Acceptance Rates and Yield Rates of top USNWR Nat’l Unis and LACs

College Search & Selection
81

<p>
[quote]
Haha...then just call 'em out on it in the first place, if you already know the answer...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't want to be cruel.</p>

82

<p>45%, the problem with Penn is that the information they post (and they posted almost nothing in the past!) almost never reconciles with previous numbers. If you read two pages, you're bound to find different numbers. Go back a few days later and the number are again different. This is apparent to anyone who maintains spreadsheets of the numbers as they are released. As far as I am concerned, under Stetson, the numbers must have been kept on an erasable whiteboard, or on the back on a manila folder. As far as releases to the press, the numbers were never consistent. If you prefer to believe that the reporters were not fed the numbers, so be it. If you believe I'd just make this thing up, so be it. </p>

<p>Example? This is from today's site. Not a glaring difference, but one has to wonder why the numbers are almsost always inconsistent. Today, the inconsistencies happen to be smaller than they used to be. Same difference! </p>

<p>Penn:</a> Undergraduate Admissions: Statistics for the Class of 2010</p>

<p>^^--^^ That's the way the link shows, but the numbers are for the
Statistics for the Class of 2011 </p>

<p>Total Applicants
22,646 Total Admitted
**3,637 <a href="16.1%">/B</a> Total Enrolled
**2,417 <a href="66.5%">/B</a> </p>

<p>Facts and Figures</p>

<p>Penn:</a> Facts and Figures</p>

<p>Undergraduate Admissions
Penn received 22,646 applications for admission to the Class of 2011. Of those applicants,** 3,628*, or 16 percent, were offered admission. Ninety-six percent of the students admitted for Fall 2007 came from the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class and scored an average of 1,431 on the SAT. **2,397* students matriculated into this year's freshman class.</p>

<p>PS Let's see what numbers show on IPEDS or USNews next fall! Unless, they find in their heart to release the CDS forms. :D</p>

83

<p>only 37% of people that get into caltech actually go?
and only 68% for MIT?</p>

<p>wow O_O</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
All I know is that the Naval Academy and Military Academy are the two hardest LAC's to get accepted to (14% and 16% respectively) and they have very VERY high yield rates, which I don't understand why the service academies take a back seat in almost any elite college discussion because the numbers are there folks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Probably because acceptance rates alone don't tell the whole story. The service academy classes are relatively tiny and thus, have less spots to fill. If you compare their average SAT scores and GPAs versus those from the true elite schools, they actually fall short and are more in the range of the top 25-30-ish. Of course, this is not to say that the top grads of the academies aren't superstars -- they are. The number of Rhodes Scholars selected each year is proof of that. It's more a statement of the average academy grad vs. an average grad from an elite university.
Yield is extremely high for the obvious reason of self-selection.</p>

85

<p>

Oh, xiggi, PLEASE--gimme a break! These kinds of minor inconsistencies happen at EVERY school. A difference of about 20 admits/matriculants out of a pool of over 22,500 applicants--or 9/100 of a percent--on 2 different pages of the web site hardly constitutes the kind of fraud or chicanery by Penn that you're alleging. These 2 web pages serve completely different functions, and the data on the general Penn "Facts and Figures" page was no doubt put together before the final tally at the beginning of the Fall semester, which takes into account the final number of waiting list admits and the final number of freshmen who actually show up on campus to begin classes. This descrepancy occurs at EVERY school, and is known in the admissions world as "summer melt". Clearly, a passing mention on a general "Facts and Figures" page about the entire university (including grad and professional schools), is not the same as the extensive and detailed admissions data set forth on the official undergraduate admissions page.</p>

<p>If you're going to cast aspersions on the honesty and credibility of Penn's admissions and reporting processes, you'll have to come up with something more significant and substantive than that.</p>

<p>By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite your source for the statement you allege that Stetson made about Penn's admissions numbers. I guess I'll be waiting a long time, because he never made it.</p>

86

<p>


</p>

<p>This has never been my experience with the official "Incoming Student Profile" page in the undergraduate admissions section of the Penn web site. The data has always been presented in a clear, detailed, consistent, and unchanging manner, in a format similar to the current one:</p>

<p>Penn:</a> Undergraduate Admissions: Statistics for the Class of 2011</p>

<p>I don't know where you've looked for Penn's official undergraduate admissions data in the past, but it's obviously not on the above-linked page.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
and only 68% for MIT?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You must be kidding! Only Harvard has a statistically significantly higher yield. At 69%, MIT's yield is higher than Princeton's, which has ED and in a virtual tie with Stanford and Yale at 70% who both benefit from SCEA as opposed to unrestricted EA for MIT.</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
who both benefit from SCEA as opposed to unrestricted EA for MIT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How does SCEA benefit Stanford and Yale more than EA does MIT? The only difference is that SCEA requires the student apply to only one school early, and the student isn't bound to attend, so it isn't boosting the yield rates.</p>

