Most selective R1 universities by acceptance rate

[Anonymous]

UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Northeastern, Vanderbilt, Tufts, Carnegie Mellon and Emory appear to be the most manipulative when it comes to admissions gamesmanship. Never underestimate how offering EDI and EDII really does depress acceptance rates. A good percentage of the freshman class is already selected by the time regular decision rolls around.

1)California Institute of Technology 4% REA
2)Harvard University 4% REA
3)Columbia University 4% ED
4)Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4% EA
5)Stanford University 4% EA
6)Brown University 5% ED
7)University of Chicago 5% EA, EDI, EDII
8)Yale University 5% REA
9)Dartmouth College 6% ED
10)Duke University 6% ED
11)Princeton University REA
12)Cornell University 7% ED
13)Johns Hopkins University 7% EDI, EDII
14)Northeastern University 7% EA, EDI, EDII
15)Northwestern University 7% ED
16)University of Pennsylvania 7% ED
17)Vanderbilt University 7% EDI, EDII
18)Rice University Houston, TX 9% ED
19)University of California, Los Angeles 9%
20)Tufts University 10% EDI, EDII
21)Carnegie Mellon University 11% EDI, EDII
22)Emory University 11% EDI, EDII

[Anonymous]

A rigged game. Become so hyperselective that you become hyperselective.

[Anonymous]

ED has to do with yield, not acceptance rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ED has to do with yield, not acceptance rate.

Wrong. It is implicates both. The more slots that are filled ED (and especially EDI and EDII), the fewer slots available in RD. By definition fewer the applicants accepted, the fewer spots to be had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED has to do with yield, not acceptance rate.

Wrong. It is implicates both. The more slots that are filled ED (and especially EDI and EDII), the fewer slots available in RD. By definition fewer the applicants accepted, the fewer spots to be had.

Check your math.
Slots available and total slots filled are the same either by ED or RD, thus acceptane rate is not affected.

[Anonymous]

Without being pedantic: higher yield, more rejections in RD, lower acceptance rate.

[Anonymous]

The Northeastern number is really sus

It has no business being in the same range as Princeton, Penn, Vanderbilt, Rice, Northwestern.

I don't know what voodoo magic that school is doing. It was a commuter school for cops from Revere twenty years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Northeastern number is really sus

It has no business being in the same range as Princeton, Penn, Vanderbilt, Rice, Northwestern.

I don't know what voodoo magic that school is doing. It was a commuter school for cops from Revere twenty years ago.

UPenn and those schools used to have 70% acceptance rates. UPenn and ivies invented ED and all sorts of tactics aka voodoo magic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Northeastern number is really sus

It has no business being in the same range as Princeton, Penn, Vanderbilt, Rice, Northwestern.

I don't know what voodoo magic that school is doing. It was a commuter school for cops from Revere twenty years ago.

Emphasis on was. It's a top research school now and has a great CS program (and other great programs as well). Why you bring up what was every time NEU is mentioned is beyond me. 96,000+ applications last year, and probably more this year, make it a hot school no matter that you seem to bash them every time their name comes up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED has to do with yield, not acceptance rate.

Wrong. It is implicates both. The more slots that are filled ED (and especially EDI and EDII), the fewer slots available in RD. By definition fewer the applicants accepted, the fewer spots to be had.

Check your math.
Slots available and total slots filled are the same either by ED or RD, thus acceptane rate is not affected.

(New Poster)

You are wrong.

ED does affect admissions rate as well as yield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Northeastern, Vanderbilt, Tufts, Carnegie Mellon and Emory appear to be the most manipulative when it comes to admissions gamesmanship. Never underestimate how offering EDI and EDII really does depress acceptance rates. A good percentage of the freshman class is already selected by the time regular decision rolls around.

1)California Institute of Technology 4% REA
2)Harvard University 4% REA
3)Columbia University 4% ED
4)Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4% EA
5)Stanford University 4% EA
6)Brown University 5% ED
7)University of Chicago 5% EA, EDI, EDII
8)Yale University 5% REA
9)Dartmouth College 6% ED
10)Duke University 6% ED
11)Princeton University REA
12)Cornell University 7% ED
13)Johns Hopkins University 7% EDI, EDII
14)Northeastern University 7% EA, EDI, EDII
15)Northwestern University 7% ED
16)University of Pennsylvania 7% ED
17)Vanderbilt University 7% EDI, EDII
18)Rice University Houston, TX 9% ED
19)University of California, Los Angeles 9%
20)Tufts University 10% EDI, EDII
21)Carnegie Mellon University 11% EDI, EDII
22)Emory University 11% EDI, EDII

JHU, N'eastern, Vanderbilt, CMU, & Emory should not be included in this list since they all accept students during two ED rounds in addition to RD. Artificially lowers admit rate. (A tactic also used by many LACs to apear to be more selective.)

[Anonymous]

Main reason for ED is yield not lowering acceptance rate.

If ED acceptance rate is high, it discourages applicants for RD, thus it negatively affect acceptance rate, too.

[Anonymous]

So most of the schools have ED and only handful don't. So??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Main reason for ED is yield not lowering acceptance rate.

If ED acceptance rate is high, it discourages applicants for RD, thus it negatively affect acceptance rate, too.

For whatever reason, even the schools offering double rounds of ED get more applications. Truly I don't understand why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So most of the schools have ED and only handful don't. So??

I think those that do not offer ED have acceptance rates and yields which are "more accurate". It was UPenn and Cornell (the two Ivies which were considered lesser quality) that really juiced this whole ED thing back in the 1990's.

I would refuse to join any club that would have me.

I really feel that parents forcing their kids to apply to these selective schools is one massive ego boost. And don't claim it isn't the parents driving the bus. Kids will here it from other kids, but it starts and ends with the elite obsessed parents. Tiger moms and grizzly dads oh my.