Cornell admissions

Director of Admissions Shawn Felton said Cornell received well over 71,000 total applications for next fall’s freshman class of 3,441. This would be another record, & up over 5% from last year. If Cornell had the same yield as last year (64.3%) for next fall’s class, the admit rate would fall to a record low of 7.5%.

Dont all the new dorms go online next year? Will that mean an increase in kids they accept?

All the new dorms should be open next fall. Cornell has gradually increased class size the last few years. Next fall’s projected class size is actually smaller than the class that enrolled last fall.

My understanding: North Campus expansion, +2,000 beds, 1,200 for first-years, 800 for sophomores.

Less sure, thought I heard this: The additional beds initially may allow Cornell to shutter an existing dorm for renovation, then another, then eventually the new dorms allow for ~1,200 additional students. It may be that's this year only while Balch Hall is being renovated and by fall 2022 all 2,000 rooms are for new students or sophomores who want to stay on campus.

Sample layout for first-years: [ncre.cornell.edu]
Suite-style rooms
5-6 students per suite
1-2 double rooms
2-3 single rooms
Restrooms include:
1 shower
2 toilets
3 sinks

Sample layout for sophomores:
Suite-style rooms
5-6 students per suite
1-2 double rooms
2-3 single rooms
Restrooms include:
1 shower
2 toilets
3 sinks

Neither sample layout appeared to have a living room or central social area within each suite. I'm sure there are studies about whether students are bettered by going beyond the boundaries of their own suites and into common areas for all socializing of more than 2-3 people.

One good thing about these suites: Better bathroom layout. BU ~15 years ago built a gorgeous high-rise with a Charles River view, combination of singles and doubles in ~6-person suites, living room, some cooking facilities in each unit, but the one toilet and one shower was in the same room. Cornell appears to separate shower (1) from toilets (2) from sinks (2).

Starting next fall, Cornell is requiring all first-year students & sophomores to live on campus or in affiliated housing (e.g. co-ops & Greek housing).

And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

CAS
Starting next fall, Cornell is requiring all first-year students & sophomores to live on campus or in affiliated housing (e.g. co-ops & Greek housing).

not a huge change though.. 60% of undergrads already lived on campus and a good number wanted to but there was no housing to get before all of this. i wonder how far back it was that most kids lived in campus vs off campus. 1950-70s what was the ratio?

As Cornell builds better dorms, students want to live there. Nothing wrong with being on campus if the housing is good, if you can have a single or a double, and Dining gives you choices in meal plans. Collegetown housing was crappier than dorms for many years, now it's better but not affordable. All the North Campus dorms built circa 1970 had very few singles and they were trying to attract upperclassmen, which is hard to do.

As peer institutions built nice dorms, Cornell did the same.

In '79, there was a lottery for the few on-campus rooms available to non-freshmen. If your number came up, you could pick your room and pull in any friends to fill the beds. But most people had to look for housing elsewhere. It's why there were so many fraternities.

CAS
Starting next fall, Cornell is requiring all first-year students & sophomores to live on campus or in affiliated housing (e.g. co-ops & Greek housing).

Good.

billhoward
And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

Better.

I like the names, anyway.

Toni Morrison Hall and Ganedagp: Hall are part of phase one of this project. Barbara McClintock Hall, Hu Shih Hall, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hall are part of phase two and are planned to open fall 2022.

It’s good that first-year students don’t need to search for Collegetown apartments soon after they arrive on campus. It’s amazing that Cornell now receives over 20 applications for each available spot in the first-year class, & may accept only 1 of every 13-14 applications.

CAS
It’s amazing that Cornell now receives over 20 applications for each available spot in the first-year class, & may accept only 1 of every 13-14 applications.

Sure. "Amazing."

Alex Engler, Brookings Institution’s Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology (AIET) Initiative
Categorically, colleges should not use predicted likelihood to enroll in either the admissions process or in awarding need-based aid—these determinations should only be made based on the applicant’s merit and financial circumstances, respectively.
. . .
The prevailing evidence suggests that these algorithms generally reduce the amount of scholarship funding offered to students. Further, algorithms excel at identifying a student’s exact willingness to pay, meaning they may drive enrollment while also reducing students’ chances to persist and graduate.

