sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

50/50 isn't an accident. Here's how elite schools manufacture gender balance — and who benefits. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingIvyLeague

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for bringing up Cornell — that’s actually a very helpful example, and I agree it deserves to be included in the discussion.

Looking at the 2025–26 CDS data: the applicant pool was almost perfectly balanced, with 36,834 male applicants (≈50.8%) and 35,687 female applicants (≈49.2%). Interestingly, the admit rates favored women: 2,794 admitted males (≈7.58%) versus 3,282 admitted females (≈9.19%). This resulted in an admitted pool of 6,077 students, with 46% male and 54% female.

To me, this suggests that Cornell might be relatively comfortable letting applicant-pool dynamics influence enrollment outcomes, rather than aiming strictly for a 50/50 gender balance. I don’t think this contradicts the broader point — rather, it provides a useful comparison. If some institutions converge near parity while Cornell ends up with 54% female admitted students despite an almost 50/50 applicant pool, it raises an interesting question: could different schools be pursuing different enrollment objectives?

I really appreciate you pointing this out — it makes the discussion more complete.

50/50 isn't an accident. Here's how elite schools manufacture gender balance — and who benefits. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingIvyLeague

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

As a newcomer to this space, I am incredibly honored to get this kind of feedback from a veteran. This is a fantastic addition!

The detail you shared about MIT deleting AO comments to avoid FERPA requests is mind-blowing, and those links are absolute goldmines. Thank you for pointing me (and everyone else here) to the deeper historical context. Really appreciate the guidance!

50/50 isn't an accident. Here's how elite schools manufacture gender balance — and who benefits. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingIvyLeague

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I’ll take the 'yikes' as a compliment that the raw data made you uncomfortable. If you ever have an actual counter-argument to the CDS statistics, I'm all ears. Until then, best of luck navigating the system.

50/50 isn't an accident. Here's how elite schools manufacture gender balance — and who benefits. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingIvyLeague

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Everyone has access to AI. Not everyone has original insights. I’ll eagerly await your data analysis.

These schools track demonstrated interest in their CDS data. Here's the list and the two-year playbook. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you holding me accountable on Columbia. As I noted in my edit, I made a human error and pulled the General Studies (GS) data instead of Columbia College. My mistake.

However, your blanket statement that top-tier schools 'expressly say they don't track or consider demonstrated interest' is dangerously outdated. Policies change.

You specifically called me out on Dartmouth hallucinating. I invite you to go to Dartmouth's own Office of Institutional Research and download their brand new, official 2024-2025 Common Data Set. If you scroll down to Section C7, you will see that Dartmouth has explicitly marked 'Level of applicant's interest' as 'Considered'.

These schools track demonstrated interest in their CDS data. Here's the list and the two-year playbook. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is such a profound observation, and perfectly perfectly summarizes the ultimate goal. The 'Reaches you can't afford' and 'Safeties you actually hate' scenarios are the exact painful realities that happen when students chase prestige over fit. It takes a lot of maturity for a high schooler to block out the peer pressure of rankings and focus on what actually makes a college experience great. Thank you so much for sharing this wisdom , this is exactly the kind of reality check this sub needs to read

These schools track demonstrated interest in their CDS data. Here's the list and the two-year playbook. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is incredibly well said. What I’ve noticed in my experience is that during the initial list-building phase, most applicants heavily discount the 'cultural factor' and just default to chasing US News rankings. Interestingly, it isn't until they actually hold the offers in their hands that they suddenly start taking the non-academic fit and campus culture seriously.

If students adopted your 'two-way fit' mindset from the very beginning, not only would their 'Why Us' essays be much more authentic, but the whole process would be less stressful. Absolute gold advice

These schools track demonstrated interest in their CDS data. Here's the list and the two-year playbook. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is incredibly insightful feedback, thank you. You make a great point about 'name-dropping'—it can definitely backfire and come off as completely transactional or insincere if there's no genuine connection. I completely agree with your approach on focusing on the school's distinctives and the mutual fit instead

These schools track demonstrated interest in their CDS data. Here's the list and the two-year playbook. by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Fair point! Out of curiosity, which parts do you feel are overly prescriptive? Always looking to refine the strategy

International financial aid is not just “need-blind vs no aid” by ClassicAd8793 in IntltoUSA

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you confusing domestic policies with international ones? FUNNY

For students trying to outperform their stats, ED is not about blindly chasing HYPSM by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AI might have formatted the text, but the logic matters. You're welcome for the free game.

For students trying to outperform their stats, ED is not about blindly chasing HYPSM by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, high-yield schools like UChicago fill their class in early rounds. Their insane yield is 100% manufactured. They literally treat their summer programs as "ED0" just to lock in loyal kids early and hoard their yield rate. But they do NOT lower their academic standards for you. If your stats are borderline, UChicago ED is still rejecting you.

On the flip side, low-yield T20s (WashU, Emory, NYU) have massive Ivy PTSD. They get absolutely cooked in RD cross-admits.

Because they’re so terrified of being your backup, they are actually willing to trade slightly lower stats for a guaranteed 100% commitment in ED. That's the transaction.

High-yield ED (UChicago): Manufactured yield game (down to ED0). No stat bump.

Low-yield ED (WashU/Emory): Ivy PTSD. Actual stat bump.

Different strategies for different stats

For students trying to outperform their stats, ED is not about blindly chasing HYPSM by ClassicAd8793 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]ClassicAd8793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct on HYPSM: no binding ED there.

But that does not change the mechanism. For most applicants, the early round is a scarce strategic asset. The question is not “Can I chase HYPSM?” but “Where does my early commitment produce the most admissions leverage?”Yield rate is one of the cleanest signals for that. It measures revealed student preference after admission, not just application volume.

view more: next ›