Mar

24

Crunching Numbers, and Spitting Them Out in Disgust

Written by

By now, most of you know your place within the grand—and imminent—debacle that is suite selection. Using our handy little calculator and data from this year and last, Bwog has done a little bit of math in order to track the trends and changes in the huddled masses awaiting shelter for next year.

Changes Based on Group Number:

Groups of 1: 735 this year, down from 883 last year (change of -148)

Groups of 2: 270 this year, down from 312 last year (change of -42)

Groups of 3: 13 this year, down from 16 last year (change of -3)

Groups of 4: 104 this year, up from 101 last year (change of +3)

Groups of 5: 113 this year, up from 77 last year (change of +36)

Groups of 6: 97 this year, up from 86 last year (change of +11)

Groups of 7: 11 this year,  down from 26 last year (change of -15)

Groups of 8: 59 this year, up from 46 last year (change of +13)

Peering Deeper:

What we learned this year, then, is that the number of students registered as individuals and pairs shot way down, and was mostly absorbed into the groups of five. Let’s break those down by grade level.

Individuals (Groups of 1):

30 point “groups”: 226 this year, up from 205 last year (change of +21)

20 point “groups”: 376 this year, down from 521 last year (change of -145)

10 point “groups”: 133 this year, down from 157 last year (change of -24)

So basically, the number of juniors entering by themselves decreased by almost a third. Bwog believes that the addition of junior regroup is to blame for this phenomenon.

Groups of 2:

30 point groups: 95 this year, down from 119 last year (change of -24)

20-29 point groups: 89 this year, down from 90 last year (change of -1)

10-19 point groups: 86 this year, down from 103 last year (change of -17)

Interestingly, the decrease in groups of 2 occurred mostly between groups of seniors and groups of sophomores. Perhaps the appeal of Woodbridge is dropping?

Groups of 5:

30 point groups: 41 this year, down from 47 last year (change of -6)

20-29 point groups: 68 this year, up from 23 last year (change of +45)

10-19 point groups: 4 this year, down from 7 last year (change of -3)

The numbers here tell a much clearer story: the number of junior 5-person groups skyrocketed, nearly tripling from last year. We’re going to guess that these individuals were enticed by the possibility of nabbing former EC exclusion suites, which even made it to a few lucky sophomore groups last year.

All in all, it seems the addition of junior regroup has spurred on a large number of juniors to try their luck in suite selection—many of them in groups of five. We’ll have to wait and see what this extra demand does tothe supply of suites, but if we had to make a guess, we’d say that just as juniors were vastly screwed over last year, this year it’s the sophomores on the chopping block. Very few open suites are likely to emerge from junior regroup, and some juniors may even choose to pair up and claim spacious McBain doubles over singles in Schapiro or Wien. This may force a large number of sophomores to drop to general selection and claim the Wien singles traditionally reserved for unlucky juniors. And let’s be real, there will probably be yet another housing shortage. Moral of the story: try not to think about it, and enjoy your Saturday night.

Tags: , , , , ,

11 Comments

  1. Anonymous  

    Any way to predict the Barnard cap?

  2. boringly average lottery number  

    So 20 point groups have a better shot at Woodbridge this year? yayz

  3. Hmm

    "226 this year, up from 205 last year (change of +19)"

    Y'sure about that one there, Bwog?

  4. CC'13  

    can bwog list how many suites of each size there are in total? i've heard way too many different numbers to know for sure

  5. ... huh?  

    I was quite confused by the use of "sophomore" and "junior" in this article.

  6. Anonymous  

    Can you guys talk a little bit about special interest/disabilities housing and how many of the 6-person townhouses will be taken up by that?

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.