I must be dense. A school wants to know the likelihood to enroll so it doesn't over-accept or under-accept. That's a good reason to do some predictive analysis.

Maybe the article was poorly worded here, but if there's an entering class of 1,000 and a first-years pot of $10,000,000 for scholarships, algorithms may adjust who gets how much but it averages $10K per student. The school doesn't pocket $2 million of the $10M because some students can be induced to enroll for less scholarship money per a smart software routine.

If Cornell is the admitted student's preferred and best choice (admitted to Cornell Engineering, say, but turned down by MIT), then they'll say the $5,000 offer (hoping for $10,000) is okay. A year later they'll be in, want later library hours, more crisis counseling and more scholarship money. Seems like human nature. But the $5,000 went to induce a similar student who appeared likely to be admitted to MIT and that extra money brought him to Cornell not to Cambridge. From Cornell's P.O.V. this was money well routed.

CAS
Director of Admissions Shawn Felton said Cornell received well over 71,000 total applications for next fall’s freshman class of 3,441. This would be another record, & up over 5% from last year. If Cornell had the same yield as last year (64.3%) for next fall’s class, the admit rate would fall to a record low of 7.5%.

According to the WSJ, “The eight Ivy League schools notified prospective students of their fates Thursday evening. This year, only five will also say publicly what share of applicants actually got in.” The three not revealing acceptance rates now are Cornell, Princeton and Penn. Federal law, however, requires universities to report these data, which will become publicly available through the National Center for Education Statistics later this year.

Yeah, Cornell has been postponing the release of that data for a few years now. It'll probably come out during the summer before the start of the next academic year.

Cornell announced today that they admitted 4,908 students to the Class of 2026 (including early decision applicants). With over 71,000 applications, the admit rate fell below 7%. Interestingly 20% of admits were first-generation college students.

cornell admissions is weird.. our local HS has had multiple kids #1 in the class by a mile try to get accepted at cornell, and we are a local school.. None of them got accepted.. but kids in the same class at the the bottom of the top 10-20 got accepted. The big difference is all of them came from much poorer families... And all of them dropped out with pretty much full rides by the end of yr 1..

kids with great grades, good SATs, played sports, band, clubs couldnt get in.. but the kids with OK grades, avg scores and no real interests in anything got in multiple times.. seems backwards.

Your local experience doesn’t match Cornell’s overall numbers. 95% of entering freshmen graduate, & the median
SAT scores of last year’s entering class was 1510 (out of 1600). All the Ivies are currently standardized test optional, but 60+% of the enrolled Class of 2025 still submitted them.

my experience and talking with lots of parents.. if you go to IHS/Lansing and have decent grades you can get in.. if you go to any of the smaller schools around you have to be in the niche they are looking for.. now if you are the kid of prof or sr admin no question what happens when you apply.

upprdeck
my experience and talking with lots of parents.. if you go to IHS/Lansing and have decent grades you can get in.. if you go to any of the smaller schools around you have to be in the niche they are looking for.. now if you are the kid of prof or sr admin no question what happens when you apply.

Is that the case nowadays? I knew of several classmates at IHS who were children of professors who were rejected outright or given the guaranteed-transfer option. A couple did post-grad years to bolster their admissions chances.

Trotsky

CAS
It’s amazing that Cornell now receives over 20 applications for each available spot in the first-year class, & may accept only 1 of every 13-14 applications.

Sure. "Amazing."

Eliminate the common app, make High Schoolers request an application that they have to put in a typewriter to fill out. You know, the good old days. That will cut down on applicants for sure.

Ahh, the good old days that I remember. Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980. The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

CAS
Ahh, the good old days that I remember. Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980. The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

And what if they are goosing it like everybody else? Farming applicants who are obviously deficient to drive that exclusivity rating. It's a wonderful scam.

billhoward
And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

And requiring every house to have a live-in advisor with their own separate unit and bathroom is just an attempt to price more fraternities out of existence.

French Rage

billhoward
And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

And requiring every house to have a live-in advisor with their own separate unit and bathroom is just an attempt to price more fraternities out of existence.

Good.

CAS
Ahh, the good old days that I remember. Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980. The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

The kids who were qualified to attend Ivies have always applied to Ivies. The relaxed admissions policies add applicants from he left end of the tail, but don’t materially raise admissions standards. The only thing that raises admissions standards is improvement in secondary schools - if they are improving their access to AP classes and are hiring more outstanding teachers who educate more and more students to be “Ivy League Quality” then THAT is what makes it harder to stand out and get in.

Trotsky

French Rage

billhoward
And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

And requiring every house to have a live-in advisor with their own separate unit and bathroom is just an attempt to price more fraternities out of existence.

Good.

So edgy.

French Rage

Trotsky

French Rage

billhoward
And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

And requiring every house to have a live-in advisor with their own separate unit and bathroom is just an attempt to price more fraternities out of existence.

Good.

So edgy.

Not really. I had no idea kids were still buying their friends.

Trotsky

French Rage

Trotsky

French Rage

billhoward
And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

And requiring every house to have a live-in advisor with their own separate unit and bathroom is just an attempt to price more fraternities out of existence.

Good.

So edgy.

Not really. I had no idea kids were still buying their friends.

Ooh, and original too.

French Rage

Trotsky

French Rage

Trotsky

French Rage

billhoward
And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

And requiring every house to have a live-in advisor with their own separate unit and bathroom is just an attempt to price more fraternities out of existence.

Good.

So edgy.

Not really. I had no idea kids were still buying their friends.

Ooh, and original too.

Again, not in the original claim.

I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren’t that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450. Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

CAS
I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren’t that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450. Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

Right, but did those additional 45% applicants drive the SAT average up or down? I expect it is the latter (but I don’t have any data, either)

Robb

CAS
I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren’t that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450. Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

Right, but did those additional 45% applicants drive the SAT average up or down? I expect it is the latter (but I don’t have any data, either)

And is your definition of "outstanding" simply a high SAT score?

David Harding

Robb

CAS
I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren’t that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450. Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

Right, but did those additional 45% applicants drive the SAT average up or down? I expect it is the latter (but I don’t have any data, either)

And is your definition of "outstanding" simply a high SAT score?

No, but assuming they lack other objective metrics to compare across the entire body of applicants, it is probably the best one they have to illustrate the point, and probably one that correlates pretty well (albeit not perfectly, as none do) with other relevant metrics.

David Harding

Robb

CAS
I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren’t that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450. Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

Right, but did those additional 45% applicants drive the SAT average up or down? I expect it is the latter (but I don’t have any data, either)

And is your definition of "outstanding" simply a high SAT score?

Um….you’re the one who introduced high SATs as an indicator that the applicant pool was strong. I’m simply speculating about which direction *your own* metric changed as the number of applicants increased.

It should also be noted that SATs, grades, and nearly all objective measures of "merit" can be goosed by the kind of full court press rich parents give their adorable little Karens and Kens in tutors and classes not to mention their being sheltered from the real life problems that every other kid has to contend with.

There's a reason the wealthy replicate themselves in each succeeding Ivy class. And that reason is not genetics.

I used one objective measure (high SAT scores) for a recent class (2023) to demonstrate that a substantial increase in the number of applicants may bring more qualified applicants (not uncompetitive ones).

CAS
I used one objective measure (high SAT scores) for a recent class (2023) to demonstrate that a substantial increase in the number of applicants may bring more qualified applicants (not uncompetitive ones).

Sorry, but you did no such thing. You provided two independent facts: the average SAT scores for the class of 23, and the fact that 4 years later the class of 27 has 45% more applicants. Those two facts are not enough to establish any sort of relationship, not even a correlation, between the number of applicants and the average SAT scores.

Applications had already increased materially in recent years, leading to an admit rate of below 11% for the Class of 2023. We don’t have the same data for the Class of 2026 (not 2027). You suggest many new applicants are less qualified, (not just for the class just admitted, but other recent classes), while providing no data.

CAS
Ahh, the good old days that I remember. Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980. The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

I freely admit that my status as a dual legacy (both my father and uncle went to Cornell) had something to do with my being admitted. I wonder how much weight is given to ancestral legacy nowadays.

