<p>Topic, i just am curious what the yield will be this year!</p>
<p>In UChi’s own words: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1336046-waitlist-notifications.html#post14339612[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1336046-waitlist-notifications.html#post14339612</a></p>
<p>Oh, sweet, thank you!</p>
<p>Harvard claims an 81% yield.
[Harvard</a> Yield for Class of 2016 Soars to 81% | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/10/admissions-yield-2016-action/]Harvard”>Harvard Yield for Class of 2016 Soars to 81% | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>MIT has a 70% yield for this year.
[No</a> ?16s to come from waitlist - The Tech](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N24/admissions.html]No”>http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N24/admissions.html) </p>
<p>Northwestern’s yield for the class of 2016 is approaching 43%, jumped from last year’s 38% and 33% two years before.
[Class</a> of 2016 has record yield - Campus - The Daily Northwestern - Northwestern University](<a href=“http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/campus/class-of-2016-has-record-yield-1.2739814#.T60vY1Jc3CM]Class”>http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/campus/class-of-2016-has-record-yield-1.2739814#.T60vY1Jc3CM)</p>
<p>UChicago should have 48~50% this year? I am sure UChicago admissions office should have the number of the students who
committed on or before May 1.</p>
<p>To add to the list, there’s Dart at 49.5%:</p>
<p>[TheDartmouth.com:</a> 1,080 accept offers of admission](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2012/05/07/news/yield]TheDartmouth.com:”>http://thedartmouth.com/2012/05/07/news/yield)</p>
<p>3344 were offered admission at Chicago for a targeted 1400 or so spaces. Last year’s yield was about 39%. 1400/3344 = 41.9%. At 1500 accepting, there is a problem for housing. This likely cuts into transfer admissions and causes at housing crunch, including delaying housing for upperclassmen. Every 100 students over an approx. 42% yield adds 3%. So at 45% yield, the administration would be in panic mode, in which it seems they are.</p>
<p>However at 48% yield or approx. 1600 accepting, there would be indications of a state of red alert. For example, there would be an immediate need to plan on downsizing the 2017 class below 1400. In which case, there would be no “gap year” offers made to people on the WL.</p>
<p>So, the final yield number should be about 44%, after attrition and “gap year” offer refusals. In other words, about 1-2% above NU but still below Dartmouth.</p>
<p>For Upenn class of 2016, yield is 63.3%, page A14, the Daily Pennsylvanian.</p>
<p><a href=“http://thedp.com/media/00/00/02/51/25100_0511pdfo.pdf[/url]”>http://thedp.com/media/00/00/02/51/25100_0511pdfo.pdf</a></p>
<p>I suspect that Chicago’s yield stayed flat this year but we shall see. If Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Northwestern, etc. went up, then the yield of some other elite schools must have gone down.</p>
<p>^^Here’s hoping :), says the parent of an incoming first-year…</p>
<p>Goldenboy, Your logic sounds plausible but your numbers seem suspect. With a 39% yield (based on your suspicion of Chicago being flat this year), the 3344 acceptances would result in a class of 1304, this against a presumed target of 1400 (~42% yield). Based on all the chatter about Chicago being oversubscribed for the class of 2016, the yield is probably up 5% or so from last year. Time will tell.</p>
<p>I’m predicting 43% or thereabouts. If all the elite schools see increases in yield, its possible that they are drawing from a more diverse talent pool than ever before.</p>
<p>there were ample indications that the the yield was much higher than what the admissions office was anticipating, and they were caught off guard, and scrambling.</p>
<p>I bet the admissions office did anticipate the yield would go up due to a very clear trend last few years (and they did have some data regarding early deposit from the EA admits already by the time they were finalizing the RD decision). Let’s say there were anticipating 41-42%. If they were surprised, then the actual yield must be over 45%. Something like, 46%??? that would be my guess. Note that almost all of Chicag0’s peers have yield boosting ED. It it is indeed something like 46%, this is a very high number for Chicago without ED.</p>
<p>James Nondorf announced while speaking at a colleague’s school that UChicago expected a yield increase of 2% but actually received one of 7%. If last year’s yield was 39%, that would make about a 46% yield this year.</p>
