Sorry pickpocket, I just don’t think that captures the situation. I see where you are coming from, but basically you are assuming the ALL the kids will get more acceptances because they applied to more places. But they are not all top kids that would get into most places. I admit, the students who apply and get into most top-end schools will naturally hurt the yields. But I don’t think that is the vast majority of students, and why HYPS are called a “reach for anybody.”
By all accounts, the number of schools that students of top caliber are applying to has indeed gone up, especially in light of common app. And logically it makes sense that tougher results from this year’s senior class will cause next year’s senior class to apply to more places in order to hedge their bets.
Look at what happened with Georgia Tech. The number of applications grew dramatically once they got on common app, and their acceptance rate has fallen like a rock. And yet their yield has remained more or less steady. Check out http://factbook.gatech.edu/admissions-and-enrollment/freshman-admissions/
"But those 4 schools know they are only going to yield 25% on this applicant and all similar ones. "
“So instead of admitting such a student at a rate of 2x the number of spots, they must now admit 4x the number of spots to fill the class.”
In the first place, colleges have NO IDEA of where else , or to how many other colleges, an applicant has also applied. They DONT have access to that information. Because of that, your premise of how yield is can be alculated is false.
So this entire exercise in what if calculations and any assumptions derived from it, are untenable from the start.
Yield is, at best, an educated guess based on history by the admissions office of how many accepted students will actually enroll. It does not move around too much because a college does NOT changing the NUMBER of acceptances they send out, regardless of how many applications they receive, unless they suddenly have more room or less room room for students than in prior years.
So if there are 2000 openings and if historically 95 % of students accept an offer of enrollment, then the college will offer acceptances to approx 2100 students, and put some others on the wait list just in case.
@menloparkmom Of course colleges don’t know for any individual applicant their precise intention/strategy/likelihood of enrolling. But in the aggregate, the colleges have a very clear picture of their yield, probably finely categorized by scores, gpa, private school, Early status, etc. They could not fill their class so predictably if this were not true. And if there is a trend for applicants to apply to 15+ schools, they must and will modify their acceptance rates accordingly.
"and if there is a trend for applicants to apply to 15+ schools, they must and will modify their acceptance rates accordingly.
I dont see why they “must and will” do anything that is not in their best interests. And I dont think they do either. This is wishful thinking.
Colleges have VERY clear pictures of the applicants who apply. And there are PLENTY of applicants that meet their acceptable standards. In fact, many top colleges have stated , over and over again, that they could accept twice as many students, if only they had room.
Colleges will make changes based on how many students actually do enroll, not be based on wishful thinking on the part of others. Its based on Statistics. Pure and simple.
In fact, Stanford this year stated it reduced the # of acceptances sent out by 400, because more students in the last couple of years have said “yes” than they thought would, and they did not want to have to scramble to find more places for incoming Freshman to stay, as they have in the recent past.
I think you are vehemently agreeing with me, @menloparkmom . Yes the colleges must and will adjust acceptance rates/criteria to most closely fill their available slots with the highest quality applicants, based on their historical data, precisely because that is in their best interest.
They dont have anything to adjust, because they have multiple candidates who are just as acceptable, who could easily take the place of any of the students they do accept.
We need to rehaul college admission and financial aid programs … as soon as we figure out what the hell is wrong with the process of presidential election.
@sorghum: The first time I learned that height is easy to adjust medically, I was horrified because the woman who told me this was a maniacal manipulator who would do anything to have her kid exert an advantage over other kids, and she was training to be a nurse. I don’t know what happened to her plan to have a doctor adjust her son’s rate of growth. (She had created some cock and bull story that sounded as though she had a sound basis for doing so. Sound to me, a layman. She also admitted that she would be doing it to make sure he grew at least as tall as his father, about 6’4".)
I believe the amazing singer Little Jimmy Scott benefited from this medical intervention rather late in his life.
@menloparkmom Generally speaking, yield has been dropping as apps go up or put another way, acceptances have been rising along with applications at most schools (but not the ones people are into on CC, as much).
Yield Rates for Public and Private 4-Year Colleges
Year Public Private
2002 51.4% 47.8%
2003 50.6% 45.7%
2004 49.1% 45.5%
2005 48.9% 44.2%
2006 47.5% 43.8%
2007 48.4% 44.2%
2008 46.2% 43.3%
2009 42.9% 38.4%
2010 42.9% 38.4%
2011 42.6% 36.4%
It has affected some schools more than others. The big ones are pretty consistent but many a rung or so down have dropped, and the overall trend is yield dropping.
