicts the result from 2400*(1-70.95%) = 697 non-matriculates. This could be due to the MinRpt’s numbers were not final when they were produced. Nevertheless, it is best information I can get. I will stick with 640 non-matriculates for the rest of analysis.

Of the 640 non-matriculates:
173 -- > Harvard
80 -- > Yale
116 -- > Princeton
70 -- > MIT

Or total of about 439 HYPSM cross-admits lost. The CC data showed that Stanford got on average 30% -33% of its cross-admits and admitted 50% of entire cross-admits, this does not mean however others won 70% as it showed on the table. This also implies that there were about (439/67%)/50% = 1310 HYPSM cross-admits in total. Once again, this shows a similar result by using the data from Harvard’s class of 2014. The number could be less, but let us assume that the entire HYPSM cross-admits are between 1300 ~ 1500 every year.

Now I can conclude this way: it is not possible that Harvard won 70% of HYPSM cross-admits for class of 2014 (assume the initial yield of 76%):

If it does, and let the total cross-admits be X, and Harvard did not lose 10% of the non – HYPSM cross-admits, so 70%X+90%*(2110 – X) = 2110*76%, then X = 1480. That means Harvard had to admit ALL HYPSM – cross-admits to make the 76% yield – this contradicts the first assumption.

If Harvard admitted fewer than ALL HYPSM cross-admits, I believe that it was the case, Harvard’s yield should be higher than 76% for class of 2014. And most likely Harvard admitted less HPYSM cross-admits with less than 70% yield as the CC data suggested.

.

.

Updated -- 2010 - 05-25

Princeton expects to take roughly 100 students off waitlist to fill demographic gaps

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/05/14/26171/

When the University releases its admission decisions each spring, a group often larger than an entire class of students is left in limbo: the waitlist. This year, 1,451 applicants were put on the waitlist, and around 900 have decided to remain on the list. Last week, Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said that the Office of Admission was planning to “probably take 100 kids off the list” this year.
The University placed 1,331 students on its waitlist last year, and 1,526 students on its waitlist in 2008.

“We keep a fairly conservative waitlist each year because of limited bed space,” Rapelye said. “We aim to be slightly under [capacity after accepted students’ decisions before going] to the waitlist.”

Some may wonder how a list nearing 1,500 students could be deemed conservative, considering that the University has never taken more than 148 students off the waitlist in a given year and in some years takes none.

Rapelye argued that the large group is needed because the admission officers turn to the waitlist to fill demographics that are missing from the incoming class. “We look at a class and see what we need,” Rapelye explained.

The admission office forms a committee to examine demographic deficiencies within the new class — academic, geographic and extracurricular — as students begin to matriculate and then turns to the waitlist to fill gaps, Rapelye said. “If we see that we need more electrical engineers or we’ve missed a few states or any instruments in the orchestra, we’ll go to the list. It’s really not that big given what we need to put together.”

Admission officers do not maintain a ranking of students placed on the waitlist, meaning that the evaluation of candidates is not finished when initial decisions are sent.

“The real question everyone should be asking is, ‘Why is [the list] so small?’” Rapelye said. “We could’ve had several thousand on the waitlist. We never have a quota or set number of students for our list.”

As they await the possibility of being admitted off the waitlist, some students have continued their efforts to influence admission officers. One student who has made a public effort to capture the admission office’s attention is Xiafei Zhang, a senior at University High School in Irvine, Calif.

Zhang, who is interested in studying economics and has accepted an offer of admission at the University of Chicago, said he is upbeat about his college process despite what he describes as “slim” chances of being admitted off Princeton’s waitlist.

“Slim [chances are] a lot better than none, especially when Princeton is the university [I’ve] always wanted to go to,” he said in an e-mail.

“I really wanted to join the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs [because] I want to change the world some day (not trying to be cheesy), do big humanitarian things, and Princeton would really help me in my endeavors to do so,” Zhang said.

Zhang was so determined to sway the admission committee that he organized a music concert at his school called Princeton Lunchfest, in which he sang, played guitar and delivered a speech about Princeton behind numerous decorations that included a 13-foot banner that read “Xiafei: A True Princeton Tiger.”

“I never would have guessed that several hundreds of students, numerous teachers and even my principal would come support me at this event,” Zhang said.

