Neither handwritten letters from Yale and Brown, nor constant calls from Dartmouth and Princeton will deter me from attending Penn. Penn's only drawback: financial aid. Penn expects me to contribute over twice what the other Ivies do; its financial aid initiative seems rather weak. My main reason for attending Penn, of course, is Wharton's world-class business program. But the other schools and programs in Penn more than hold their own against their competing Ivy counterparts - any student who does his or her research will quickly realize the incredible amount of resources Penn dedicates to its undergraduates. Renown professors abound, research opportunities can be found at one's whim, and the campus is astonishingly beautiful (much more so than any of the others I've visited, with the possible exceptions of Princeton and Yale). Regardless, the vibrant social life at University City and the feeling one gets of practically breathing in culture while walking the streets of Philly make any university in Boston, New Jersey, etc. pale in comparison. But having been among all the Ivy-caliber students, I can safely say Penn's name is relatively unheard. Everyone speaks of Harvard and Princeton, of Yale, and of Dartmouth, Cornell, and Columbia. Everyone knows those are Ivies. But when I mention Penn, I usually get an "oh that's nice," and I've even heard a fellow 2012 got a reply somewhere along the lines of "I heard it's almost as good as Penn State." Weak PR on Penn's end? Maybe. And that's just what may have caused the increase in admissions percentages and drop in applicant numbers. But, as aforementioned - Penn remains an incredible school. And most of the applicants I know applied with full intentions of attending the university.

Expected 66% yield on acceptances?? Sounds like we're back to safety school status...

[QUOTE id="8b53733a-345d-4c84-89b8-72fdb648dcdb"]Expected 66% yield on acceptances?? Sounds like we're back to safety school status...[/QUOTE] Actually, a 66% yield (which is what Penn got for the Class of 2011)is very high, among the highest in the country, and is only 1-4 percentage points shy of the yields of Stanford, Princeton and Yale. Indeed, in the Ivy League, only Harvard, Princeton, and Yale had higher yields. The question is, what will Penn's yield be for the Class of 2012, and how will it compare to the yields of its peers?

Re: Alum Oh, calm down. Ten years ago, wasn't the admit rate still up around 30%? And it's not as if the groups from around that time were all a bunch of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers, so I doubt that a *shock!* 16-and-change percent *ZOMG!* rate is all that dreadful. If anything, I'd be pretty peeved if it turned out that they didn't have as precipitous a drop in the yield as anticipated, and they're left with scrambling to find housing for the 40-50 extra-unexpecteds who turn in a deposit by May 1. That's bodes worse for reputation than sending out an extra few hundred "yes" e-mails.

[QUOTE id="8b53733a-345d-4c84-89b8-72fdb648dcdb"]Expected 66% yield on acceptances?? Sounds like we're back to safety school status...[/QUOTE] Apparently, some things at Penn don't change after a decade. In addition to the majority of students who truly want to be there, there has always been a vocal and petulant minority that harbors resentment for being unable to attend (most likely through rejection, possibly because of financial limitations) other SUPPOSEDLY superior schools. Hopefully, the previous commentators were being sarcastic by lamenting a 0.4% increase in the overall admissions rate. I was part of a freshmen class drawn from a 30% overall admissions rate and a 50% yield rate. By blindly applying today's standards, my cohort of would seem "less impressive" than this year's freshmen class. Bear in mind that I was a highschooler when 1500 was a good score on the SAT, fewer than 17,000 highschoolers applied to Penn, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Does everyone want to forget the spring of 1991 when Penn admitted nearly 50% of undergraduate applicants? Also, what are the yield rates at Cornell and Dartmouth? Contrary to what some snobs may think, those two are indeed Ivy League schools. Only a fortunuate few have the chance to receive an education at the nation's top 10 universities and liberal arts colleges. While Lee Stetson did a great job, he is nevertheless gone from College Hall. The admissions office has the difficult task of appeasing droves of snide highschoolers who ooze self-entitlement and matching financial aid offers from schools whose endowments dwarf Penn's. Overall, Penn's status continues to improve and I am proud to be a "Quaker". P.S.--In case you "uber-students" are wondering, my "less impressive" butt is not starving in the streets. As with many Penn students, I graduated and found a white-collar job in the Mid-Atlantic.

