Skip to main content

Looking at Transfers

It's official: Princeton has broken its streak of not considering transfer students for admission, and has admitted 13 applicants for the Fall, 2018 term of the 1,429 who applied, for an astonishing how-low-can-you-go admit rate of 0.9%.  Of course, we'll have to wait until sometime in the future to see how many--if any--of them actually enroll.

I thought it might be interesting to take a look at transfers, so I did just that, using an IPEDS file I had on my desktop.  There are four views here, and they're pretty straightforward:

The first tab shows the number of transfers enrolled by institution in Fall, 2016 (left hand column) and the transfer ratio.  The ratio simply indicates how many new transfer students for Fall, 2016 you'd meet if you were to go on that college campus in Fall, 2016 and choose 100 students at random.  A higher number suggests a relatively more transfer friendly institution. You can choose any combination of region, control and broad Carnegie type using the filters at the top.

The second tab shows the same data arrayed on a scatter gram; type any part of a college name and then select it to see it highlighted on the chart.  Hover over a point for details.

The third chart is static, and shows undergraduate enrollment in Fall, 2016 and the number of new transfer students in the same term.  The bars are split by region and colored by Carnegie type.

And the last tab shows the weighted transfer ratios, split the same way.

As you'll see, thirteen students doesn't seem so significant against the 810,000 new transfers in Fall, 2016.  But it's a start.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Changes in AP Scores, 2022 to 2024

Used to be, with a little work, you could download very detailed data on AP results from the College Board website: For every state, and for every course, you could see performance by ethnicity.  And, if you wanted to dig really deep, you could break out details by private and public schools, and by grade level.  I used to publish the data every couple of years. Those days are gone.  The transparency The College Board touts as a value seems to have its limits, and I understand this to some extent: Racists loved to twist the data using single-factor analysis, and that's not good for a company who is trying to make business inroads with under-represented communities as they cloak their pursuit of revenue as an altruistic push toward access. They still publish data, but as I wrote about in my last post , it's far less detailed; what's more, what is easily accessible is fairly sterile, and what's more detailed seems to be structured in a way that suggests the company doesn...

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl...

Changes in SAT Scores after Test-optional

One of the intended consequences of test-optional admission policies at some institutions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was to raise test scores reported to US News and World Report.  It's rare that you would see a proponent of test-optional admission like me admit that, but to deny it would be foolish. Because I worked at DePaul, which was an early adopter of the approach (at least among large universities), I fielded a lot of calls from colleagues who were considering it, some of whom were explicit in their reasons for doing so.  One person I spoke to came right out at the start of the call: She was only calling, she said, because her provost wanted to know how much they could raise scores if they went test-optional. If I sensed or heard that motivation, I advised people against it.  In those days, the vast majority of students took standardized admission tests like the SAT or ACT, but the percentage of students applying without tests was still relatively small; the ne...