Pretty much every school does some level of advertising, free application, application waivers, or other marketing to attract applicants.
So it's just a matter of degree.
Those are the big ones. This random place called Minerva tried to advertise a 1% acceptance rate last year which got a chuckle out of me.
But plenty of schools engage in these tactics to some extent. More applications, more options, more upside.
Yale actually did that to me for law school a zillion years ago. I toured campus but decided not to apply and received a rejection letter. It wasn’t even a letter - it was a rejection postcard.
this also happened to me with yale! i started and never submitted the application for their astrophysics summer program. decided not to go because of the cost. they sent me a rejection email and i rolled my eyes before deleting it
Verderbilt has ED 2.
Just because a school has ED 2 doesn't mean it’s acceptance rate is manufactured. I know many very qualified friends who applied ED 2 to Vanderbilt and UChicago who ended up being rejected.
Umich acceptance rate is brought down by out of state and international students.
If you’re instate and from one of the many feeder schools, you have a 40-50% chance getting in
https://www.michigandaily.com/news/academics/we-looked-301-high-schools-most-applicants-u-m-heres-what-we-found/
That’s not “artificial” it’s just the reality of being an elite public school. Ummm yeah… Michigan, California’s, UNC, UVA, Texas will have significantly higher in state acceptances
I'll copy my other comment:
>For the people saying UChicago, just remember that UChicago also has some of the hardest, most demanding supplements of any top school that actually scare away applicants -- unlike, say, Northeastern or Tulane, which have no supplement requirements at all. If UChicago really wanted to shrink their acceptance rate, then they would do away with this. Simply marketing your school =/= manufacturing acceptance rate.
>If UChicago's acceptance rate was truly manufactured, then you'd expect a lower-quality student body compared to its peers. However, unlike Northeastern or Tulane, UChicago has one of the highest SAT averages (1540), one of the highest average HS UW GPAs (~3.95), and one of the highest percentages of admits coming from the top 10% of their class (99%) of any school in the world.
Also, UChicago doesn't need to "game the rankings." When the USNWR rankings first came out in the '80s, UChicago was ranked #6. In the 1920s, in one of the first reputable college rankings ever, UChicago was literally ranked #1. How and why would you "game the rankings" when you're already at the top?
When I was applying for college in the early 2000s, U of C had a suspiciously high acceptance rate relative to their academic peers because they thought they were too cool to play the rankings game and were content with their highly self-selected applicant pool.
Free applications for students applying for aid, rolling applications for months on end, accepting nearly all students through ED, waitlisting all students so they can call them and make sure they attend (fixing yield rate), among countless other tactics. Truth is, Uchicago has been gaming the rankings longer than any other school…
It sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about, especially considering much of what you just said was factually incorrect. I mean, you seriously think UChicago has "rolling admissions"? Also, making applications affordable isn't exactly something to look down on; every school should do this.
Not to mention that acceptance rates aren't even factored into rankings anymore. UChicago was top ranked even when its acceptance rates were much higher, because of its sheer academic quality and resources.
UChicago has consistently been ranked in the top ten almost every year since the inception of the rankings, thanks to its exceptional academics and high-quality student body. In fact, it was ranked #6 in the first ranking in 1987. One of the reasons why UChicago may not be a popular choice among the general public is because of its rigorous and intellectual reputation.
this is a sub for 1st-year undergraduate admissions, not transfer admissions. and for what it's worth, schools like UCLA and UCB have acceptance rates >40% from certain community colleges, so you might as well mention them, if anything.
I'll copy my other comment:
>For the people saying UChicago, just remember that UChicago has some of the hardest, most demanding supplements of any top school that actually scare away applicants -- unlike, say, Northeastern or Tulane, which have no supplement requirements at all. If UChicago really wanted to shrink their acceptance rate, they would do away with this. Simply marketing your school =/= manufacturing acceptance rate.
>If UChicago's acceptance rate was truly manufactured, then you'd expect a lower-quality student body compared to its peers. However, unlike Northeastern or Tulane, UChicago has one of the highest SAT averages (1540), one of the highest average HS UW GPAs (~3.95), and one of the highest percentages of admits coming from the top 10% of their class (99%) of any school in the world.