Zhang said he hopes the event will tip admission scales in his favor.

“I was compelled to organize this event because I was unable to just let fate decide my final admission decision,” he said. “Since Princeton does not accept transfer students, this is my last chance to study at the university of my dreams, and I could not let this once in a lifetime opportunity pass without giving it my very best shot.”

Around 64 percent of admitted students choose MIT

http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N26/enrollment2014.html

Around 64 percent of admitted students choose MIT


A similar fraction of students accepted their offers of admission to MIT this year compared with last year, about 64 percent, according to admissions director Stuart Schmill ‘86. The enrolled class of 2014 will have around 1,070 students and a demographic makeup similar to the class of 2013, he wrote in e-mail. The admissions office is working to select “a small number” of students to admit off its waitlist over the next week and a half, wrote Schmill.

— Natasha Plotkin

Private colleges wait to see which accepted students pay up

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-05-06-college-admissions_N.htm

One quick way to tell what kind of year colleges are having as far as the admissions "yield" — the percentage of accepted applicants who put down deposits — is to see how forgiving they are of the U.S. Postal Service. Those that are having a good year assume that everything postmarked through May 1 — the standard date to accept admissions offers — should have arrived by now. Others are convinced that one more clump of deposits is about to arrive — and aren't willing to declare final numbers just yet.
Yield tends to be most crucial these days for private colleges that are not in the uppermost stratosphere of endowment and prestige. Many public colleges are bulging and not particularly worried about filling their seats. The Ivies are still the Ivies when it comes to attracting students — and having generous aid packages to help them out.

But for most private institutions, including many at which admission is highly competitive, this is the make-or-break time when they find out if their incoming class is likely to be consistent with their academic and budget plans for the year. While many of those still waiting on the next postal delivery are likely to be disappointed with their yields and aren't providing details yet, a few trends are emerging among those colleges that are having successful years. Generally, these shifts in thinking about yield go beyond just making sure that accepted applicants have a good experience on a campus visit (although that is of course still part of it and continues to be refined). What are some of the key issues influencing yield this year?


EARLY DECISION: Many regret choice
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS: 30-point SAT bump can pay off big
TO FRIEND OR NOT TO FRIEND? Admissions in the age of Facebook

• More discussion (and strategies) based on the idea that many colleges don't have one yield, but in fact have several, for particular groups of students — by where they live or the programs that are attracting them.

• More student interest (and tuition-paying parent interest) in career prospects.

• More of an emphasis on identifying in the admissions process students who really want to enroll — and a willingness to reject some outstanding applicants rather than let them reject the college (bringing down the yield).

• More of an emphasis on attracting groups of students — whether Latinos from the United States or Chinese students from overseas — to the application and deposit pool.

• More of an emphasis on using techniques other than money to attract students to some campuses — while money is still the favored tool at other campuses (especially those that had an off year last year).


ON THE WEB: Another increase for early decision
AT INSIDE HIGHER ED: The real costs of merit aid

Careers and cost

Here is how yield is looking at some campuses that are pleased this year.

Misericordia University, in Pennsylvania, has as one of its tools to attract students a billboard that says: "Nursing: the recession-proof career." The message isn't subtle, but it is part of how the institution has been attracting students to its health professions programs, which in the last year went from representing 49% of incoming students to 56%. Yield is about 35%, up 2 points from last year. But Glenn Bozinski, director of admissions, said he's really dealing with a range of different yields because some of his programs can grow and others can't.

In all of the health professions programs, he said, the university is maxed out on clinical spots it can provide in clinics and hospitals for training that is required by various accreditors. He easily could have enrolled 100 freshmen in the physical therapy program based on their academic credentials, but he only admitted toward a target of 66 because that's the number the university can provide with clinical spots. In business (in which student interest is dropping) and liberal arts fields, he said, he could easily admit more students because the university has the faculty members and classrooms it needs — and doesn't have to find clinical rotations.

Career prospects are a big deal for more students, he said. "We hear parents say, 'I will send my son to a state school for the ubiquity of many majors there. They can get their history degree or psychology degree there.' But you don't hear that with the health sciences."

Across the state, Mike Frantz, vice president of enrollment at Robert Morris University, is also looking at vastly different yields for different programs. For those undecided on majors, the yield this year is 12.5% — up a few percentage points from last year. But in mechanical engineering, the yield is nearly 25%. In actuarial sciences, the yield is 36.9%.

