Best CS Undergrad colleges

Applying to College
103

kind of same but more precise for better reach

104

Maybe you would like moderator help changing the other thread title, or merging the two? Since you already got a lot of advice in that thread, I expect people will not want to repeat themselves.

1 Like
105

Not sure how to do that, I will delete this one if I dont get enough answers

108

Threads merged.

2 Likes
109

It is all a bit unclear, and not an issue with which I’ve concerned myself to be honest. I guess my original point was that no college is going to say or admit, “yeah, we turned down students who fit the bill here perfectly and would have been admitted except for the fact that we expected them to turn us down for a more attractive option.”

Entire wars have been fought in this forum about Case Western on this very topic. Piles of evidence proffered by entirely objective parents who were quite sure that their darling child would have been admitted but for the fact that he or she was just too darned special for the good people at CWR to believe they could ever realize the dream of that student choosing them over other schools with bigger names.

What am I supposed to do with all of this evidence? How did “Tufts Syndrome” ever become common parlance in the admissions talk?

110

The thing that’s interesting is that there are always plenty of examples of students with the same stats that are accepted. There may be something untoward happening, but then you have to explain why the ones who got in did.

My first exposure to this was Cal Poly. There were claims of yield protection when students got into Berkeley but not Cal Poly. The answer turned out to be far less underhanded than yield protection. First, at the time there were majors at Cal Poly that were FAR more competitive than many realized. The year my son got into ME, CS admitted 4% accounting for 33% yield.

The bigger thing is that many just didn’t read their applications and left out middle school classes that CP clearly asked for. They took a significant hit in algorithm points as a result. In the competitive majors at the time like CS, ME and BME, that little mistake was enough to make the difference.

The other thing I always go back to is why don’t schools who purportedly yield protect have better yield? Cal Poly’s has always hovered at 33%. If they yield protect, they are certainly bad at it. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like
111

This isn’t a topic on which there will ever be consensus on CC. There’re several issues:

  1. There is confusion between the practice of “yield protection” and the more common practice of yield management. Are the two practices completely distinct, or are their differences just a matter of degree? If it’s the latter, at what point does excessive yield management become “yield protection”?

  2. These practices are inherently and necessarily opaque. Colleges are being purposely vague and ambiguous. If they do practice “yield protection” and they are smart, they would do it in a way that give them plausible deniability (e.g. having some cases that do not fit a pattern).

  3. There is a subset of colleges that offer both EA and ED (and often ED2). With these colleges, it’s fairly common to see superbly qualified unhooked EA applicants deferred and then urged to switch their applications to ED2, regardless of how much interest they showed in the school. If they decline to switch (so they aren’t showing “sufficient” interest from the school’s perspective), they’re almost invariably waitlisted or denied in RD. Is that “yield protection”? I think so, but not everyone on CC agrees.

112

Please move on from debating yield protection or take it to PM. Thank you!

1 Like