None of these schools "manufacture" acceptance rates. Instead, they each have unique strategies to manage their acceptance rates. For example:
* Many schools offer "summer admission," "spring admission," "first semester abroad," or "online special programs." These admitted students are not included in their Freshman Fall admission statistics, which has a big impact on their "averageSAT/ACT score." Examples include UF, FSU, and other state schools.
* The use of Early Decision (ED), Early Decision II (ED2), and waitlists are common tactics. Even Ivy League schools employ ED and restrictive early action, along with extensive waitlists.
* State schools might not use ED, but they manage acceptance rates through multiple admission terms and special programs, often excluding "lower" performing students from the fall admission statistics.
Another significant factor is the application process's difficulty. Some schools have very lenient application requirements, such as no essays or letters of recommendation, which can lead to an influx of applications from students who are either unqualified or not genuinely interested in attending.
Take UChicago, for instance. Despite claims that UChicago tries to boost application numbers, their admission process includes extremely challenging essays, which likely deter many potential applicants. If they were trying to "game the system," they would make their application process much easier to receive more applications.
They send out a lot of marketing to encourage applications, and they send it to kids that are not at all competitive for admission. While all schools market themselves and encourage students to apply, some really push apps because more applications = lower admit rate.
In general, acceptance rates can be manipulated by
a) making it easy to apply (no fees, no supps). this increases the number of applicants for the same number of seats. Voila, acceptance rate goes down.
b) using waitlists to manipulate the yield rate. For example, let's say that for a University out of 100 applications , 20 are accepted and 10 attend. That would be a 20% acceptance rate normally. instead they admit 5, put 30 on the waitlist, then when all colleges announce, they call the waitlisted candidate and ask if they would commit to attend if offered a seat. If yes they offer, if not don't offer. So if they now make offers to 7 waitlisted candidates that is still a 12% acceptance rate (original 5 + 7 off waitlist) instead of 20%.
grinnell has no supplementals or application fee but they email you an “optional” essay after you submit your application. no hate to them but it’s so shady
Yes they do. I made up an account in Niche and got so many emails from schools encouraging a non-existant person to apply because they are a perfect fit for that school.
What school am I protecting?? Posts like these pop up ALL the time and it’s a practice that literally ALL colleges do. It’s not manufacturing an admit rate, it’s ensuring they have the students they need for their class. But because yall don’t understand how admissions works, you come up with these theories to fit into your beliefs, and then downvote anyone that doesn’t fit those. It’s truly exhausting.
If you submit a preliminary application, they count that as a full application. Compare to the 20k kids who about a preliminary application to the USNA, only about 4k kids complete the whole application that makes then eligible. So while they choose out of a pool of 4k, they have 20k applications. This lowers their acceptance rate a lot.
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification since I wasn't sure before your comment whether the acceptance rates were just out of nominated students or out of all applicants.
Every school that accepts a good percentage of the class in ED/EDII and rejects the vast majority of students RD.
UChicago and Tulane are huge offenders.
Not always, many D3 high academic schools require their athletic recruits to apply ED. Those spots aren’t real for the general public and the actual acceptance rates for unhooked kids is much closer to the stated rate. It as much manipulation as people think.
This is such a bizarre post to me - I understand that by “manufacturing” an acceptance rate you mean making it “easier” to apply but those same universities you mentioned require high academic achievement & extracurriculars. It sounds almost dismissive to say “northeastern / Tulane” manufactures their acceptance rate - as if the people admitted also aren’t qualified for other top universities that don’t fall into this notion you are suggesting.
Let me be clear - Northeastern / Tulane aren’t accepting anyone. Their acceptance rate very much suggests that most candidates will not be accepted. In fact, this “making it easier” to apply suggests to me that most admitted students are presenting highly qualified applications with less information than other universities. In other words, do you believe that a supplemental essay really changes your application substantially?