N.B. that neither my father nor my uncle stayed all four years at CU. My dad busted out partway through his junior year. My uncle transferred after one year because he missed his girlfriend. My uncle's been married to her for 65 years now. My dad never finished college, which was fine with me. I have told my children and those of numerous friends that the best place to go to college is where one of your parents flunked out. Dad encouraged me to do well, but he couldn't really hassle me about my grades. Which is good, because they were just enough to graduate and not a whole lot more.

heykb

CAS
Ahh, the good old days that I remember. Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980. The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

I freely admit that my status as a dual legacy (both my father and uncle went to Cornell) had something to do with my being admitted. I wonder how much weight is given to ancestral legacy nowadays.

N.B. that neither my father nor my uncle stayed all four years at CU. My dad busted out partway through his junior year. My uncle transferred after one year because he missed his girlfriend. My uncle's been married to her for 65 years now. My dad never finished college, which was fine with me. I have told my children and those of numerous friends that the best place to go to college is where one of your parents flunked out. Dad encouraged me to do well, but he couldn't really hassle me about my grades. Which is good, because they were just enough to graduate and not a whole lot more.

I don't know exactly what you mean by 'ancestral legacy', but I do know that the general approach to legacies at Cornell, is that there is an assumption that the applicant should be familiar with Cornell and know it is the right school for them, so legacies are expected to be applying early decision if they want that thumb on the scale.

In reality, almost all schools (including likely Cornell) are significantly less selective than they used to be. There are several reasons why, including the perks of wealth that get rockhead children magically in and also the press of schools to artificially increase their selectivity by enticing borderline students to apply so they can be rejected.

Trotsky
In reality, almost all schools (including likely Cornell) are significantly less selective than they used to be. There are several reasons why, including the perks of wealth that get rockhead children magically in and also the press of schools to artificially increase their selectivity by enticing borderline students to apply so they can be rejected.

this analysis is a little jumbled. the perks of wealth grease the skids for their rockhead kids, but that leaves fewer slots for actual merit applicants. for the strivers, getting in is significantly harder than it used to be.

nshapiro

heykb

CAS
Ahh, the good old days that I remember. Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980. The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

I freely admit that my status as a dual legacy (both my father and uncle went to Cornell) had something to do with my being admitted. I wonder how much weight is given to ancestral legacy nowadays.

N.B. that neither my father nor my uncle stayed all four years at CU. My dad busted out partway through his junior year. My uncle transferred after one year because he missed his girlfriend. My uncle's been married to her for 65 years now. My dad never finished college, which was fine with me. I have told my children and those of numerous friends that the best place to go to college is where one of your parents flunked out. Dad encouraged me to do well, but he couldn't really hassle me about my grades. Which is good, because they were just enough to graduate and not a whole lot more.

I don't know exactly what you mean by 'ancestral legacy', but I do know that the general approach to legacies at Cornell, is that there is an assumption that the applicant should be familiar with Cornell and know it is the right school for them, so legacies are expected to be applying early decision if they want that thumb on the scale.

The other prong of that general approach, at least in theory, is that in the general applicant pool there is only one advantage to being a legacy: In the hypothetical situation where there is only one remaining slot and the mythical two otherwise equally qualified applicants, the legacy gets the slot over the non.

While applications have gone up that doesn't have to mean that its harder to get in. Applying to multiple schools is easier and more often done in many cases.

say 40 ys ago a kid wanted to go to Cornell but applied to 2 other schools as well.. Now many kids apply to all the ivies. And its more of thing to see if they can be accepted to more than 1.

So while more kids are applying to Cornell it could be the same number have it as their top choice.

In theory you could have more applicants but the same number of serious ones.

who knows.

Beeeej

nshapiro

heykb

CAS
Ahh, the good old days that I remember. Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980. The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

I freely admit that my status as a dual legacy (both my father and uncle went to Cornell) had something to do with my being admitted. I wonder how much weight is given to ancestral legacy nowadays.

N.B. that neither my father nor my uncle stayed all four years at CU. My dad busted out partway through his junior year. My uncle transferred after one year because he missed his girlfriend. My uncle's been married to her for 65 years now. My dad never finished college, which was fine with me. I have told my children and those of numerous friends that the best place to go to college is where one of your parents flunked out. Dad encouraged me to do well, but he couldn't really hassle me about my grades. Which is good, because they were just enough to graduate and not a whole lot more.

I don't know exactly what you mean by 'ancestral legacy', but I do know that the general approach to legacies at Cornell, is that there is an assumption that the applicant should be familiar with Cornell and know it is the right school for them, so legacies are expected to be applying early decision if they want that thumb on the scale.