89

<p>Yes, SCEA does boost the yield. While not binding, SCEA programs have yields nearly as high as ED programs. Stanford and Yale claim close to 90% yields on their SCEA rounds. Unrestricted EA programs do not have the same yields as applicants typically apply to 3-4 schools at once. MIT reports an EA yield closer to 80%. If you compare reported RD yields, where schools compete head to head, you find MIT ahead of both Yale and Stanford.</p>

90

<p>It's time to dust off those nanoscopes --> splitting HYPSM hairs here...</p>

91

<p>Here is the latest update on the acceptance rates and yield rates at the USNWR Top 30 national universities and Top 20 LACs for the class of students that entered in Fall 2007. Please provide supporting documentation when posting these numbers (note: I'm hesitant to accept at face value the numbers provided via the AdmissionsConsultant website-they may be correct, but I'd prefer a more official source, eg, CDS, school web link with detail, IPEDs, collegeboard, USNWR, etc). Some colleges that don't provide a CDS may be playing some games with the numbers and may sometimes exclude certain groups of students from being counted in their institutional data. I'm with xiggi on the desire for full disclosure and wish that all colleges would be forthcoming with all of the data so that true comparisons can be made. </p>

<p>Acceptance Rate for students entering Fall 2007, Yield, College</p>

<p>na, 68% Princeton
na, 79% Harvard
na, 71% Yale
10% , 70% , Stanford
16%, 67%, U Penn
Caltech
na, 69% MIT
Duke
Columbia
35%, na U Chicago
15%, 52%, Dartmouth
Wash U
21%, 47% Cornell
14%, 55% Brown
25%, na Northwestern
Johns Hopkins
Rice
Emory
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
UC Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon
U Virginia
Georgetown
UCLA
U Michigan
USC
U North Carolina
Tufts
Wake Forest</p>

<p>Acceptance Rate for students entering Fall 2007 , Yield Rate , College</p>

<p>(Listed by highest to lowest yield)</p>

<p>19%, 45% Williams
23%, 45% Middlebury
27%, 45% W&L
17%, 42% Swarthmore
19%, 42% Bowdoin
28%, 42% Davidson
16%, 41% Claremont McK
18%, 40% Amherst
16%, 39%, Pomona
52%, 38% Smith
29%, 37% Carleton
29%, 37% Vassar
25%, 36% Haverford
27%, 35% Wesleyan
28%, 33% Hamilton
26%, 33% Colgate
36%, 31% Wellesley
32%, 31% Colby 41%, 28% Grinnell
28%, 28% Harvey Mudd
14%, na US Naval Academy
Oberlin</p>

92

<p>There are also quite a few LACs that have acceptance rates that are lower than some of the USNWR top 20 schools, such as Bucknell (30%), Bates (32%), Oberlin (34%), Holy Cross (34%), Lafayette (37%), Connecticut College (38%).</p>

93

<p>LAC and university acceptance rates and yields need to be compared with some caution. Some LACs admit more than 1/2 their class from ED + waitlist, where the yields approach 100%. That not only skews the yield numbers, but also the RD and overall admit rate.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
LAC and university acceptance rates and yields need to be compared with some caution. Some LACs admit more than 1/2 their class from ED + waitlist, where the yields approach 100%. That not only skews the yield numbers, but also the RD and overall admit rate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While adding the numbers of students accepted via the waiting list might add a slightly different dimension, here are the numbers for the class of 2010 at the top LACs. The first list is ranked by the percentage of students admitted over the final enrollment. Please note that percentage is not 100% accurate since not every student admitted via binding ED ends up attending. </p>

<p>The second table lists the percentage of ADMISSION under the ED at the same schools.</p>

<p>2010 LACs by ED/ENROLLMENT</p>

<p>49% 48% Hamilton
46% 47% Colby
44% 51% Colgate
44% 57% Davidson
42% 37% Swarthmore
42% 35% WAS/LEE
41% 31% Bowdoin
41% 44% Wesleyan
41% 39% Williams
38% 49% Carleton
38% 43% Vassar
38% 28% Middlebury
35% 21% Pomona
32% 42% Haverford
31% 80% Grinnell
28% 31% Amherst
27% 30% CMC
24% 78% Smith
24% 37% Mudd
22% 55% Wellesley</p>

<p>2010 LACs by ED Admission Rate
31% 80% Grinnell
24% 78% Smith
44% 57% Davidson
22% 55% Wellesley
44% 51% Colgate
38% 49% Carleton
49% 48% Hamilton
46% 47% Colby
41% 44% Wesleyan
38% 43% Vassar
32% 42% Haverford
41% 39% Williams
24% 37% Mudd
42% 37% Swarthmore
42% 35% WAS/LEE
28% 31% Amherst
41% 31% Bowdoin
27% 30% CMC
38% 28% Middlebury
35% 21% Pomona</p>