Over all, the university is thrilled "beyond our wildest dreams" because those numbers for the year — in which overall yield is 17.6%, down less than a point — come from a much larger applicant pool and more admittances. Applications were up 40%. The key, Frantz said, was that the college bought names of prospective students at the beginning of their senior year in high school. In the past, Robert Morris stopped buying new names when students reached their junior year, a common practice, feeling that potential students would be identified by then. "But the vast majority of our new applicants, and many of our new students, came from these pools, whose names aren't being purchased traditionally," he said.

At the University of Vermont — a public university that, due to its unusually large out-of-state enrollment, has an admissions operation that competes with the privates — officials noticed the impact of economic uncertainty not by applicants' intended majors but by the differing patterns of those from Vermont and those outside the state (who pay more). Yield is typically higher for those from within Vermont, and that didn't change. But state residents committed very quickly after being admitted, while those from out of state took their time and sent in their deposits only in the final days before the deadline.

Over all, the in-state yield increased to 42% from 38%, while the out-of-state rate increased to 17% from 16%.

Christopher Lucier, vice president for enrollment management at Vermont, said he saw a combination of interests in discussions with prospective students and families. "It was a combination of what we were able to do with financial aid packages and the quality of the institution. The issue of value is continuing to emerge," he said.

Based on the higher yields, the university doesn't plan to admit anyone off the waiting list. Last year, it let in more than 300 students that way.

At the City University of New York (which doesn't hold to the May 1 deadline used by private colleges), applications are continuing to go up at such a fast rate that the system has decided that those who don't apply by Friday will be placed on a waiting list — a first in recent years. Applications are running more than 25% ahead of just two years ago.

Judging applicant interest

For some years now, many colleges have paid attention not just to the quality of applicants, but to how interested they really seem to be. No one, after all, wants to be treated like a safety school. And so many colleges pay attention to factors such as whether an applicant visits the campus to measure such interest.

This year — as part of strategies to increase yield — some colleges are taking that approach to new levels.

Augustana College is looking at a yield of 27% this year, up from 23%, and part of that is attributed to new ways to measure applicant interest, said W. Kent Barnds, vice president of enrollment, communication and planning. The college called the first 1,000 students accepted and ranked them on their interest in the college — and then focused further recruitment efforts and some extra financial aid on students who seemed truly interested. The college was "more aggressive" on putting applicants on a waiting list or asking for more information if there was some sense that they might not really be interested.

"We continually qualified the pool to focus our resources and be more efficient," he said.

At the University of Rochester, where yield is up by about 2 percentage points and the discount rate is down a few percentage points, Jonathan Burdick, dean of admissions and financial aid, described the year as "obscenely good" for the institution. And one key was taking a new, hard line with those applicants who weren't interested.

While he doesn't have numbers, he said that the university made a conscious decision to either place on the waiting list or outright reject those students who — when asked to describe why they are applying — "spend 15 seconds at midnight to take what they wrote about Tufts and then put our name in it."

Burdick said that it was a matter of "having the confidence to say that we don't care if this kid is 4.0 and has 1500 SATs. We want the students who are interested in us." He said that he suspected some of those rejected are probably "in disbelief" about the decision, but he would rather focus on recruiting those who really want to come.

What are the trends among those who did want to come this year? He noticed — and can't yet explain — more students interested in several of the social sciences. Most years, he said, the university ends up admitting three or four students each who say they want to major in anthropology or linguistics. This year, those intended majors are in double digits. Some of the increase, he said, is coming from Chinese students who in the past have tended to want to major only in economics or finance, but are branching out to a range of social sciences. But he said that American students are also a key part of the trend.

Meredith College, a women's college in North Carolina, enrolled its largest freshman class ever last year (477) and expects to end up a little lower than that this year. But it has noticed an increase in international applications (and deposits). Generally colleges are reporting more interest from undergraduate international applications this year, not just grad students.

The college is also seeing success in efforts to diversify. For the fall class, about 138 applicants (out of 1,553 total) are from Latinas. And while the applicant total over all has been flat, the number of Latina applicants has been rising, from 104 last year and 67 the year before. At a time of concern in Arizona (and at North Carolina's community colleges) about applicants who may not have legal immigration status, Meredith says simply that its totals include documented and undocumented students, and that the college is proud of the outreach that is attracting the students. (As the application numbers have grown, the admit rate has hovered above 60% for Latinas, and the yield in the 30-40% range.)

