[adblockingdetector id="2"]

Class of 2016 admit rate at historic low

About 6.6 percent of applicants were admitted to Stanford Friday when the Office of Undergraduate Admissions released notification letters via email. The number is the lowest in University history, besting last year’s 7.1 percent admit rate.

The University received a total of 36,631 applications this year, a 6.6-percent jump over last year’s applicant pool. 755 students received offers of admission in December due to the restrictive early action process. These early action applicants faced a 12.8 admit rate.

Stanford extended offers to 1,672 more students on Friday. Another 789 were placed on the waitlist.

“Stanford has been exceedingly fortunate to attract a simply amazing group of applicants from all over the world,” said Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Richard Shaw in a press release. “In our review, we were humbled by the exceptional accomplishments of those candidates who have been admitted, as well as the competitive strength of all of the applicants.”

Nitish Kulkarni, who attends Oakridge International School in Hyderabad, India, was one such lucky admit to the Class of 2016.

 “One of the main reasons that made me choose it is that Stanford wants students coming in to be students, and not semi-professionals like other schools want you to be,” Kulkarni wrote in an email to The Daily. “I see Stanford as a place where I can just be myself.”

On Thursday, six Ivy League universities also posted all-time low admission rates: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell. Harvard’s was the lowest at 5.9 percent, followed by the other Ivies at 6.8, 7.9, 9.4, 12.3, and 16.2 percent, respectively.

Brown and Columbia saw slight increases in their admission rates, posting final percentages of 9.6 and 7.4.

Princeton and Harvard reintroduced their restrictive early action programs this year after a four-year hiatus. This gave students the option to receive their decisions early without having to make a binding commitment to enroll. Although the schools each saw an overall drop in applicants, both universities ultimately admitted fewer students than in previous years because, anticipating a higher percentage of admitted students to matriculate.

These admission changes at peer universities also coincided with a decrease of 18 percent in the number of students who applied to Yale early action. Yale, however, experienced an overall increase in its applicant pool when regular decision applications were taken into account.

Last year’s 7.1 percent admit rate at Stanford reflected a .1-point drop from 2010. In an effort to increase total student capacity and to accommodate 50 additional students, the University expanded classroom and residential facilities and ultimately admitted 96 more individuals.

Admitted students have until May 1 to inform the University whether they will be attending.

  • Stuart

    When you factor in legacy admits, athletic recruits and international admits, the admission rate for the typical bright kid – #1 in his class, great numbers (SAT/ACT/AP, etc.), with typical leadership (newspaper editor, sports captain or mvp, student govt.) must be at an all-time low.  That’s a shame.

  • ..

    because legacy/athletes/international kids can’t fit that description?

  • Stuart

    Some do … most don’t.

  • Homepro26@aol.com

    All foreign students should be banned from our best universities for 15 years so the usa can once again be number one

  • JoeBobHalley

    An additional important, unstated, fact at work here is that the released percentages don’t account for legacies and athletes, two groups that tend to be admitted at much higher rates than do the average, unconnected applicants. I’d guess that the admission rates for non-athlete/non-connected students at these schools actually is substantially lower. For example, after subtracting the number of slots usually awarded to those two groups, I’d say that Harvard’s acceptance rate of 5.9% probably is closer to 4%-4.5%. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501233551 Michael Brandt

    “One of the main reasons that made me choose it is that Stanford wants students coming in to be students, and not semi-professionals like other schools want you to be,” Kulkarni wrote in an email to The Daily. “I see Stanford as a place where I can just be myself.”  
    Hell yeah Nitish

  • Prowatcher

    Legacy admission rates for Harvard and Stanford are not much better than for general admissions. Research has shown legacy SAT scores and GPAs are actually higher. Each school could fill its classes multiple times over with legacy kids if you just do the math. The really better acceptance rates are for the Development kids ( $30 million for Harvard  and Stanford ), and the athletes with a decent GPA. 

  • CommonSense

    Wait, that made no sense whatsoever. The U.S. is a nation built on immigration. And you’re asking to stop the influx of some of the brightest people from around the world? Yeah, great idea.

  • Leah

    It has been statistically shown that legacies have higher statistics on average. Harvard legacies have a 30% acceptance to Yale. This is because they tend to come from intelligent families that value education. Being a legacy is not a free ticket into the ivy league (besides, only about 20-30% of them get in). So yes, most DO fit that description. And btw admissions for international students are more difficult than admissions for domestic students.

  • http://www.facebook.com/EricAnthonyDeBellis Eric Anthony DeBellis

    No. We should make it easier for accomplished international students to stay in the U.S. after graduation. If the U.S. wants to stay competitive, taking in other countries’ most accomplished young people is a good way to do it. I go to school with a ton of international students who would make fantastic contributions to this country. Many of them want to stay but won’t be able to because of our immigration policy. Also, they pay drastically higher tuition rates at already budget-strapped public universities.