Stanford has admitted a record low 4.65 percent of its mistakes this school year, continuing what most students have accepted as an inevitable downward trend as the University grows more prestigious.

The admit rate was down slightly from last year’s figure of 4.69 percent.

“I had a feeling this would be a historic year when they added the hard alcohol ban,” an anonymous student told The Daily. “For a while in the middle, I thought their admission rate might rise, but then they just doubled down on the whole Crystal Riggins thing.”

As usual, the annually-scrutinized numbers led to speculation that the University’s mistake-admission rate would someday fall to zero. Richard Shaw, dean of undergraduate admission and financial aid, seemed to hint at that goal in a speech last year to prospective students.

“We have a saying here in Stanford admissions: We don’t make mistakes,” Shaw told a crowd of happy ProFros waiting to receive their lanyards.

Sources noted that Stanford’s admit rate for this year is still in flux. Many speculated that last year’s admit rate took a significant hit later in April, after the University refused to redo its controversial Campus Climate Survey.

Some students also wondered why Stanford broke from recent practice last fall and chose not release data on early admission, opting instead to wait until spring. The decision, Stanford spokesperson E.J. Miranda explained, was part of a broader, ongoing effort to deemphasize numbers out of “respect for all students” – for example, he said, those who don’t like math and took Intro to International Relations to satisfy their Applied Quantitative Reasoning requirement.

Additionally, Shaw has said he believes focusing too much on the mistake-admission rate leads to unproductive discussion.

“[Releasing the percentages] just diverts everybody’s attention from the fact that we are doing super awesome,” Shaw told the Washington Post last year. “My feeling is, what’s the difference between 7 percent and 4 percent?”

 

Editor’s note: This article was published for April Fool’s Day and is completely fictitious. All attributions in this article are not genuine and this story should be read in the context of pure entertainment only.