Case Western Reserve University is also reporting more success on diversity. While yield is holding steady, with an applicant pool that was 20% larger, the commitments to enroll by black, Latino and Native American students are up by 60%.

Success with and without more aid

One of the big questions facing private colleges and universities is how much aid they need to add to woo students — especially those who may be considering generous offers elsewhere, or less expensive public institutions.

Some colleges this year are reporting success without engaging in bidding wars — even as they eye other colleges offering very good packages.

Robert J. Massa, vice president for communications at Lafayette College, said yield is up — to 29% from 27% — while the discount rate is down, to 32% from 35.5%. So while the college gives generous aid packages, that reflects a yield that was higher among those who weren't offered financial aid than for whose who were offered assistance. Massa credited "beefed up" yield activities and also what seemed a slight uptick in family confidence levels about the economy.

Steven T. Syverson, vice president for enrollment at Lawrence University, said that his institution introduced some modest (generally $2,000-$4,000) awards for applicants interested in certain themes, such as global perspectives, environmental awareness and community engagement. And Lawrence already has a few merit scholarships — up to a maximum of $15,000. Syverson said he was struck by the number of $25,000-a-year awards applicants were reporting from competing institutions — especially from others in the Midwest. Syverson said he wasn't sure about the strategy, and how it would work economically or academically (he wasn't impressed by the quality of some of the recipients of these offers).

While refusing to go down that road, Syverson said, Lawrence's numbers far exceeded expectations. For the first time in his 27 years at the university, Lawrence "made its class" (meaning it had its goal for deposits) based on the mail that had arrived by April 30. At this point, the university has 445 deposits, far more than its target of 370 freshmen. That's enough so typical "summer melt" — when some students get in off of others' waiting lists — of 20 or so will still leave the college ahead of its plans.

Illinois Wesleyan University is another institution that entered this admission cycle vowing that it would not get in bidding wars — and that it would not let its 42% discount rate grow. Like that of Lawrence, the maximum merit aid it will offer is $15,000. Given that the university's "overlap" colleges (those with many commonly admitted applicants) include public institutions such as the Universities of Illinois and Iowa and Illinois State University, that means that for most students who don't qualify for need-based aid, Illinois Wesleyan can only get to being moderately more expensive than the competition, and can't match.

Tony Bankston, dean of admissions, said that the college's approach this year — in radical contrast to when he started in admissions 18 years ago — was to be upfront about cost, but to shift the conversation. It's no longer about saying, "We'll be just as competitive on cost as your other choices," he said. Rather, the line now is "You will most likely pay more to come here, but here is why we think the investment is worth it." He said that the university has stressed personal attention, graduation rates, its spending by on undergraduate instruction, and other measures of "value" as opposed to cost.

Currently, Illinois Wesleyan is not only running ahead on deposits compared to this time last year (by 18%), but has managed with this approach to attract more minority students and more men. Last year's entering class was nearly 60% female — a gap typical of many liberal arts colleges these days, but one that worries them. This year, the deposits are setting up a class that would be 53% female. Bankston said that he thinks the idea of getting away from bidding wars is a sound one and that many families are open to such discussions.

"Most families just don't know how the money works in higher education, that a huge scholarship on the front end may very likely detract from the quality of education they receive on the back end," he said. Colleges should be ready to say that "how a big discount [a student receives] may not be the soundest reason to select a particular college."

Of course, college officials said privately that while they believe in that philosophy, they might be quick to add aid if they had an off year. That's what happened at Yeshiva University last year, when the freshman class size was 14% smaller than the previous year, following repeated years of growth. Surveys suggested that many of those who didn't enroll cited financial issues.

The trustees then provided an extra $3 million and the university moved up the timing on when financial aid awards went out to early March — a month earlier than normal. Yield and class size are expected to be back to normal.

More than 76% of undergrads admitted to Class of 2014 are expected to attend Harvard

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/yielding-strong-results/

The 2,110 students admitted to Harvard’s Class of 2014 have responded to their offers of admission so favorably that the final yield will likely exceed last year’s mark of 76 percent. They were selected from a pool of 30,489 applicants, the largest in Harvard’s history.