Apparently, some things at Penn don't change after a decade. In addition to the majority of students who truly want to be there, there has always been a vocal and petulant minority that harbors resentment for being unable to attend (most likely through rejection, possibly because of financial limitations) other SUPPOSEDLY superior schools. Hopefully, the previous commentators were being sarcastic by lamenting a 0.4% increase in the overall admissions rate. I was part of a freshmen class drawn from a 30% overall admissions rate and a 50% yield rate. By blindly applying today's standards, my cohort of would seem "less impressive" than this year's freshmen class. Bear in mind that I was a highschooler when 1500 was a good score on the SAT, fewer than 17,000 highschoolers applied to Penn, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Does everyone want to forget the spring of 1991 when Penn admitted nearly 50% of undergraduate applicants? Also, what are the yield rates at Cornell and Dartmouth? Contrary to what some snobs may think, those two are indeed Ivy League schools. Only a fortunuate few have the chance to receive an education at the nation's top 10 universities and liberal arts colleges. While Lee Stetson did a great job, he is nevertheless gone from College Hall. The admissions office has the difficult task of appeasing droves of snide highschoolers who ooze self-entitlement and matching financial aid offers from schools whose endowments dwarf Penn's. Overall, Penn's status continues to improve and I am proud to be a "Quaker". P.S.--In case you "uber-students" are wondering, my "less impressive" butt is not starving in the streets. As with many Penn students, I graduated and found a white-collar job in the Mid-Atlantic.

Eric Kaplan has done a superb job of stepping in and handling a very formidable assignment in a year where it has not been "business as usual" on a number of fronts. While other schools may have chosen to accept fewer applicants and develop a longer wait list to draw from, perhaps Penn's strategy of offering more spots upfront will be a more effective strategy in capturing first-choice applicants. Think about it...would you rather have a sure space at Penn, or dangle on the wait list at Yale? Remember the agony? Remember wanting it to just be all over? I think Penn's strategy was a very clever one, and I expect a stronger yield than Dean Kaplan predicts!

Well, thank goodness we can rest assured that Penn's official name does not in any conceivable way detract from its aspired-to brand identity.

I blame the university's inability to get serious and un-PC on dealing with crime that led to this past fall's ridiculous crime spree.

This is very disappointing, especially in light of the incredible record-breaking year that other Ivies are experiencing in admissions. Attempts at positive spin notwithstanding, Penn's administration needs to do some serious soul-searching to determine and address the reason(s) that Penn was the only school among its peers that experienced both a decrease in applicants and an increase in number admitted, while virtually all of its peers (including other non-HYP schools facing the same absence of early admit programs at Harvard and Princeton, enhanced financial aid at other schools, etc.) were able to obtain substantial increases in applicants and decreases in admit rates. From what I have read in the DP, on the Penn admissions web site, and on college admissions internet bulletin boards, my sense is that Penn has lost some momentum in getting its message out to potential applicants, and in conveying what is especially appealing about the school vis-a-vis its peers. Certainly, the administration's bungling of its response to the Stetson departure at the very beginning of the admissions season, the Philly and campus-area crime waves that were the buzz of the internet, and a transitional period in the admissions office couldn't have helped. To some extent, Penn has allowed its positive message and image to be overwhelmed by negative news and speculation. But Penn needs to get serious about this and turn the admissions momentum back around in a big way if it truly wants to ascend "from excellence to eminence." Staying stagnant in admissions statistics--let alone falling back--while its peers contine to advance mightily, is a sure recipe for Penn to slip back into the "Ivy Doormat" doldrums of the pre-1990s era. Hopefully, Mr. Furda will be able to turn things around come July 1st, and will candidly speak truth to power about what must be done to ensure that both Penn's admissions numbers and its image among potential applicants return to a steeply positive trajectory.

Interim Dean of Admissions Eric Kaplan said the office accepted more students this year because it is unable to predict what percentage of the admitted students will decide to attend Penn in the fall. Last year, 66 percent of admitted students chose to attend Penn. Kaplan said he expects this year's yield rate to drop." Then why didn't the admissions office make more extensive use of the waiting list (as several of Penn's peers have stated they would do), instead of increasing the initial admit rate and lowering the yield??? Where's Lee Stetson when we need him?

Does anybody know what fraction of cross-admits we lose to HYP and Columbia respectively?

Where are the comments about Penn's obviously not-color blind admission policy? Assuming that the ethnic breakdown provided in the article only refers to American students admitted, then there were 3298 American students admitted (3769-471). Of these, 1653 students belong to Penn-identified minority groups, for a total of 50.1% minority admittance among American students. No matter how one spins this, it is obviously discriminatory to the largest ethnic group of our population, white students. The US has about 30% minority population, so a difference of more than 20% between the population at large to the admissions ratio for white students is discrimination, plain and simple. Unless of course, for some reason, white students as a group were less qualified than black-american, latino-american, or asian-american students. Additionally, if one factors out the legacy students from the general admissions pool, the prospect for non-legacy admissions for white-americans looks even bleaker at Penn. Clearly, this is not happenstance, but deliberate policy. Until this unbecoming approach (for institution of academic freedom) is changed, this alum will not be supporting his alman mater. I would hope that at least some alumni will react alike.