Saitama Public High School Application Ratios (as of Feb 10)How to Read the Decline and Polarization

Introduction: The Feb 10 Ratio Is Not the Final Ratio

The key premise is simple: the "number of applicants / application ratio" published by the Saitama Prefectural Board of Education is a snapshot at the application deadline (Feb 10).

The official page also indicates that confirmed figures after school-choice changes (day 1 and day 2) will be released separately. So treating Feb 10 data as the final confirmed ratio is not accurate.

Also, "same-period ratio last year" means the same timing in the previous year (deadline snapshot), not the previous year's final ratio. In practice, the year-over-year difference should be read as an indicator of how applicant momentum has changed at this point in time.

---

Calculation Rule: The Denominator Is A, Not Always the Original Capacity

Each row in the table provides:

• Planned admissions (A)
• Applicants (B)
• Ratio (B / A)

The important point is that A does not always equal the publicly announced capacity. Transfer/re-entry counts are shown in each row and reflected in A.

To avoid misreading, comparisons should always use B / A with A = planned admissions.

---

Big Picture on Feb 10

Overall Total (Full-time + Part-time)

• Ratio: 1.02 (37,328 / 36,523)
• Same period last year: 1.08
• Year-over-year: -0.06

The total is only slightly above 1.00. This suggests a mixed structure: broad undersubscription in many places, while selected schools/programs still attract concentrated demand.

Full-time Total (General + Specialized + Comprehensive)

• Ratio: 1.05 (36,264 / 34,603)
• Same period last year: 1.11
• Year-over-year: -0.06

Full-time programs are the main battlefield, and this clear decline versus last year is the core signal.

By Full-time Program Type

• General: 1.09 (27,874 / 25,517), down from 1.17 (-0.08)
• Specialized: 0.93 (6,838 / 7,332), down from 0.95 (-0.02)
• Comprehensive: 0.91 (1,552 / 1,708), unchanged from 0.91 (±0.00)

General courses saw the largest drop. Comprehensive remains low and flat. Specialized remains below 1.00 with a slight decline.

Part-time Total

• Ratio: 0.55 (1,064 / 1,920)
• Same period last year: 0.56
• Year-over-year: -0.01

Part-time is smaller in share, but 0.55 implies that undersubscription is structurally likely.

---

High-Ratio Zone in Full-time: Competition Is Concentrated, Not Uniform

Notable examples on Feb 10:

• Omiya (Science & Math): 2.48 (99/40)
• Tokorozawa-kita (Science & Math): 1.80 (72/40)
• Omiya (General): 1.75 (558/318)
• Geijutsu Sogo (Fine Arts): 1.68 (67/40)
• Saitama Municipal Urawa (General): 1.96 (470/240)

The key takeaway: the entire system is not uniformly high-pressure. Only 10 full-time entries exceed 1.50.

Small cohorts (often around 40 seats) can swing sharply when applicant counts move by only 10–20 students.

---

General Courses: Top Concentration and Wide Dispersion Exist Together

Top general-course rows include Saitama Municipal Urawa (1.96), Omiya (1.75), and Kawaguchi Municipal (1.61).

However, many general-course rows are still below 1.00. So the overall general-course average (1.09) alone does not describe the actual landscape.

You need to read the distribution, not just the average.

---

Scale of Undersubscription: About Half of Full-time Rows Are Below 1.00

124 out of 243 Full-time Rows (about 51%) Are Undersubscribed

Breakdown:

• General: 41/102 (about 40%)
• Specialized: 77/132 (about 58%)
• Comprehensive: 6/9 (about 67%)

Undersubscription is more common in specialized and comprehensive courses, but even general courses show a large sub-1.00 segment.

20 Rows Below 0.50: Signs of Structural Vacancy Risk

Examples:

• Shinshukan (Electrical Systems): 0.28 (11/39)
• Hanyu Jitsugyo (Information Processing): 0.25 (10/40)
• Chichibu Nokokagaku (Forest Science): 0.35 (14/40)
• Kodama (General): 0.34 (42/122)
• Ogano (General): 0.38 (47/124)

These are not simply "easy to get into" cases. Final enrollment outcomes also depend on school-choice changes, absences, withdrawals, and enrollment yield.

---

Year-over-Year Movers: Where Momentum Changed

Defined as ratio on Feb 10 this year - ratio on Feb 10 last year.

Examples of Large Increases

• Matsubushi (Information Business Course): +0.47 (0.90, 36/40)
• Konosu Girls (Childcare): +0.40 (1.00, 40/40)
• Kawaguchi Technical (Info Communications): +0.39 (1.15, 91/79)
• Geijutsu Sogo (Fine Arts): +0.38 (1.68, 67/40)

Examples of Large Decreases

• Municipal Omiya-kita (Science & Math): -1.17 (1.18, 47/40)
• Koshigaya-kita (Science & Math): -0.50 (1.60, 64/40)
• Koshigaya Sogo Gijutsu (Information Processing): -0.50 (0.45, 18/40)
• Asaka (General): -0.43 (0.94, 300/318)

In small-capacity programs, year-over-year changes can look dramatic. Always interpret these shifts together with the size of A.

---

Practical Value of the Feb 10 Snapshot

This dataset is useful for three early diagnostics:

1. Identifying the likely high-ratio core (science/math, selected general, arts)
2. Detecting deeply undersubscribed zones (20 rows below 0.50)
3. Flagging large year-over-year outliers (roughly ±0.4 and beyond)

At the same time, it is risky to conclude final difficulty from this snapshot alone. School-choice changes reshape the entire distribution.

A practical stance is: Feb 10 is the map; post-change confirmation is the destination.

---

Conclusion: The Signal Is Polarization, Not Uniform Intensification

The Feb 10 figures do not show a uniformly heated competition across the prefecture.

• Overall ratios are down versus the same point last year
• Demand is concentrated in selected science/math, high-tier general, and arts tracks
• Meanwhile, undersubscription has spread to roughly half of full-time rows

In short, the dominant pattern is polarization.

The next key observation point is how much this polarization is eased—or fixed in place—after official school-choice changes are finalized.