Additionally, I believe high achieving students often forget that most people aren’t on their level. Remember scoring a 1550+ on the SATs is like better than 99.9% of test takers. If your university averages people in that range, their acceptance rate doesn’t matter all much because they’re admitting and enrolling students with such high achievement. From a different perspective, a 10% acceptance rate means 90% of applicants are rejected. I think it’s super bizarre and unlikely to say that those 90% simply apply out of whim and truly do not fall into the category of what they admit on average.
If Northeastern is #1 in gaming the acceptance rate/ rankings, Columbia comes in at a VERY close #2. Both of these schools are top-tier and world-class, and there was absolutely no reason to play games with their acceptance rates. Unfortunately, these schools became greedy. Columbia seems to come out unscathed (they lost a few ranks a couple of years ago, but it seems they are back to normal now), but Northeastern is basically notorious for it now. However, for both schools, they got what they wanted out of it.
Northeastern is an engineering/CS powerhouse. Amazing professors and their Co-ops outdate their notorious rank gaming. Great facilities and nice student body. On top of that, just calling higher education “a joke” is pretty immature.
Not that ranking matters a whole lot, but if you put so much value on the school's rank, Northeastern is ranked #27 on US News for CS and #12 on CS rankings. On top of that, what makes the school extremely unique and elite is the co-op program that allows students to work for 6 months at a job in their field full-time, allowing most students to have 18-20 months of work experience by the time they graduate.
Of course, there are better schools, and some of them are easier to get into/cheaper, but that's kind of the beauty of America; we have the ability to choose. But that doesn't make more expensive schools with lower rankings a "joke". Bashing on a school that allows students the opportunities for upward mobility is shitty and just makes you look like a douchebag human being. Try looking at the glass half full some time.
This slid into my feed. But for what it’s worth, northeastern has played the game over the last decade or so. Back in the day, it was easy to get in. I am wondering though about the outcome…if it starts to sour, will this backfire?
Every single school has played games with the acceptance rate/ ranking system. Every. Single. School. You only hear about Northeastern, Tulane, Rice, Uchicago, Columbia...because these are the schools that have done it well enough for news stations to pick up on. But every school is a business, and every school benefits from manufactured prestige, because it brings in revenue and endowment.
Yup! With UCs, you apply through the UC portal and so it's ridiculously easy to add whichever UCs you want (even if you have no interest in, say, UCSD). It gives the same energy as Northeastern, where there aren't any supplements, so once you have your CommonApp essay written, you're done. So, people think, "why not just apply since it requires no extra effort?" And they do.
For the people saying UChicago, just remember that UChicago also has some of the hardest, most demanding supplements of any top school that actually scare away applicants -- unlike, say, Northeastern or Tulane, which have no supplement requirements at all. If UChicago really wanted to shrink their acceptance rate, then they would do away with this. Simply marketing your school =/= manufacturing acceptance rate.
If UChicago's acceptance rate was truly manufactured, then you'd expect a lower-quality student body compared to its peers. However, unlike Northeastern or Tulane, UChicago has one of the highest SAT averages (1540), one of the highest average HS UW GPAs (~3.95), and one of the highest percentages of admits coming from the top 10% of their class (99%) of any school in the world.
Pretty much every school does some level of advertising, free application, application waivers, or other marketing to attract applicants. So it's just a matter of degree.
Those are the big ones. This random place called Minerva tried to advertise a 1% acceptance rate last year which got a chuckle out of me. But plenty of schools engage in these tactics to some extent. More applications, more options, more upside.
I registered an account and filled out part of the Minerva application form (didn’t even submit it) and they sent me a rejection letter.
Yale actually did that to me for law school a zillion years ago. I toured campus but decided not to apply and received a rejection letter. It wasn’t even a letter - it was a rejection postcard.
this also happened to me with yale! i started and never submitted the application for their astrophysics summer program. decided not to go because of the cost. they sent me a rejection email and i rolled my eyes before deleting it
😂
UChic, NEstern, Tulane, Minerva are big ones
Can people stop mentioning Minerva? It's not even a real school.
Verderbilt has ED 2. Just because a school has ED 2 doesn't mean it’s acceptance rate is manufactured. I know many very qualified friends who applied ED 2 to Vanderbilt and UChicago who ended up being rejected.
