Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Yield Rate


Replies to: Yield Rate

  • warblersrulewarblersrule Super Moderator Super Moderators Posts: 31
    edited May 2013
    Cue7 wrote:
    How is it the yield at virtually EVERY top school is increasing? Brown, Princeton, Harvard, most likely Northwestern, etc. have seen upticks in yield.
    As LearningLover said, I think it's because these colleges are getting so selective. Students are increasingly having difficulty getting into more than a couple of them. If you get into only one or two of the most selective colleges on your list, odds are very good you'll decide to attend.

    Anecdotally, I noticed last month that the results threads and decision threads on CC seem especially different this year. Considerably fewer battle threads between similar highly selective colleges ("Brown vs. Dartmouth?? HELP!!") and more between highly selective colleges and less selective ones, particularly with scholarships. USC+Trustee in particular seems quite popular this year and last. The decrease in cross-admits has been an ongoing trend for a while.
  • phurikuphuriku Registered Users Posts: 6
    edited May 2013
    Most ED schools (e.g. Duke, Northwestern) have been trying to artificially lower their admit rates by admitting more students ED. This not only has an effect on their own yields; it also has an effect on EA/SCEA schools' yields by eliminating cross-admit battles in the pool of applicants admitted to elite schools. Less cross admit battles implies a higher yield for everyone.

    The prestigious schools all get to look good by having really low admissions rates, and ultimately, it's the applicants who bear the burden. This is partly why I feel more people should be critical of schools like Duke and Northwestern: their self-interested and fact-distorting admissions policies are creating a crisis in college admissions.
  • xiggixiggi Super Moderators, Big Mailbox Posts: 157
    edited May 2013
    Do you many schools with admission policies that are not based on ... self-interest? Do you know many schools who would keep a director or admissions around who'd work to help other schools in an altruistic manner?

    That is for self-interest, are you sure you want to bring the issue of fact-distorting admissions in light of "some" schools releasing no verifiable "facts" as a matter of policy?

    And, when looking at admissions' crutches, should we weigh the impact of huge waitlists, or the impact of artificially keeping admissions low in April and playing the phones lines in April and May to secure "guaranteed" enrollees for this cycle, or the next one? What about the schools that offer "free for all" EA admissions to poach candidates away from ED schools.

    Here is a hint: all schools, from the almighty HYPS to the mediocre school in the boonies, do everything they can to maximize their admissions' policies and enrollment mechanisms. They all do what is BEST for THEM, and none of them are creating a crisis.

    Fwiw, the "holier than thou" is getting old!
  • JHSJHS Registered Users Posts: 36
    edited May 2013
    Sorry, xiggi. There's a moral difference between "free for all" Early Action and Early Decision. Sure, it can be a valid marketing strategy to hitch your wagon to the one that provides superior value to applicants, but that's because it DOES provide superior value to applicants.

    You are right that no one in the admissions world is a pure altruist. And your criticism of Chicago's opacity is warranted. But you are way overboard about this, not only as regards Chicago but as regards many other schools as well. Some of what colleges do they do because it's right, not because it maximizes yield or whatever.