<p>Ignore the Dukies; they have the logical ability of high schoolers, and I don’t know why they continue to pester this forum. Yields are rising everywhere, and this is due to a lower number of cross-admits in general because of H+P’s reinstated early action.</p>
<p>Chicago’s yield likely went up to the upper 40’s, which the university SHOULD have been expecting due to a number of factors, but apparently wasn’t. At 47% yield (40% last year + 7% this year), this means that >1570 people have accepted the university’s offer of admission. That’ll likely dip a little bit due to summer melt, but likely not below 1500. That means more than 150 more students than what the University was supposedly aiming for.</p>
<p>In any case, a 47% yield means that Chicago’s really killing in cross-admits this year. Other schools have yield-boosting ED which is inflating their numbers. Schools like Duke/NU are only winning about 30% of the students they admit who aren’t binded to the school. For Chicago to have 47% of un-binded students willing to commit means that Chicago is pretty much dominating other schools for cross-admits. If it moved to ED (which I’ve never recommended), it could easily have a 60%-ish yield, which would put it in the same league as Penn and Columbia and leagues ahead of NU/Duke. This is where the institution aims to be at, so it’s nice to see.</p>
<p>Given that there are currently over 1600 students in the facebook group, those numbers make sense.</p>
<p>Penn accepts a much higher proportion of its class ED, so that is not a valid comparison.</p>
<p>give it a rest happyman. you are haunting this board with an exclusive purpose of trashing the school no matter what the subject matter is. You are losing all credibility.</p>
<p>I don’t know what your underlying psychological issue is. People who are happy and well adjusted in their own life do not spend this kind of inordinate time to trash other people’s choices.</p>
<p>Grow up a little. Live a little.</p>
<p>phuriku, I’ve been follow your posts for quite sometime and you seem to consistently bash Duke and elevate Chicago above its true peer group (which includes Duke and the “Lower Ivies”). I’ll admit that Chicago has seen some unparalleled growth and has still has potential, but at this point in time, it is by no means “leagues” ahead of Duke. All cross admit data I’ve seen puts Duke ahead of Chicago. At best, Chicago’s yield against Duke is 40 to 60 ( Parchment shows 37 to 63.) I know there are some flaws to self reported data, but at the very least, it shows that students aren’t as keen to chosing Chicago as you think. </p>
<p>Chicago’s lay prestige and prestige among high school students lags behind the Ivies and Duke. While I see this changing over the next few years, these things take time and Chicago definitely has not caught up yet. Like you said in previous posts, Chicago’s prestige amongst high school students isn’t nearly as much as among “people in the know”. This is probably true, but remember, its ultimately these high schooler who are deciding where to go. </p>
<p>While Chicago’s yield is higher than Dukes when taking into consideration EA/ED, I suspect it is mostly due to the fact that Chicago accepts students that are quite different from the Ivy, Duke, Stanford, MIT crowd and not necessarily because it wins more cross admits against these schools than they lose. Simply put, Chicago’s student body is just different - an aspect of the school that many Chicago students are proud of.</p>
<p>So phruiku, please stop trying to elevate Chicago above Duke and into HYPSM territory. Constantly seeing your posts is starting to strike a nerve. Chicago might, and I stress might, enter HYPSM territory, but it simply is not there yet. You should be proud of where Chicago is today and stop trying to overcompensate.</p>
<p>Sent from my HTC Vision using CC</p>
<p>Is it just me or is everyone seeing higher-than-normal number of trolls on this forum whose sole purpose is to trash every aspect of this school? Jealous much? Me think so.</p>
<p>In what way is saying that Chicago’s peer group includes Duke and acknowledging that it has potential to grow trashing the school. Get off your high horse, just because someone doesn’t acknowledge Chicago as leagues ahead of Duke and the lower ivies doesn’t mean they are trolling.</p>
<p>Sent from my HTC Vision using CC</p>
<p>Wasn’t referring to you, but I am grateful that you read what I wrote. Please follow the conversation above. :)</p>