alum

Why does Furda always withhold key numbers that certainly are known?

Ok ... there are exactly 2,400 members of the Class of 2014: now how many were admitted altogether, and how many were admitted from the waitlist, and how many of the waitlist admits enrolled?

Is this proprietary information that must be withheld for some reason, and if this is what Furda says, does the DP agree?

1990alum,

Virtually all of the data you seek can be found here:

http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/profile/

and here (box on page 1, article at bottom of page 13):

http://thedp.com/files/pdfversion/2010/09/0902pdf.pdf

To previous poster:

Yes, I have seen those postings, and the problem is that the numbers virtually all conflict with each other, and with the numbers reported here.

Why is it so difficult to accurately and precisely report:

(1) the number of applications received; (2) the number of applicants admitted - INCLUDING from the waitlist; and (3) the number of students ACTUALLY matriculating for the class of 2014?

What we typically get from Furda is a miscellaneous melange of estimates, numbers that do not agree from one press release to another, and occasionally a "percentage" in lieu of a hard number.

1990alum,

(1) the number of applications received: 26,939; (2) the number of applicants admitted - INCLUDING from the waitlist: 3,845; (3) the number of students ACTUALLY matriculating for the class of 2014: 2,416.

All found here (and "accurate as of August 17, 2010"):

http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/profile/

To the extent there are inconsistencies between the admissions web site and what's reported in the DP, I'd go with the web site.

According to the NY Times, based on information obtained from the Admissions office prior to August 3, there were 3,847 admits at a time when only 40 had been taken from the waitlist. If, as is now reported, 52 were taken from the waitlist, does this not mean that at least 3,859 were admitted?

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010-admissions-tally/

This kind of sloppiness is, unfortunately, par for the course under Furda.

Some of the haphazard reporting of data might be reduced if Penn prepared and submitted, in timely fashion, a Common Data Set form, as almost all elite colleges do - including Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Harvard etc.

Earlier in the summer, Furda reported to the DP that 40 had been taken from the waitlst at a time when 3,870 (including, presumably, those waitlist admits) had been admitted overall.

How did the number of waitlist admits increase by 12 while the number of total admits - magically - fell from 3,870 to 3,845?

http://www.thedp.com/article/few-hopefuls-taken-waitlist

You should email the admissions office and see if you can get some answers. We alumni--and the rest of the world--are entitled to some precision and transparency here.

Periodically the DP has taken an interest in the operation of the Admissions office, but generally, after their requests for information are stonewalled, they give up and move on to other things.

We never did find out why Furda's longtime predecessor was ousted, and his office cleared out in the middle of the night.

I'd like to see the DP press for Penn to join most of its peers in filing a Common Data Set form. Until they do, all the conflicting and incomplete admissions numbers will continue to remain suspect. Some suspect it has to do with jockeying for a higher USNews ranking.

Absolutely agree: the DP should do a story on why Penn does not publish a Common Data Set, and press the powers-that-be for a definitive answer. And if the administration refuses to answer, then THAT should be the story.

This lack of transparency really places a cloud over the "excellence to eminence" trajectory sought by the current administration.

To 1990alum: The reason you keep seeing numbers fluctuate from May to September is due to 1) wait list action, 2) summer melt (people who sent in their deposits to multiple schools and wait until the very last moment to decide where they will actually matriculate, and 3) deferred enrollment (people who decide to take a year off--who will then be removed from current class and be counted towards the next class, and people who deferred from last year's class finally showing up this year).

Whether 3845 or 3847 were admitted for Class of 2014 is not material in any way.

Bigkahuna

I wonder if some supposed alumni commenting here still bear resentment from being rejected by other colleges in their youth. Instead of bickering over two dozen highschoolers unknown to you, express concerns over the campus crime rate or paltry endowment. Next you'll probably lament the school's fall to 5th place on the USNews Ranking! What's wrong with jockying for good publicity? Most Penn degree holders would welcome any boost to the perceived prestige of our education.

Even if Penn were to file a Common Data Set Form, discrepancies would still exist in the admissions statistics. Besides, almost every "elite" university offers unscrupulous admissions options, including the Z-Lists at Harvard and Princeton. Whatever the "true" admissions figures may be, I am happy for the incoming Class of 2014. Those freshmen will benefit from better facilities, financial aid, and course instruction made possible by donations and grants. Yes, Penn still relies heavily on early admission; why disdain applicants who really want to attend? At least the admission rate didn't surge to the 1991-level of 47%.

@1990alum: Why have you referenced the NYT blog? Haven't you noticed the incomplete waitlist data for Columbia, Yale, and Princeton? Also, why don't you specify Cornell on your list of elite universties? According to the NYT blog, it accepted NONE from its waitlist. Furthermore, the equivalence in yield rates between some Ivy League schools and public universities suggests that attendance costs have become important cosiderations. Anyway, hoorah for financial aid from Penn!

There are certainly other issues that arise in a discussion of admissions policy - such as legacy preferences, the use/abuse of early admissions programs, waitlists, etc. These issues are worthy of discussion, and people can legitimately hold different views.

I am not addressing such issues here, however; rather, I believe the admissions office can be fairly criticized for fudging, or refusing to disclose, important numbers. It is true that both Yale and Princeton have been unaccountably late this year in disclosing admissions numbers. One can only speculate as to why this is so.

Penn's problem is not tardiness in disclosing accurate data, but the fact that IT NEVER DOES disclose such data in a form that permits a fair comparison with similar data from other schools. This is where the Common Data Set comes in.

Penn's academic reputation is extraordinarily high. It is past time to counter suspicion that it is "cooking the books" for the purpose of jiggering its US News ranking, as its critics chronically allege.

(My guess: there were roughly 3,882 admits - the 3,830 admits reported months earlier plus the 52 subsequently acknowledged waitlist admits. Now all we need to learn is whether the reported 2,420 (or 2,416?) freshmen include, or do not include, those deferring a year.)

"Penn's academic reputation is extraordinarily high. It is past time to counter suspicion that it is 'cooking the books' for the purpose of jiggering its US News ranking, as its critics chronically allege."

Um, so what? EVERY top-tier school "cooks books" to varying extents. At your behest, I've looked at the latest Common Data Sets from Stanford, Columbia, and Harvard. The reports mostly provided demographic analyses of student populations along with financial aid budgets. Similar information for most colleges, including Penn, can be found at the Premium-Access sites of USNews and Princeton Review. Furthermore, if Furda were really so incompetent, how did he persist at Columbia for over a decade? Also, will unearthing the truth about the Stetson departure do anything other than address idle gossip?

Besides, the aforementioned schools don't even bother to display a state-by-state breakdown of freshmen matriculants. Furthermore, none of their career services websites provides surveys that are nearly as detailed as Penn's. Even if Penn wantonly "cooks books", at least it puts forth the immense effort to generate statistics that show the good, the bad, and the ugly. Looking at the surveys quickly debunks the misperception that ALL Penn graduates end up as investment bankers or in top-tier graduate schools. Gasp! Even elite college students fall into a Boltzmann distribution of abilities and success!

While you and your ilk lambast Penn for fudging and withholding information, the propaganda offices at Penn's peers are constantly saturating the mass media with cloyingly positive news about their respective institutions. This fall's prospective college applicants have probably forgotten about (or never heard of) the recent murder of a graduate student at Yale, the school-year killing of a drug dealer in the basement of a Havard dorm, the mass layoffs in the Princeton bureaucracy, the laughable grading policies at Brown, and other unappealing events in the Ivy League. Meanwhile, every bank robbery and mugging on Penn's campus gets advertised on the DP's front page. That's fine...sheltered students need to learn street smarts and urban survival skills. Besides, can you argue that Penn's current finances and academic reputation are weaker than they were in 1990?

Until the early 20th century, Philadelphia was the center for educational innovation in the Americas. Unfortunately, the city and its institutions suffered greatly when the post-WWII boom ended. Penn has enough extramural critics & detractors; it doesn't need additional internal discord on its path to RE-GAIN eminence. Let our disdainful adversaries call us "Safety School" and "Penn State-West Philly Campus"...don't get me wrong, I'm actually a fan of the Nittany Lions! Besides, receiving as many applications as UCLA (or, better yet, The Indian Institute of Technology) would enable us to become the most selective university in the country.