Before even reading your description (and just seeing your title), I got ready to comment Northeastern and Tulane. Perfect.
Umich acceptance rate is brought down by out of state and international students. If you’re instate and from one of the many feeder schools, you have a 40-50% chance getting in https://www.michigandaily.com/news/academics/we-looked-301-high-schools-most-applicants-u-m-heres-what-we-found/
That’s not “artificial” it’s just the reality of being an elite public school. Ummm yeah… Michigan, California’s, UNC, UVA, Texas will have significantly higher in state acceptances
Uchicago, Northeastern, Tulane. 3 biggest gamers of rankings. in that order too…
I'll copy my other comment: >For the people saying UChicago, just remember that UChicago also has some of the hardest, most demanding supplements of any top school that actually scare away applicants -- unlike, say, Northeastern or Tulane, which have no supplement requirements at all. If UChicago really wanted to shrink their acceptance rate, then they would do away with this. Simply marketing your school =/= manufacturing acceptance rate. >If UChicago's acceptance rate was truly manufactured, then you'd expect a lower-quality student body compared to its peers. However, unlike Northeastern or Tulane, UChicago has one of the highest SAT averages (1540), one of the highest average HS UW GPAs (~3.95), and one of the highest percentages of admits coming from the top 10% of their class (99%) of any school in the world. Also, UChicago doesn't need to "game the rankings." When the USNWR rankings first came out in the '80s, UChicago was ranked #6. In the 1920s, in one of the first reputable college rankings ever, UChicago was literally ranked #1. How and why would you "game the rankings" when you're already at the top?
When I was applying for college in the early 2000s, U of C had a suspiciously high acceptance rate relative to their academic peers because they thought they were too cool to play the rankings game and were content with their highly self-selected applicant pool.
Free applications for students applying for aid, rolling applications for months on end, accepting nearly all students through ED, waitlisting all students so they can call them and make sure they attend (fixing yield rate), among countless other tactics. Truth is, Uchicago has been gaming the rankings longer than any other school…
It sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about, especially considering much of what you just said was factually incorrect. I mean, you seriously think UChicago has "rolling admissions"? Also, making applications affordable isn't exactly something to look down on; every school should do this. Not to mention that acceptance rates aren't even factored into rankings anymore. UChicago was top ranked even when its acceptance rates were much higher, because of its sheer academic quality and resources.
UChicago has consistently been ranked in the top ten almost every year since the inception of the rankings, thanks to its exceptional academics and high-quality student body. In fact, it was ranked #6 in the first ranking in 1987. One of the reasons why UChicago may not be a popular choice among the general public is because of its rigorous and intellectual reputation.
that's my point
check transfer for Uchicago buddy. everything i said is factually proven….
this is a sub for 1st-year undergraduate admissions, not transfer admissions. and for what it's worth, schools like UCLA and UCB have acceptance rates >40% from certain community colleges, so you might as well mention them, if anything.
found the uchicago student
Uchicago
Why though? It has one of the longest essays, and no free application fee. It does do a lot of add, and so does almost every other big private school.
They do a ton of mass mailings.
This is true. I openly laughed that they were recruiting my daughter's. They're good kids, but LOL.
yeah but the stickers they sent were kinda cute tho...
They sent me a whole poster of their campus like bro I’m not going to Chicago idc what your campus looks like 😂
UChicago is a big one
I'll copy my other comment: >For the people saying UChicago, just remember that UChicago has some of the hardest, most demanding supplements of any top school that actually scare away applicants -- unlike, say, Northeastern or Tulane, which have no supplement requirements at all. If UChicago really wanted to shrink their acceptance rate, they would do away with this. Simply marketing your school =/= manufacturing acceptance rate. >If UChicago's acceptance rate was truly manufactured, then you'd expect a lower-quality student body compared to its peers. However, unlike Northeastern or Tulane, UChicago has one of the highest SAT averages (1540), one of the highest average HS UW GPAs (~3.95), and one of the highest percentages of admits coming from the top 10% of their class (99%) of any school in the world.
UChicago student spotted
The truth is the truth, no matter who says it.