    And regarding the Chicago waitlist, there is no evidence that I have seen, here on CC or out in the real world, that Chicago has offered anyone on the waitlist a spot in the class of 2017. Maybe somewhere there are one or two. But nothing like the hundreds I thought there would be a month ago. That's because (a) the class target is 10% smaller than it has been the past few years, because they are tearing down a major dorm, (b) they increased the number of EA admits substantially, and (c) more of the people they accept are enrolling, apparently. It's not rocket science, and it's not a nefarious plot, either.
  • ChaudhuriChaudhuri Registered Users Posts: 3 College Search & Selection Champion
    edited May 2013
    A neighbor boy was wait-listed by Chicago and was recently released from the list, he was told NO ONE will be accepted from the list. I guess Chicago already has more than enough to fill in the class of 2017. Its yield will be higher than anyone's estimate.
  • xiggixiggi Super Moderators, Big Mailbox Posts: 157
    edited May 2013
    JHS, consider my post as a reply to the one above it, and check the comment about holier than thou. Did I claim that schools do not do the right thing. For students and for themselves? Am I not on the record to state that admissions is a system that works?
  • peter1412peter1412 Registered Users Posts: 1 College Search & Selection Champion
    edited May 2013
    There's someone who joined the Facebook group a number of weeks ago who said they were admitted off the waitlist..
  • LearningLoverLearningLover Registered Users Posts: 7 College Search & Selection Champion
    edited May 2013
    Yeah, they did admit some off the waitlist they're just not doing it anymore
  • curvyteencurvyteen Registered Users Posts: 24 College Search & Selection Champion
    edited May 2013
    Phuriku, I love how you turn a blind eye towards Penn (the pioneer of this practice) while being critical of Duke and NU. Too scared to take on a big, bad ivy?
  • JHSJHS Registered Users Posts: 36
    edited May 2013
    I'm sure phuriku did not mean to exempt Penn. The difference is probably that Penn has taken a huge percentage of its class ED for roughly forever, while Northwestern (and maybe Duke, I'm not positive) has been creeping upward with the percentage it takes. It used to limit ED to no more than 25% of the class, but it's clear it no longer does that. On the other hand, I think Northwestern is nowhere near Penn's 50%. Princeton used to do this, too, when it had ED -- admit half of its class ED, and then brag about having a lower admission rate/higher yield than Harvard or Yale.

    Of course, people at Chicago can't be too critical of Northwestern, because the percentage of acceptances Chicago gives out EA has been going upward pretty steadily. Those aren't functionally guaranteed-yield admissions, like an ED school's early acceptances, but they pretty clearly have a higher yield than RD acceptances.
  • jak321jak321 Registered Users Posts: 9 College Search & Selection Champion
    edited May 2013
    Phuriku would have had to add but 5 characters in his first parentheses to "take on" the "big, bad ivy".
  • Sam LeeSam Lee Registered Users Posts: 18
    edited May 2013

    I have told you repeatedly that EA also "articially" lowers the admit rate. I am puzzled why you have not been able to understand it. Perhaps it's easier to understand if it's coming from a UChicago affiliate, namely JHS who just seems to have superior critical thinking skills. Hope you finally get it. Besides that, EA may even be more effective; that is, if Duke does EA and admits tons of them, it may even have higher yield. You never know.
  • MarylandfourMarylandfour Registered Users Posts: 3 College Search & Selection Champion
    edited May 2013
    Here's the latest out this morning reported from the Maroon:
    Class of ?17 yield above 50 percent ? The Chicago Maroon
  • phurikuphuriku Registered Users Posts: 6
    edited May 2013

    It's true that Penn and Columbia use ED to fill a substantially and unusually large portion of their class (in the mid-to-upper 40%'s). My beef with Duke and Northwestern is that they've been filling up more and more of their class during the ED round year-after-year in an attempt to artificially boost their yield (going from the 20%'s to the 40%'s, in the case of Northwestern, and with similar numbers at Duke), and it's gotten to the point where the schools are admitting close to 40% during the ED round and near 10% during RD. Columbia and Penn are NOT in this situation, which is why I don't level criticism at them as much.

    Essentially, the idea is to convince applicants that getting accepted during the RD rounds is near impossible, so if you want to attend Duke/NU, you NEED to apply ED. In fact, there have been threads here mentioning that the head of admissions at Duke is explicitly telling this to applicants. It's a scheme to use fear to get inside the minds of applicants and scare them into applying ED even if they don't really have their heart set. Frankly, it's repulsingly unethical, and the sheer suggestion that UChicago's mass marketing is in the same ballpark of unethicality is ridiculous and shameful.
  • Cal8876Cal8876 Registered Users Posts: 1 Harvard Champion
    edited May 2013
    Well I guess if by close to 40% you mean the below then so be it. Acceptance rate in ED round for select schools, class of 2017:

    Duke - 29.6%
    Columbia - 19.19%
    Dartmouth - 29.5%
    Cornell - 29.5%
    Penn - 24.9%
    Brown - 18.5%
    Northwestern - 32.4%

    Just wouldn't want to let facts get in the way....carry on!!
Sign In or Register to comment.