As alumni we should express our concern and perhaps dissent when our alma mater enacts policies that are overtly detrimental to its own well-being. For me, spending millions of dollars on installing granite curbs and remodeling the Quad Mail Room is offensive. However, the once-ramshackle Music Building and Bennett Hall have FINALLY gotten renovated! Perhaps I'm being too pragmatic, but turning a Penn degree into a hot commodity, even by resorting to mildly machiavellian tactics, would benefit all of us Quakers. After all, isn't Penn supposed to be the "most practical yet social" school in the Ivy League?

" ...turning a Penn degree into a hot commodity, even by resorting to mildly machiavellian tactics, would benefit all of us Quakers."

If this is really your view, I can see why the accurate reporting of admissions data is a low priority for you.

You forgot my disclaimer, "Perhaps I'm being too pragmatic..."

Although I am not opposed to accuracy and fairness in reporting data, I fail to see how scrutinizing the admission results of a few dozen students will drastically improve the plight of Penn. What's next? Will you question the "quality" or "worthiness" of those who were rescued from waitlist purgatory? By obsessing over admissions minutiae, you may end up like some students at Princeton, who are lamenting their school's "horrendous" yield rate of 56.9% and "inexcusable" acceptance of 137 waitlistees. (FYI, the yield rate for my cohort was 50%, including early admits and waitlistees.)

You're attempting to equate inconsistencies in admissions figures to overt negligence in quality control at a car factory or food distributor. Letting in a few more grateful students isn't going to imperil anybody. None of the Ivy League schools is entirely transparent...that's fine with me. Sure, Penn may have bullied its way around West Philly. Harvard used similar tactics in annexing Allston...has that deterred students from applying? Anyhow, let us wish all the best to the newest batch of Quakers!

Whether Penn (or Harvard) "bullied" the neighborhood is another issue. Whether people taken from the waitlist were "worthy" is another issue. Whether or not "letting in a few more grateful students" will "imperil" anybody is another issue.

I have not asked about such matters, and don't really care about them.

On the other hand, the matter of how many apply every year, how many are admitted, and how many, with what credentials, actually enroll ARE important in order to track Penn's relative desirability to top applicants as compared to the peer schools.

When Penn apparently tries to hide such numbers, I believe there may well be reason for concern.

1) Designate your next multi-million dollar donation to ensuring accuracy in reporting admissions statistics for Penn.

2) Pay visit to College Hall and ask to see the real statistics.

3) Accept subterfuge and obfuscation as normal practices in the Ivy League.

The way Penn handles admissions statistics is NOT "normal practice" in the Ivy League.

For your edification, please refer to the COMMON DATA SET for Penn:

http://www.upenn.edu/ir/Common%20Data%20Set/UPenn%20Common%20Data%20Set%202009-10.pdf

I predict that you will question the accuracy or, quoting Mr. Colbert, "truthiness" of the figures reported in the aforementioned CDS. Unless we are directly involved in obtaining admission statistics, we have little choice but to accept what any university reports on their CDS's at face value.

It's a shame that your tenacity as an aspiring whistleblower is wasted on trying to expose fraud in our alma mater's admissions office. Your efforts would be better spent by inquiring about dubious funding allocations and wildly variable grading policies at Penn. Better yet, perhaps you can deduce how DC is actually spending tax revenues. Unfortunately, I suspect that your morbid obsession with Penn admissions manifests some lingering resentment or insecurity from being rejected by other schools in the Spring of 1986.

With luck, improved economic conditions will enable me to become a better alumnus and donate more money to improve the school's operation. Although I'm not a New England patrician, Mid-Atlantic debutante, or Southern aristocrat, I shall summon whatever social graces learned at Penn to offer you the last word and bid you adieu. Hopefully, you will find some peace.

Penn's *very first* Common Data Set form ... posted on "Sep 6, 2010 08:01:19 GMT", according to Google.

Perhaps my earlier post in this thread (on September 2) spurred them to action!

Now if only they could report admissions numbers for the Class of 2014.