“We are delighted that so many of the nation’s and world’s best students have chosen to join us here in Cambridge,” said William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid. “First and foremost on their minds was the opportunity to learn from Harvard’s eminent faculty, and to do so across the many disciplines in cutting-edge academic facilities,” he said.

“Financial aid once again played an important role in ensuring that talented students from all economic backgrounds could come to Harvard,” said Fitzsimmons. “The unwavering commitment of President Drew Faust, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith, and Dean of the College Evelynn Hammonds to keeping Harvard’s doors open during these challenging economic times sends a powerful message that reaches far beyond our University,” he said.

More than 60 percent of the Class of 2014 will receive need-based scholarships, averaging $40,000 annually. Undergraduates will benefit from a record $158 million in grant assistance, and 70 percent will receive some form of financial aid.

“The current economic environment creates many challenges for families who seek the best educational opportunities for their sons and daughters,” said Sarah C. Donahue, director of financial aid. “We spoke with many parents and students over the past month about how to make Harvard affordable,” she said.

The high yield of admitted students means that Harvard will admit fewer students from the waiting list than in recent years. “Currently, we expect to be able to admit between 65 to 75 students,” said Marlyn E. McGrath, director of admissions. “We will begin the selection meetings this coming week and complete our work by July 1.”

At this time, the demographics of this entering class are similar to last year’s. Men make up 51 percent of the class, while the geographic origins of the incoming students show little change. The percentage of students who intend to concentrate in the humanities rose from 22.3 percent to 25.3. Interest in engineering showed a similar increase, from 9.2 percent to 11.1, while there was a decline in social science aspirants, from 25.7 percent to 22.3. Interest in other concentrations remained similar to last year’s class, with 25.1 percent designating biological sciences, 11.1 percent the physical sciences, 7 percent mathematics, 1.8 percent computer science, and 0.2 percent undecided. African Americans make up 9.8 percent of the class (9.6 percent last year), Asian Americans, 22 percent (19.1 last year), Latinos, 7.9 percent (9.2 last year), and Native Americans, 1.6 percent (1 percent last year).

Harvard’s April Visiting Program, directed by Admissions Officer Valerie Beilenson, once again provided a warm welcome for admitted students and their families. Faculty members, administrators, and current undergraduates contributed their time and enthusiasm. Undergraduates — through the Undergraduate Admissions Council, the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program, and the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative — telephoned and e-mailed admitted students and hosted students in Cambridge.

Members of the admissions staff, including David L. Evans, director of the Undergraduate Admissions Council, Roger Banks, director of minority recruitment, and Patrick Griffin, director of the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, ensured that the admitted students had the opportunity to learn more about Harvard before making their final college choices. Alumni and alumnae hosted numerous “admit parties” and telephoned admitted students in their local areas, answering their questions and encouraging them to enroll at Harvard.

In 2004, Harvard introduced the first in a series of financial aid initiatives that have greatly expanded the College’s appeal to students from many backgrounds. This program asks for no parental contribution from those with annual incomes under $60,000, and only modest contributions from families with incomes of $60,000 to $80,000.

A program announced in 2007 for middle and upper-middle income families has made many additional students eligible for expanded aid. Families with incomes up to $180,000 a year and typical assets are now asked to contribute from zero to 10 percent of their incomes. Home equity has been removed from financial aid calculations, and loans are no longer required.

Harvard admissions officers will be on the road next week, traveling jointly with four other colleges to recruit students for the Class of 2015. By the end of May, they will have visited 60 cities and will visit 60 more in the fall with the same travel group.

In addition, letters will be sent to thousands of prospective applicants during May, providing the foundation for outreach to the most promising students from around the world. “The students who will join us in the fall as members of the Class of 2014 inspire us to continue our year-round pursuit of the next generation of Harvard students,” said Fitzsimmons.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/5/12/students-fitzsimmons-year-percent/

Harvard’s yield may climb above 76 percent this year, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 announced Monday.

Of the 2,110 students admitted on April 1 to the Class of 2014, Fitzsimmons said that 1,604—seventy-six percent—have accepted the offer.