The other prong of that general approach, at least in theory, is that in the general applicant pool there is only one advantage to being a legacy: In the hypothetical situation where there is only one remaining slot and the mythical two otherwise equally qualified applicants, the legacy gets the slot over the non.

I don't think that is the situation. In the Early Decision pool, there is no 'one remaining slot', and if Cornell likes both, it will take both. In the regular pool, Cornell will preference the non-legacy.

upperdeck
While applications have gone up that doesn't have to mean that its harder to get in. Applying to multiple schools is easier and more often done in many cases.

say 40 ys ago a kid wanted to go to Cornell but applied to 2 other schools as well.. Now many kids apply to all the ivies. And its more of thing to see if they can be accepted to more than 1.

So sad but true. I blame technology and the Common App. If everyone still had to put each school's application into a typewriter, and actually type the words onto the form, then nobody would be applying to 10, 20 or 30 schools as is common today.

nshapiro
I blame technology and the Common App. If everyone still had to put each school's application into a typewriter, and actually type the words onto the form, then nobody would be applying to 10, 20 or 30 schools as is common today.

tbh this seems like retconning a virtue of what was a real barrier. there are obviously some negative effects to students over-applying because it makes it harder for admissions offices to get a sense of which accepted students will take the offers, but the most likely effect is a bigger waitlist. that creates more uncertainty for all but the very top echelon of applicants too, but i don't know if that's worse than turning the application process into an obstacle course.

I seem to recall that application fee was also a deterrent to applying to more schools than one really wanted to attend. And also the practicalities of visiting all of them, but I guess kids can skip that if they're only applying for sport.

jtwcornell91
I seem to recall that application fee was also a deterrent to applying to more schools than one really wanted to attend. And also the practicalities of visiting all of them, but I guess kids can skip that if they're only applying for sport.

…

nshapiro

Beeeej
The other prong of that general approach, at least in theory, is that in the general applicant pool there is only one advantage to being a legacy: In the hypothetical situation where there is only one remaining slot and the mythical two otherwise equally qualified applicants, the legacy gets the slot over the non.

I don't think that is the situation. In the Early Decision pool, there is no 'one remaining slot', and if Cornell likes both, it will take both. In the regular pool, Cornell will preference the non-legacy.

This would be the first time I've ever seen or heard it suggested that in the general pool, non-legacies get preference. I'd be interested to see some evidence or examples of that.

Beeeej

nshapiro

Beeeej
The other prong of that general approach, at least in theory, is that in the general applicant pool there is only one advantage to being a legacy: In the hypothetical situation where there is only one remaining slot and the mythical two otherwise equally qualified applicants, the legacy gets the slot over the non.

I don't think that is the situation. In the Early Decision pool, there is no 'one remaining slot', and if Cornell likes both, it will take both. In the regular pool, Cornell will preference the non-legacy.

This would be the first time I've ever seen or heard it suggested that in the general pool, non-legacies get preference. I'd be interested to see some evidence or examples of that.

perhaps I overstated it. I just wanted to dispute that there was a preference for legacies beyond ED.

CAS
Ahh, the good old days that I remember. Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980. The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

Don't safety schools get large numbers of applicants too? Just sayin'. Kinda need to know the metrics on the rejects.

Safely schools don’t have high yields (% of admits who enroll). Last year Cornell had a yield of 68.4%. Regular decision admits (not including early decision & waitlist admits who enroll at very high rates) had a yield of 50%. I believe both yields were record highs for Cornell.

TimV
Don't safety schools get large numbers of applicants too? Just sayin'. Kinda need to know the metrics on the rejects.

The majority of the ~3000 schools that US News tracks admit 70% or more of applicants. So you don't need to apply a large number of safety schools, just one or two that are one level down from your desired/reach school. The University of Rochester, a top 50 school, admits 40% of applicants. Not a lot worse than an Ivy.

Elmira admits 80-94% of applicants (stats vary) which I've learned is "lightly selective." Actually, Elmira would reject you sooner than Rochester, they know if you have the grades to be borderline Cornell, no way are you going there. So an Elmira type school rejects you to keep their yield rate less modest.

