Admissions Yields - class of 2014

[JohnAdams12]

<p>PAbank, wrong again</p>

<p>many many students apply to Penn ED, not because it would be their first choice, but because they believe that by applying ED to Penn it would be the only Ivy that they would get acceted to, considering the 30% ED acceptance rate at Penn.</p>

<p>

that might be the case with some students…but they are in the very small minority

</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>cellar, maybe you fail to understand that MIT cannot control how many of its EA accepted students matriculate.</p>

<p>It is one thing for MIT to want to control the percent of students from EA in each class, it is another thing for it to occur.</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>

[PABank]

<p>^and can you show the stats to back it up? Using the word “many” is very ambiguous.
I would guess maybe 10% of the ED class applies ED because they think it gives them better chances (which it really doesn’t in reality); the reason that the Ed acceptance rate is higher is because of the athletes and legacies.</p>

<p>No matter what the percentage is, it is nowhere close to 50%. And definitely not 100% as the your data implies…</p>

<p>but nice try…</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>PABank, thanks for admitting that Penn’s ED accepted students are of lower academic quality than the RD accepted students.</p>

<p>

the reason that the Ed acceptance rate is higher is because of the athletes and legacies

</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>PAbank, please provide links to support your statement here</p>

<p>

I would guess maybe 10% of the ED class applies ED because they think it gives them better chances (which it really doesn’t in reality);

</p>

[PABank]

<p>Im guessing you changed the subject because you realized you were wrong?</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>PAbank, wrong about what?</p>

<p>what subject was changed and what post was used to change the subject?</p>

<p>why don’t you post clearly here?</p>

<p>

Im guessing you changed the subject because you realized you were wrong?

</p>

[PABank]

<p>[Penn</a> Admissions: Applying Early Decision](<a href=“http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/applying/early.php]Penn”>http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/applying/early.php)
provides the reasoning for applying ED to Penn–“first college choice”</p>

<p>There is no way to know the number that apply because they think they have a better chance of being admitted…</p>

<p>But because you created a table, and used statistics which imply 100% of ED applicants dont actually have Penn as their “first college choice,” the burden of proof lies on you to show that indeed 100% of Penn ED students would rather go elsewhere given the opportunity.</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>PAbank, what in the world are you talking about?</p>

<p>this is the title of my table:</p>

<p>“Class of 2014 - Admissions Yield for Regular Decision Applicants”</p>

<p>nothing more nothing less</p>

<p>you are welcome to conclude whatever you want from it</p>

<p>so stop with your nonsense here</p>

<p>

Penn Admissions: Applying Early Decision
provides the reasoning for applying ED to Penn–“first college choice”</p>

<p>There is no way to know the number that apply because they think they have a better chance of being admitted…</p>

<p>But because you created a table, and used statistics which imply 100% of ED applicants dont actually have Penn as their “first college choice,” the burden of proof lies on you to show that indeed 100% of Penn ED students would rather go elsewhere given the opportunity.

</p>

[PABank]

<p>Well…</p>

<p>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>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>PABank, let me help you a little</p>

<p>this is the title of my table:</p>

<p>“Class of 2014 - Admissions Yield for Regular Decision Applicants”</p>

<p>nothing more nothing less</p>

<p>you are welcome to conclude whatever you want from it</p>

<p>so stop with your nonsense here</p>

<p>

Well…</p>

<p>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>

[PABank]

<p>I guess those statistics classes at PU were “nonsense” also…</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>PABank, listen, stop with the attacks</p>

<p>the yield for students accepted RD at Penn for the class of 2014 is about 48%</p>

<p>so live with it</p>

<p>nothing you say is going to change that FACT!</p>

<p>

I guess those statistics classes at PU were “nonsense” also…

</p>

[PABank]

<p>JohnAdams12, listen, stop with the attacks</p>

<p>Your statistics have glaring omissions </p>

<p>so live with it</p>

<p>nothing you say is going to change that FACT!</p>

[MSauce]

<p>I’ve tried to stay out of the practice of critiquing other peoples completely made up statistics. But JohnAdams, because many of the recruited Athletes at schools that offer SCEA/EA/RD are in those pools, you are completely discounting them. On the other hand, an athlete who is recruited will still apply to Princeton RD, but receive a Likely Letter, which is close to the same thing as being admitted SCEA or just EA.</p>

<p>So in order to get a closer realistic Yield rate–and even then, you’re not tackling the problem of the bias against schools for completely discounting their earlier admitted students–you’d have to find some way to count out the athletes at Harvard and Princeton.</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>PABank, why don’t you prove to us what “glaring omissions” there are in Penn’s RD yield being around 48% for the class of 2014?</p>

<p>stop with the attacks</p>

<p>stop with the false statements</p>

<p>

JohnAdams12, listen, stop with the attacks</p>

<p>Your statistics have glaring omissions </p>

<p>so live with it</p>

<p>nothing you say is going to change that FACT!

