<p>Berkeley’s yield overall fell this year because it admitted more OOS students. International yield was 50% while domestic OOS students was 28%, which isn’t to bad for a school that basically has discouraged OOS students. Overall if my calculations are correct overall yield, which inlcudes Spring admits was approximately 40%, but for fall 2010 it may be in the high 30s because Spring I’ve heard has a higher yield.</p>
<p>First-year (freshman) students enrolled in Fall 2009 who submitted national
standardized (SAT/ACT) test scores.</p>
<p>SAT Critical Reading 590 710
SAT Math 640 760
SAT Writing 610 720</p>
<p>Changes 2010 from 2009</p>
<p>Reading: +30 and +30
Math: +10 and +10
Writing: same </p>
<p>It’d be interesting to see the CDS for the Class of 2014 and see if the increase is a real one or a difference between admitted and enrolled students.</p>
<p>It appears that they mean matriculating students because SIRs were due on May 1st. It says Fall 2010 Freshmen Profile which I doubt they would base off admitted student profiles and it says this is current as of 5/14/2010 right under the stats which is two weeks after SIRs are due. Also the writing increased it is not the same. </p>
<p>Fall 2010 Freshman Profile*
SAT Reasoning Test scores
(25th % 75th percentiles) </p>
<p>Reading: 620-740
Math: 650-770
Writing: 640-750
Average unweighted GPA </p>
<p>3.93
Average weighted GPA </p>
<p>4.39</p>
<ul>
<li>Based on Office of Undergraduate Admissions data; enrollment estimate as of 5/14/10</li>
</ul>
<p>“I don’t think you understand how HYP works.”</p>
<p>You’re right. I didn’t know that an abbreviation for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton did any “work,” much less how.</p>
<p>I do understand that it takes a long time for popular opinion to change much, but it does happen. Stanford came along out of nowhere so to speak and moved into the public consciousness as a top, top school. And I also realize that Dartmouth has a ways to go before it can join that level of public fame. But I am surprised by both Dartmouth’s and Princeton’s nearly equal yield numbers - with the two schools moving in opposite directions. Something is happening there.</p>
<p>Penn’s yield is impressive to be sure, but it stand zero chance of ever moving into the same level of public acclaim, because to much of the man-on-the-street public it is misperceived as a state college.</p>
<p>Public perception is one thing, but your original post implied that you thought HYP is regulated by yields. This, as I’ve pointed out in the case of Penn, is completely false. Regardless, it is also in disregard of the fact that Dartmouth still uses ED as a significant crutch for its high yield and low acceptance rate, while Princeton shed that three admissions cycles ago (though not without ‘consequences’).</p>
<p>Also, Dartmouth’s public acclaim to the average person is probably not significantly different from UPenn’s and certainly not near HYP’s.</p>
<p>So what you’re saying is that Harvard is universally powerful and attractive for admitted students, while Princeton is not nearly at that level but still had the courage and good will to shed its early decision program, which is widely considered a tool of the wealthy?</p>
<p>^^Where did I say anything remotely like that? What I meant to suggest was that Princeton, which makes up a part of the HYP trinity and enjoys a lofty spot up in the public’s esteem, may not able to explain away all of its still-declining yield due to dropping early admissions several years ago. Since taking that same action hasn’t slowed Harvard up much. </p>
<p>If, on the other hand, Princeton is really so much weaker and lowlier than Harvard that it isn’t nearly so attractive to students without an ED crutch, then maybe it is indeed time to drop it out of the HYP abbreviation and replace it with a school on the way up. I’d suggest Stanford.</p>
<p>Haha, the above posts all seem to be borrowed from a late night bar conversation at an Ivy League college enrollment specialists’ convention.</p>
<p>Just a few things … I hope you remember that Princeton was the IL school that relied the MOST on ED before deciding to follow the 800 lbs gorilla in having only a RD round. Before that Princeton filled almost 50% of its class via ED. P’s biggest surprise must have been that Yale continued to align itself with Stanford as opposed to establish a true triuvirate at the pinnacle of higher education. Harvard, as we know, decided to drop early admissions because they can get away with almost anything, and that they knew their predatory move would brinh havoc to the schools below them. Courage has nothing to do with those decision. Not for H and not for P! </p>
<p>I also hope you remember that while ED is a yield crutch, so is the use of large waitlist. There is a reason why schools love to use … both --read Duke and Penn! </p>
<p>As far as HYP becoming HYD, the answer does not come from yield equalization. It will come from increased selectivity. And in this domain, Dartmouth STILL has to jump a couple of schools before claiming a seat at the top. This said, an admit rate falling from 18% to close to single digits will help, especially since it will be hard to increase the number of ED admits next year. </p>
<p>I transferred from Cornell to Stanford back in the seventies. They were ranked then about where they’re ranked now. I frankly didn’t think there was much difference between the two. </p>
<p>People on this board greatly exagerate the extent to which their lives will be changed by attending one school versus another. The fact is that whatever school you decide to attend, you will be you. You will bring whatever traits (dilligence, intelligence, whatever) you had when you left high school to whatever college you attend. </p>
<p>If you to to a slightly more competitive college, those traits will likely place you slightly lower in your class than they would have placed in a slightly less competitive class.</p>
<p>Admissions officers at the next level (grad school, biz school, law school, medical school, dental school, vet school, or whatever) are well acquainted with that fact, and make allowances for it.</p>
Whooooa there, fella. It isn’t the size of a waitlist that makes it a yield crutch–it’s the extent of its use. Penn accepted less than 100 applicants from its waitlist in 2009, 170 in 2008 and only 65 in 2007:</p>
<p>Given that Penn’s peers have have been admitting similar–or even greater–numbers from their waitlists over the last 3 years, Penn’s waitlist use hardly qualifies as a yield crutch. Especially when the significantly larger size of Penn’s entering class is taken into account.</p>
<p>Use of ED as a yield crutch? Guilty as charged. Use of the waitlist as a crutch? Not guilty! :)</p>
<p>And by the way, I believe that the next round of drinks is on YOU. :p</p>
<p>It could be. The idea behind using a huge waitlist is that it creates the illusion of selectivity without bearing the risks of rejecting overqualified applicants. By keeping a humongous waitlist, a school increases the chances of finding students who it (incorrectly) assumed would’ve gone to more selective or prestigious institution. In other words, if these overwaitlisted applicants stay on the waitlist, presumably they weren’t accepted by the more selective or prestigious institutions or, for whatever reasons, chose not to go there. This is the charge levied against Penn, Duke and perhaps the worst offender of all, WashU. To Penn’s credit, it decreased its waitlist this year (but given the size of its WL last year, this isn’t saying much) while Duke increased its WL and WashU doesn’t even release its WL #'s. (Estimates of the size of WashU’s WL go up to 10,000, so it is definitely not in its interest to reveal its #'s, which is probably why it doesn’t.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “size” argument is a weak one. The size of Penn’s WL is approximately 3x higher than that of some of its ivy peers, but the size of its class isn’t.</p>