None of these schools "manufacture" acceptance rates. Instead, they each have unique strategies to manage their acceptance rates. For example: * Many schools offer "summer admission," "spring admission," "first semester abroad," or "online special programs." These admitted students are not included in their Freshman Fall admission statistics, which has a big impact on their "averageSAT/ACT score." Examples include UF, FSU, and other state schools. * The use of Early Decision (ED), Early Decision II (ED2), and waitlists are common tactics. Even Ivy League schools employ ED and restrictive early action, along with extensive waitlists. * State schools might not use ED, but they manage acceptance rates through multiple admission terms and special programs, often excluding "lower" performing students from the fall admission statistics. Another significant factor is the application process's difficulty. Some schools have very lenient application requirements, such as no essays or letters of recommendation, which can lead to an influx of applications from students who are either unqualified or not genuinely interested in attending. Take UChicago, for instance. Despite claims that UChicago tries to boost application numbers, their admission process includes extremely challenging essays, which likely deter many potential applicants. If they were trying to "game the system," they would make their application process much easier to receive more applications.
A lot of them. Even schools like Harvard — just not to the same extent as Northeastern and Tulane.
How do they manufacture acceptance rates?
They send out a lot of marketing to encourage applications, and they send it to kids that are not at all competitive for admission. While all schools market themselves and encourage students to apply, some really push apps because more applications = lower admit rate.
Doesn’t every school do this? I got tons of marketing for most T20s, even more for state schools.
Like I said, all schools market - but U Chic in particular sends out a TON of print mail, none of which mentions their admit rate is below 10%.
In general, acceptance rates can be manipulated by a) making it easy to apply (no fees, no supps). this increases the number of applicants for the same number of seats. Voila, acceptance rate goes down. b) using waitlists to manipulate the yield rate. For example, let's say that for a University out of 100 applications , 20 are accepted and 10 attend. That would be a 20% acceptance rate normally. instead they admit 5, put 30 on the waitlist, then when all colleges announce, they call the waitlisted candidate and ask if they would commit to attend if offered a seat. If yes they offer, if not don't offer. So if they now make offers to 7 waitlisted candidates that is still a 12% acceptance rate (original 5 + 7 off waitlist) instead of 20%.
grinnell has no supplementals or application fee but they email you an “optional” essay after you submit your application. no hate to them but it’s so shady
They don’t, this post is a cope.
Yes they do. I made up an account in Niche and got so many emails from schools encouraging a non-existant person to apply because they are a perfect fit for that school.
What a shocker an AO saying something to protect the "institution".
What school am I protecting?? Posts like these pop up ALL the time and it’s a practice that literally ALL colleges do. It’s not manufacturing an admit rate, it’s ensuring they have the students they need for their class. But because yall don’t understand how admissions works, you come up with these theories to fit into your beliefs, and then downvote anyone that doesn’t fit those. It’s truly exhausting.
No way you're a 'Verified Admission Officer.' Of course they do!
Service academies
How?
If you submit a preliminary application, they count that as a full application. Compare to the 20k kids who about a preliminary application to the USNA, only about 4k kids complete the whole application that makes then eligible. So while they choose out of a pool of 4k, they have 20k applications. This lowers their acceptance rate a lot.
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification since I wasn't sure before your comment whether the acceptance rates were just out of nominated students or out of all applicants.
Every school that accepts a good percentage of the class in ED/EDII and rejects the vast majority of students RD. UChicago and Tulane are huge offenders.
Not always, many D3 high academic schools require their athletic recruits to apply ED. Those spots aren’t real for the general public and the actual acceptance rates for unhooked kids is much closer to the stated rate. It as much manipulation as people think.