This site lets you see overall and for a particular school over time:
@sorghum, you mean by amputating one’s legs? Just kidding. But yes, I know about hormonal therapy, so you are correct in that regard. I guess we can point to Michael Jackson and argue that race is not set in stone, either. However…
There is an incredible double-standard. People who claim to have gender identity crisis but do not proceed to change their gender surgically are given the same protection and “underprivileged” status as those who truly are transgender. On the other hand, Rachel Dolezal who had very clear reasons to self-identify as black (growing up in predominantly black area with AA adopted siblings), was demonized for ethics violations, fraud, etc. This tells you that in this country anyone who is considered to be “privileged” can choose to become “underprivileged” for a variety of reasons, but race is off-limits.
And it is emphatically off-limits the other way. In the US anyone with a black ancestor was black for the purposes of schools, water fountains, bus sitting location, ability to vote, etc etc etc. Being black was not a decision you were allowed to make.
In Europe in WW2 you could say you weren’t Jewish but if you had a Jewish ancestor, you were, to those in power at that time. Being Jewish was not a decision you were allowed to make.
It is sort of the ultimate privilege for Rachel D to say, hey, I’m going to identify as black. Plenty of black people have identified as white but we understood that - the desire to be able to move in our society as a white person meant significant benefits. I think the Rachel D story was such a big deal because many people were wondering why anyone white would want to be treated as if they were black.
@OHMomof2, are you absolutely sure that those who looked white and only had one of the grandparents or great-grandparents AA were equally discriminated against? Not according to the sources I read. And as for Jews, you are actually incorrect. Some were able to escape by converting to Christianity, but to most conversion was just unthinkable in their minds. When I say unthinkable, it is along the lines of “Would you kill your child to save your own life?”, i.e. so morally reprehensible, most Jews simply couldn’t fathom it. Yes, there were instances when all circumcised boys were shot regardless of their religion - especially in the Soviet Union where so many Jewish kids grew up to be atheists, but this was more of an anti-Semitic personal sentiments rather than political stance.
Neither I nor my daughter feel underprivileged in any way or deserving special treatment because of Holocaust, and Jews certainly don’t look down on anyone who want to become Jewish and be a part of the culture and history.
I can’t get into Rachel’s head to understand her true motives for wanting to be black - maybe she wanted to be more like her adoptive siblings. But to her, being black meant significant benefits in her career, didn’t it? So here comes the double-standard. You say you understand (and probably support) black people who have identified as white for their benefit, but you refuse the same courtesy to a white woman who identifies as black and benefits from it.
You can see that over 2001-2013 applications have doubled (we all agree on this). And college freshman slots have only increased slightly. But while many of you here argued that colleges send out a relatively fixed number of acceptances, in fact the number of acceptances has gone up significantly (cyan bars). This is partly due to the drop in yield, which I argue is due to kids sending out more applications than they used to.
So my point remains: while the trend of sending out 12+ applications is scary in that our kids are in a larger pool at every college admissions office, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that those colleges will actually admit a larger number of applicants to fill their class.
》》In the US anyone with a black ancestor was black for the purposes of schools, water fountains, bus sitting location, ability to vote, etc etc etc. Being black was not a decision you were allowed to make.《《
And on the same note, the white students today can’t help the fact that our great-great-grandfather owned slaves, or that our grandfather was a policeman that helped beat black Americans during race riots, etc. Assuming that ALL white people today still give black people dirty looks and hence the latter should all have an edge up in college admission is quite offensive to non-racist white people. I guess its a case of “it’s your turn to be degraded since you clearly don’t understand what others less fortunate go through.” Perhaps that isn’t what AA is about, some argue. Discrimination still happens, to be sure. But are college admissions the way to mend that problem? I don’t kmow…
It’s pretty well known that lightness matters within the black community, and I don’t doubt that people who could pass for white were treated differently than those who could not.
But what I actually aid was they were considered black (by law, society, everything that goes with that).
Yes indeed. And I am sure there were many Jewish people who could have converted and chose not to, but I am also sure that many converted and were executed/sent to camps/ghetto’ed anyway. Because the Nazis weren’t considering people to be Jewish on the basis of religion as much as they were looking at race.
Understanding why black people might wish to avoid slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws and everything else that is part of being black in the US is not very hard to understand, is it? It’s not something I support or don’t support, it’s something many black people who would get away with doing it chose to do.
@OHMomof2, I have no problems with Rachel D, either. I actually have a problem with people who have a problem with Rachel and say she had no right to identify as black.
@typiCAmom I think people who say she had no right to ID as black would probably say something different if she had a black ancestor. AFAIK, she did not. People with black and white and Asian and whatever ancestors should be able to ID as any of them, if not all of them.
It gets trickier when someone doesn’t have that ancestry at all.
Just kidding. But yes, I know about hormonal therapy, so you are correct in that regard. I guess we can point to Michael Jackson and argue that race is not set in stone, either. However…