« The Bumps come to the NBA, courtesy of 538 | Main | Light entertainment: the crack pie that escaped and then resurfaced on TV »



The original chart swooped up and to the right, but I think your decluttered version would look better swooping down and to the right, the better to visually support the statement "applications doubled but admit rate halved."


derek: I see that the labels created confusion. I was trying to stick to "selectivity" as a measure rather than admit rate because I actually want the most selective colleges on top of the chart, not at the bottom. So the vertical axis is inverted.

Jeff Weir

Re your question "why would a college that accepts pretty much all applicants need more applicants than enrolled students?"

'Need' is probably the wrong term. 'Get' is probably a better one. Perhaps it's just getting easier to apply. I routinely apply for far more jobs than I used to 15 years ago, because technology (mainly the 'mainstreaming' of email) has lowered the cost to me of applying. Could that be the case here, in part? And the other part perhaps being application processes themselves have become less onerous (particularly for the less selective schools)?


JW: One other factor I used thought of is that the less selective schools probably don't charge application fees so that further lowers the barrier to applying.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter