QuestBridge's own national numbers -- 7,026 Finalists, 2,550 matched, 55 partner colleges in the most recent completed cycle -- are the only figures the organization itself publishes. There's no official cross-school table showing how many of those 2,550 matched at any specific college. What does exist is scattered: individual colleges' own admissions offices and student newspapers, publishing (or not publishing) their own numbers on their own schedule.
What real, per-school numbers actually look like
A few partner colleges do report their own figures every year, and the pattern across them is genuinely informative:
- Yale: matched 118 students for the Class of 2030 (December 2025 results) -- a new record, up from 66 the previous year, per Yale's own official news release. Yale treats its QuestBridge total as a number worth publicizing and tracking year over year.
- Emory: matched 57 students for the Class of 2030, out of 1,423 QuestBridge applications the university reviewed that cycle -- a real, calculable school-specific rate of roughly 4% of QuestBridge applicants who included Emory being matched there specifically. Few schools publish enough detail to calculate this rate directly; Emory's own release did.
- Princeton: publishes results but explicitly does not set or publish an internal target. A University spokesperson told The Daily Princetonian directly: "We do not have a set number of students we plan to match with and much of the process depends on the applicant pool itself."
Why a clean, comparable table doesn't exist
Three real obstacles stand in the way of the kind of cross-school chart this topic seems like it should have:
- Not every partner college publishes a number at all, let alone with enough detail (like Emory's applicant count) to calculate an actual rate rather than just a headcount.
- The numbers that do get published aren't standardized. A raw match count (Yale's 118) and a match-rate-among-a-school's-own-applicants (Emory's ~4%) measure genuinely different things, and most published figures are the former, not the latter -- making true apples-to-apples comparison across schools rare.
- Colleges set their own internal targets differently, if they set one at all. Princeton's own statement shows at least one major partner treats its yearly total as an outcome of that year's applicant pool rather than a number planned in advance -- which means even a school's own past numbers aren't necessarily a reliable predictor of its next cycle.
What this means for you
- Don't rank colleges based on an assumed "easier match rate" you found on a forum or aggregator site. With this little standardized public data, most claimed per-school match-rate numbers you'll find online aren't sourced to anything official.
- If a specific target school publishes its own numbers, that's the only reliable comparison point you have for it -- check that school's own admissions news page or press releases directly rather than a third-party ranking of "easiest QuestBridge schools."
- A rising year-over-year total (like Yale's) doesn't necessarily mean a rising per-applicant rate. More matches can simply reflect more applicants ranking that school, not a loosening bar -- Emory's own reviewed-applications figure is the rare case where you can actually calculate the real rate instead of guessing from the headcount alone.
- This is one more reason ranking strategy matters more than chasing a rumored "easy match" school. See how to actually think through which colleges to rank rather than optimizing around unverifiable per-school odds.