</p>

[xiggi]

<p>You guys are pretty funny! People who pay me good money to compile this information are much less demanding, and a lot less doubting! </p>

<p>

xiggi, any thoughts as to why you FAILED to include what year you are talking about here?

</p>

<p>Any thoughts why I … failed? FAILED in capital letters? Heck, am I supposed to go dig all your numbers and provide full citations for every number? Or perhaps, I should have written from THE previous year! However, how hard was it to check the SCEA admissions for Yale and Stanford and see that the 689 and 742 admits were statistics of the Class of 2013? I assume that you’d know those numbers as they are the most recent official numbers published. </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>Ah, Celler, when looking for ED numbers a good source is the CDS form. However, schools that offer EA tend to leave that section blank, On the other hand, EA numbers are often reported to the College Board as part of the many annual surveys. </p>

<p>In this case, check this: </p>

<p>[College</a> Search - Massachusetts Institute of Technology - MIT - Admission](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)
Make sure you click on the admission button and look in the third section.</p>

<p>Early Decision & Early Action
Early decision and early action plans let you apply early to colleges, but there are different rules for each plan. See Help for more information.</p>

<p>Plan(s) available:
Early action - not restrictive
Number of early action applications received: 4,681
Number admitted under early action plan: 540
Number enrolled under early action plan: 372</p>

<p>You’ll see that the information is consistent with what you had. By the way, here’s something worth nothing as well. The 64% yield by MIT is not evenly distributed along gender lines. The yield for males is 69% and the yield for the ladies is a full 10 point lower at 59%) Oh, and before the Number Police issues me another citation for lack thereof (pun intended) here is the source: <a href=“College Navigator - Search Results”>College Navigator - Massachusetts Institute of Technology;

<p>HTH</p>

[PABank]

<p>@Msauce- you would also have to count out the kids at Harvard and Princeton who would have applied to the respective schools ED, were the opportunity there…which is all but impossible</p>

<p>@YawnAdams12- I pointed out the omissions in posts #136 and #150. For the sake of other posters, i wont repost a second time</p>

<p>stop with the attacks</p>

<p>stop with the false statements</p>

[cellardweller]

<p>

cellar, maybe you fail to understand that MIT cannot control how many of its EA accepted students matriculate.

</p>

<p>Thanks for your insight, I thought yield was something you just decreed!</p>

<p>The fact remains that MIT by policy has a 30% EA target which they have been able to keep pretty close to achieving year after year. The EA admits jumped dramatically from 390 to 522 the first year Harvard dropped SCEA, expecting far more applicants who would previously have applied to Harvard EA to now apply MIT instead, thereby negatively affecting the EA yield which is exactly what happened. This was entirely attributed to the effect on yield of the Harvard and Princeton admission policy changes. </p>

<p>here is a post from the Admissions office on the MIT web site:
[MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: “Odds & Ends”](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/misc/miscellaneous/odds_ends_2.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/misc/miscellaneous/odds_ends_2.shtml)

390 –> 522
I’ve been noticing lots of speculation all over the web about the reasons behind our increasing the number of EA admits from last year’s 390 to this year’s 522. Fear not, we have no plans to increase the class size, nor are we abandoning the principle of enrolling a maximum of one third of our class in EA.</p>

<p>Recent changes in the early application policies of some of our peer institutions have increased the number of outstanding applications to MIT and to many other highly selective schools. Each university’s yield (the percentage of students who accept their offer of admission) is predicted to decrease accordingly, and the increase in the number of students admitted to MIT in Early Action is simply a reflection of this.

</p>

<p>With EA admits increasing from 390 in 2007 to 522 in 2008, the EA yield dropped from nearly 80% in 2007 to 61% in 2008.<br>
With MIT in its third year under this new competitive landscape, there is no way MIT would miss their EA target that dramatically and suddenly have over 40% of the class from EA. They just need more EA admits to fill the same 30% of the class.</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>University of Pennsylvania Class of 2014 Yield for Regular Decision Admitted Students</p>

<p>ED Applications = 3,842
ED Acceptances = 1,150
ED Matriculated = 1,115*</p>

<p>Total Acceptances = 3,830
Total Matriculated = 2,413</p>

<p>RD Acceptances = 2,680
RD Matriculated = 1,298
RD Yield = 48%</p>

<hr>

<p>*assuming 97% ED yield</p>