Deliberations on the waitlist began yesterday and will be completed by July 1. Fitzsimmons predicted that 65 to 75 students will be accepted from the waitlist this year, a decrease from recent years.

The percentage of waitlisted students who accept an offer of admission is generally higher than those admitted in the first round of decisions, Fitzsimmons said, sometimes topping 90 percent. These students’ decision to remain on the waitlist indicates their interest in attending Harvard if accepted. Thus, their addition to the class will likely cause the yield to top the 76 percent mark where it has remained for the past two years.

The target class size, Fitzsimmons said, is 1,667 students.

Twenty-six students have announced their intention to defer admission for a year, and Harvard counts these students as not enrolling for the purposes of calculating its yield. Fitzsimmons predicted that the number of students who choose to take a year off “will get up a good deal higher” before the fall; in an average year, 30 to 50 admitted freshmen choose to defer matriculation.

“Obviously there are all kinds of moving parts to this,” Fitzsimmons said. “There are occasionally some people who for a good reason say ‘no’ the first time and with later information feel that Harvard is now a possibility for them. Also, people who are currently committed to coming decide to defer admission.”

A few students who received admission offers from another college’s waitlist might also choose not to attend Harvard, he added.

As predicted in late March, more than 60 percent of the anticipated Class of 2014 will receive need-based financial aid from the College, as the undergraduate financial aid budget reaches a record high of $158 million next year.

—Staff writer Julie M. Zauzmer can be reached at jzauzmer@college.harvard.edu.

Rachael Flatt selects Stanford University

http://figureskatersonline.com/news/2010/04/28/rachael-flatt-selects-stanford-university/

Rachael Flatt is the real deal when it comes to student athletes. The 2010 U.S. Champion will enter Stanford University in fall 2011, a year after graduating Summa Cum Laude from Cheyenne Mountain High School in Colorado Springs, Colo.

“I am looking forward to taking advantage of the many opportunities Stanford has to offer,” Flatt said. “I am very fortunate to have had some excellent choices of universities to attend but I feel that Stanford offers the best programs for me in an environment that will allow me to continue my development as a figure skater.”

Flatt, who placed seventh at the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, was also considering Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., where World Junior Championship competitor Katrina Hacker studies, but finally selected Stanford. No elite skaters currently attend Stanford but elite training facilities are located in near by areas including San Jose, host of the 2012 U.S. Championships.

Olympic bronze medalist Debi Thomas is among the notable Stanford alumni. Other world class athletes who have attended the school include golfer Tiger Woods, swimmers Jenny Thompson, Summer Sanders and Pablo Morales, tennis players John McEnroe, Bob Bryan and Mike Bryan and water polo players Tony Azevedo and Brenda Villa. Olympic gold and silver medalist softball player Jessica Mendoza, also the president of the Women’s Sports Foundation, was also a Cardinal.

A straight-A student who maintained a heavy course load of Advanced Placement classes, Flatt applied to nine schools: Dartmouth, University of Denver, Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA and Yale. She was accepted to all but Harvard, which put her on the wait list, and Duke.

Flatt is a member of U.S. Figure Skating Scholastic Honors Team, based on her success at Cheyenne Mountain, which honored her with the 2008 Athletic Excellence Award. Following her skating career, she is interested in pursuing the sciences — possibly biomechanical engineering, medical school and orthopedics.

Stanford yield rate may be highest ever for Class of 2014

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/05/07/stanford-yield-rate-may-be-highest-ever/

Ahead of Shawn Abbott’s departure to New York University, the Stanford director of admission said about 72 to 73 percent of students admitted to Stanford this year have accepted their offers. 2,300 applicants were accepted during early and regular admission.

“It looks as though our yield this year will be our strongest ever,” Abbott wrote in an e-mail to The Daily.

http://admission.stanford.edu/site/news/index.html

Students who have accepted a spot on our waitlist and transfer students should be aware of these updates.

Stanford will be admitting a small number of students (20-30) from our freshman wait list later this month. Students will initially be notified by way of email and we will communicate with all students holding a space on our waitlist at that time. We are no longer considering any new materials (e.g. letters of recommendation), so students holding a space on the waitlist should refrain from submitting any such materials.

Transfer admission decisions will be mailed by way of email no later than May 15. We understand that transfer candidates often need to let their current college or university know of their fall enrollment plans, but we cannot provide admission decisions until May 15.