<p>Fwiw, I still do not understand what the exercise of measuring the yield as a single element is supposed to reveal.</p>

95

<p>Berkeley and UCLA yields for 2007:
Berkeley - 42.6%
UCLA - 39.3%
<a href="http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/froshsirs_table3.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/froshsirs_table3.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Berkeley and UCLA freshman admit rates for 2007:
Berkeley - 24.8% (8926 admitted out of 36,023 applicants)
UCLA - 23.6% (10,311 admitted out of 43,637 applicants)
<a href="http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/fall+2007+app_table+5.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/fall+2007+app_table+5.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/fall_2007_admissions_table_c.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/fall_2007_admissions_table_c.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

96

<p>
[quote]
Here is the latest update on the acceptance rates and yield rates at the USNWR Top 30 national universities and Top 20 LACs for the class of students that entered in Fall 2007. Please provide supporting documentation when posting these numbers (note: I'm hesitant to accept at face value the numbers provided via the AdmissionsConsultant website-they may be correct, but I'd prefer a more official source, eg, CDS, school web link with detail, IPEDs, collegeboard, USNWR, etc). Some colleges that don't provide a CDS may be playing some games with the numbers and may sometimes exclude certain groups of students from being counted in their institutional data. I'm with xiggi on the desire for full disclosure and wish that all colleges would be forthcoming with all of the data so that true comparisons can be made.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hawkette, if you are not prepared to accept the numbers posted on the various websites, you may as well punt your current project and start it again in a few months. Simply stated, you will not find the numbers for the Class of 2011 at IPEDS or USNews until the underlying data is uploaded by the schools. And, as we know, a few CDS will remain MIA. </p>

<p>This will be the best you can get for some time to come.</p>

97

<p>xiggi,
Again, many thanks on all of the data. Re the thread and the overall usefulness of measuring yield by itself, I agree that it is but one data point. I was/am interested to see how the various colleges compare and gauge if this is a proper reflection of a college's appeal among college matriculates. </p>

<p>Re the data gathering, clearly the CDS is the official word of the universities and the best source for the public. Colleges that don't publicly provide their CDS really do open themselves up for questioning as to the purity and accuracy of the data that they provide on their websites and even in their submissions to USNWR, collegeboard.com, and others. I understand a college's willingness to control information and its image, but I fear that sometimes colleges withhold information on various student sub-groups and thereby boost their reported institutional numbers. To avoid this, a publicly-available CDS would provide the best supporting evidence. The great majority of those that I have included above have a history of publishing their CDS and thus their websites and/or excerpts from their college newspapers will ultimately be validated (or not) when the CDS is released. </p>

<p>Re the yield data itself, different folks may reach different conclusions on this, but I think it is clear that only a few colleges have mighty appeal and draw (HYPSM). The non-HYP Ivies also have undeniably strong brand appeal (see the low acceptance rates and still high yield rates) and the U Penn folks certainly have a strong argument to make for inclusion in the top group as their acceptance and yield numbers are similarly impressive. After that, the results (including for the LACs) are more mixed and not as conclusive. </p>

<p>The results thus far support the idea that only a few colleges have universal strength across the country and, after that, there is much more Balkanization depending on location, type of college (eg, engineering or some other major focus), type of applicant, etc. My conclusion is that, after the very tip-top tier of colleges which most students will make their top choice if accepted, there is another group of colleges that are difficult to get accepted into, but which have comparatively weaker brand power. I'll be interested to read the thoughts of others on this.</p>

98

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley and UCLA freshman admit rates for 2007:
Berkeley - 24.8% (8926 admitted out of 36,023 applicants)
UCLA - 23.6% (10,311 admitted out of 43,637 applicants)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ooops! Those applicant numbers were just CA freshmen...I forgot to include OOS freshmen applicants:</p>

<p>Therefore, admit rates for freshmen in 2007 were:
Berkeley - 20.3% (8,926 admitted out of 44,077 applicants)
UCLA - 20.4% (10,311 admitted out of 50,667 applicants)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/fall+2007+app_table+3.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/fall+2007+app_table+3.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

99

<p>UCBChemEGrad,
I see 10,087 as the number of UC Berkeley admits and 11,819 to UCLA. Where are the numbers you are citing?</p>

100

<p>^ <a href="http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/froshsirs_table3.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2007/froshsirs_table3.pdf&lt;/a>
Err, stupid UC...typical to make things complicated. The numbers you quoted and in the table above are only freshman admits to the fall term...so, those admit numbers are lower. Therefore, those yield percentages are slightly off as well because they don't include the spring admits.</p>

<p>I'm still looking for where I found those numbers...I didn't pull em out of thin air...</p>