<p>“Last year, 80 percent of students admitted under Yale’s early action program chose to enroll, a drop from about 88 percent in prior years. Still, because 885 students were accepted during the early round, more than half of the matriculating class of 2012 was composed of students admitted early.”</p>
<p>MIT’s EA yield is currently around 60% from a high of over 85% prior to Harvard and Princeton eliminating SCEA and ED. </p>
<p>MIT’s policy is to admit no more than a third of the class through EA. This year MIT made 590 EA offers for a target of 360 acceptances or a yield of 61%. This is an increase from 540 in 2009, 522 in 2008 and a low of 390 in 2007. </p>
<p>This effectively means the MIT 2010 RD yield was 67%, about 6% higher than the EA yield.</p>
<p>If I understand your post #116 correctly, your “adjusted” RD yield is also kinda distorting in the sense that schools get zero credit from their EA/ED pools.</p>
<p>While I let others fight over the yield at MIT, here are some real numbers that could help settle the “dispute”. It should be pretty easy to plug in the year in which Harvard and Princeton dropped their early admission round. </p>
<p>MIT Class of 2013</p>
<p>CLAS TYPE ADM ENRO YIELD WL ENRO
2013 ALL 1676 1072 63.96% 78
2013 EA 540 372 68.89%<br>
2013 RD 1136 700 61.62% </p>
<p>And, as the debate rages on, perhaps it is time to again ask yourself why there is such focus on the yield statistics. Is there a real reason why students and families pay any attention to this statistic that remains meaningless for everyone, except college enrollment specialists and bragadocious alumni? Fwiw, when looking at the EA and REA statistics, there is more of a story in the admission rates. Comparing Stanford and MIT to some of their peers is … more indicative. MIT receiving about 5,700 EA applications AND accepting fewer than 600 … that is a story!</p>
<p>xiggi, thanks for the citation. In that case, perhaps a figure of 70% for MIT and a figure of 80% for Yale is more appropriate. While pre-Class of 2012 statistics suggest closer to 88%, this is because Harvard and Princeton ended their early programs that year.</p>
<p>Still not sure about Stanford, though probably 80% (similar to Yale) is appropriate.</p>
<p>Uroogla Post #120: You help make my point. JohnAdams’ numbers may be high. His numbers may be low. The fundamental problem is his numbers are not correct. They are made up numbers. I think Princeton is the greatest school in the universe. There is no need to make up statistics to support it. </p>
<p>In reading through CC posts, the biggest problem I see (particularly on specific school forums) is that people present their opinions as facts. They make up stuff, they guess at stuff, they estimate stuff, and present it as factual information.</p>
<p>The reason I liked JohnAdams so much was that he supported his claims with links to solid sources. Because of this I feel John prevailed in most of his debates. This yield list was a step backward.</p>
<p>Since you seem interested in adding to your tables, here are a few datapoints from a previous year. At the end, you will reach the conclusion that there is a difference between REA (as in SCEA) and straight EA. </p>
<p>SCEA/EA ADMIT ENROL YLD
Stanford 689 547 79.39%
Yale Uni 742 574 77.36%
Chicago 1369 585 42.73%</p>
<p>While I agree that there is a difference between EA and SCEA, I don’t think the above dataset proves this. Stanford and Yale are way above Chicago. Maybe a dataset comparing Stanford and Yale with MIT and Caltech could prove your point?</p>
<p>JA12…its just ridiculous to compare regular decision yields that way.</p>
<p>A kids who has Penn as his first choice will apply there ED. Thus giving a “100% yield” for that kid. You completely remove him from the equation when you remove ED applicants.</p>
<p>A kid who has Princeton as his first choice will apply there RD. Thus giving a “100%” yield for that kid. You include him for your equation when you only count RD applicants.</p>
<p>Not entirely. I know of some people who applied ED to Penn where it wasn’t their “true first-choice” but rather their “settled first-choice.” Had they applied RD and gotten into HYP as well, they would not have chosen Penn</p>
<p>I don’t know where xiggi got the 372 EA matriculants from the 540 EA admits to MIT last year as I could not find the source. That would be nearly 35% of the class coming from the EA round. That is much higher than the 30% target.</p>
<p>Unless MIT vastly miscalculated this year, there is no way they would ever want to get 40% of their class to come from the EA round. The Admissions Office has admitted an erosion of the EA yield after Harvard dropped SCEA and the school has had to increase the number of EA admits to compensate. They took in as few as 392 EA admits in 2008, the last year before Harvard dropped EA. </p>
<p>At most MIT should expect 350-370 students to come from EA for a 65-66% RD yield.</p>