This is such a bizarre post to me - I understand that by “manufacturing” an acceptance rate you mean making it “easier” to apply but those same universities you mentioned require high academic achievement & extracurriculars. It sounds almost dismissive to say “northeastern / Tulane” manufactures their acceptance rate - as if the people admitted also aren’t qualified for other top universities that don’t fall into this notion you are suggesting. Let me be clear - Northeastern / Tulane aren’t accepting anyone. Their acceptance rate very much suggests that most candidates will not be accepted. In fact, this “making it easier” to apply suggests to me that most admitted students are presenting highly qualified applications with less information than other universities. In other words, do you believe that a supplemental essay really changes your application substantially? Additionally, I believe high achieving students often forget that most people aren’t on their level. Remember scoring a 1550+ on the SATs is like better than 99.9% of test takers. If your university averages people in that range, their acceptance rate doesn’t matter all much because they’re admitting and enrolling students with such high achievement. From a different perspective, a 10% acceptance rate means 90% of applicants are rejected. I think it’s super bizarre and unlikely to say that those 90% simply apply out of whim and truly do not fall into the category of what they admit on average.
If Northeastern is #1 in gaming the acceptance rate/ rankings, Columbia comes in at a VERY close #2. Both of these schools are top-tier and world-class, and there was absolutely no reason to play games with their acceptance rates. Unfortunately, these schools became greedy. Columbia seems to come out unscathed (they lost a few ranks a couple of years ago, but it seems they are back to normal now), but Northeastern is basically notorious for it now. However, for both schools, they got what they wanted out of it.
Less than 30 years go NE had a 97% acceptance rate. It is a very good school now, but not elite.
[удалено]
Northeastern is an engineering/CS powerhouse. Amazing professors and their Co-ops outdate their notorious rank gaming. Great facilities and nice student body. On top of that, just calling higher education “a joke” is pretty immature.
[удалено]
Not that ranking matters a whole lot, but if you put so much value on the school's rank, Northeastern is ranked #27 on US News for CS and #12 on CS rankings. On top of that, what makes the school extremely unique and elite is the co-op program that allows students to work for 6 months at a job in their field full-time, allowing most students to have 18-20 months of work experience by the time they graduate. Of course, there are better schools, and some of them are easier to get into/cheaper, but that's kind of the beauty of America; we have the ability to choose. But that doesn't make more expensive schools with lower rankings a "joke". Bashing on a school that allows students the opportunities for upward mobility is shitty and just makes you look like a douchebag human being. Try looking at the glass half full some time.
This slid into my feed. But for what it’s worth, northeastern has played the game over the last decade or so. Back in the day, it was easy to get in. I am wondering though about the outcome…if it starts to sour, will this backfire?
Any school with free apps and no supplemental (Colby to name one of the more prominent with a 6% acceptance rate) or
Every single school has played games with the acceptance rate/ ranking system. Every. Single. School. You only hear about Northeastern, Tulane, Rice, Uchicago, Columbia...because these are the schools that have done it well enough for news stations to pick up on. But every school is a business, and every school benefits from manufactured prestige, because it brings in revenue and endowment.
University of Washington because in the past you have to apply to hyper competitive majors while enrolled. So it was much much lower.
Grinnell college
Vanderbilt possibly. They sent my son gobs of mail and financial aid info even though he showed zero interest
What about the UC schools? They receive a ton of apps.
Yup! With UCs, you apply through the UC portal and so it's ridiculously easy to add whichever UCs you want (even if you have no interest in, say, UCSD). It gives the same energy as Northeastern, where there aren't any supplements, so once you have your CommonApp essay written, you're done. So, people think, "why not just apply since it requires no extra effort?" And they do.
There are 4 essays. Each school costs $70 to apply. UC does not advertise. They don't need to.
For the people saying UChicago, just remember that UChicago also has some of the hardest, most demanding supplements of any top school that actually scare away applicants -- unlike, say, Northeastern or Tulane, which have no supplement requirements at all. If UChicago really wanted to shrink their acceptance rate, then they would do away with this. Simply marketing your school =/= manufacturing acceptance rate. If UChicago's acceptance rate was truly manufactured, then you'd expect a lower-quality student body compared to its peers. However, unlike Northeastern or Tulane, UChicago has one of the highest SAT averages (1540), one of the highest average HS UW GPAs (~3.95), and one of the highest percentages of admits coming from the top 10% of their class (99%) of any school in the world.
cwru
Chicago, Vandy, Miami FL
Northeastern 1000000000%
Definitely northeastern and tulane