Just saw a fall 2022 Harvard Crimson story comparing the admit rate and yield rate at the eight Ivies over 30 years. The key points:

• Harvard is #1 in yield
• Cornell shot way, way up in yield, an increase of 22 points over 30 years
• Cornell is freaking #3, just below Princeton, in yield now.
• Elite schools can tinker with admit and more so yield rates by using early decision / early action, and how much of the class they take that way. When Princeton for some moral reason dropped early admissions for the Class of 2012, its yield went down 10 points. Chastened, it switched to non-binding early action and got most of it back, 8 points worth.
• There's now a trickle-down effect a trickle-down effect where the Tulanes, UofR's, Colgates, Miami's and American Universities of the world are seeing increased interest from would-be Ivy students, some of whom may be discouraged from applying to the Ivies.
• All this even though there ~1.6 million fewer students applying now than circa in 2009.

Harvard Crimson: As American Colleges Struggle to Fill Classes, Ivy League Yield Rates Continue to Rise

Failsons across Long Island and New England quake in fear of going to state schools.

A civil rights legal group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni.

(Between tutors, prep schools, and AP class grade inflation, every one of them will still get in on "merit." )

Everybody's getting in on it.

Now we just need to train the condors to take out the super talls.

It's time for guillotines, but only for the private colleges.

Leadership positions in the U.S. are disproportionately held by graduates of a few highly selective private colleges. Could such colleges — which currently have many more students from high-income families than low-income families — increase the socioeconomic diversity of America’s leaders by changing their admissions policies? We use anonymized admissions data from several private and public colleges linked to income tax records and SAT and ACT test scores to study this question.

Children from families in the top 1% are twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college (Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke, and Chicago) as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores. Two-thirds of this gap is due to higher admissions rates for students with comparable test scores from high-income families; the remaining third is due to differences in rates of application and matriculation. In contrast, children from high-income families have no admissions advantage at flagship public colleges. The high-income admissions advantage at private colleges is driven by three factors: (1) preferences for children of alumni, (2) weight placed on non-academic ratings, which tend to be higher for students applying from private high schools that have affluent student bodies, and (3) recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families.

Elite schools, also Brown, pay millions in lawsuit about coddling wealthy derps.

Still unsure if the record number of applications is because Cornell is a totally excellent university, or because Cornell accepts the common application. How many Princeton-intenders decide on Cornell as a safer if not safe-admissions choice?

Do colleges have a way of sussing what is really the applicant's first choice? Is it the reachiest of the reach schools?

Or maybe the Ivies have done an ever-better job of raising their desirability? As in, mom and dad fear your life is ruined if you wind up at Bowdoin (9% accept rate) or Colgate (12%). So more apply Ivy, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford.

Always cracks me up to see Duke on that list.

Headline in today's NYT - After a Year of Turmoil, Harvard’s Applications Drop.

Cornell’s 5139 admitted students represent 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico, as well as 93 countries. Based on citizenship, admitted students represent 107 countries outside the United States.

George64
Headline in today's NYT - After a Year of Turmoil, Harvard’s Applications Drop.

Cornell’s 5139 admitted students represent 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico, as well as 93 countries. Based on citizenship, admitted students represent 107 countries outside the United States.

UG admissions office decided a few years ago to stop releasing application numbers and acceptance rates this time of year to discourage the focus on this statistic. Instead, they only release how many acceptances (and the final number will be a bit higher with waitlists being processed later). Actual numbers will eventually be posted on IRP's website here: Undergraduate admissions

Do we know what proportion of the class is from early decision? It seems like a lot of colleges are really leaning into that to improve their yield which then lowers regular acceptance rates, causes students to apply to more colleges regular decision, and makes schools admit even more students early.

chimpfood
Do we know what proportion of the class is from early decision? It seems like a lot of colleges are really leaning into that to improve their yield which then lowers regular acceptance rates, causes students to apply to more colleges regular decision, and makes schools admit even more students early.

According to the Sun last November (https://cornellsun.com/2023/11/30/cornell-reduces-proportion-of-students-admitted-through-early-decision-track/), Cornell is actually reducing the number of early decisions. In the Class of 2027 1,670/4,994 were early.

Right, I forgot that they had announced that earlier, thanks!