<p>
</p>
<p>The dips/stabilizations aren’t totally related to a single preference category. Recruited athletes don’t represent the only non-academic leaning (ethnicity, bloodline, etc. form others). </p>
<p>Even then, the Revealed Preference Rankings paper illustrated that strategic admissions practices cannot simply be attributed to the non-quantitative criteria. The concept of “Tufts Syndrome” – vernacular for yield protection – is genuine. Universities must have a practical understanding of their public preference standings, particularly among universities of roughly the same selectivity tier. The institutions which engage in selective practices will attempt to strike a balance between the academic strength of their students and the number they will realistically be able to enroll. Even with preference categories factored into the evaluation, it would make little sense for the very best universities (i.e., top-tier selectivity) to choose the strongest applicants. Due to significant applicant pool overlap at schools of similar levels of selectivity, there would be significant competition for the same students given schools are essentially looking for the same qualities in their applicants. Students lower down the scale stand a lesser chance of obtaining multiple competing offers at that selectivity level and are thereby more apt to enroll than students admitted higher on the list. To an extent, the increased yield percentage is viewed as adequate compensation for the quality decrease by admitting the lesser candidates. The trick is in finding the middle ground. Since standardized testing has a high predictive value in admissions results, such tactical behavior manifests in the decreased sensitivity to test scores at the “mid-range” values. </p>
<p>Any discrepancies in the data among admissions rates at each scoring echelon can be attributed to relative leanings and sensitivity to the yield-applicant strength balance, public preference standing, and the prioritization and general admissions approach toward non-academic qualifications.</p>