<p>USNWR dropped yield as a factor in its rankings. </p>
<p>S2 is a case in point. The expedited App and the ease of applying is what initially attracted him. He then started receiving material from Tulane, investigated the major in which he is interested, checked out student reviews, and became a big fan. He was admitted with a scholarship. Right now Tulane is his #1 choice (even bought a sweatshirt) pending our visit later this month.</p>
<p>I agree with idad. It was the emailed personal application that initially put Tulane on our radar. When DS was denied admission to his ED school (Rice), those emailed apps with generic or non existant essay requirements from schools that had his major of interest (BME or Bioengineering) were quickly submitted. I recall the essays were more of a factor than the fee.</p>
<p>
I guess that is low enough not to make a difference.</p>
<p>I, as a senior student, am VERY VERY opposed any type of “Personal”, “Easy” application. I think all this promotes is a numbers game and you don’t really find out the persons character. I prefer a really long application where questions and essay topics really get to the meat of the person, not just the SAT/ACT GPA that fits on once piece of paper… So I would be in much support of a larger/longer application (that costs a small fee) because it truly brings out those who care or have motivation for a school. Then again I’m from a private/New England school where writing is very vital to the curriculum. I personally believe that bad yield is a DIRECT result of the personal application. Although it lowers the acceptance rate it makes the yield far worse.</p>
<p>FC-
U of Chicago started sending out “personal applications” this year, and apparently also deluged students with so much mail that they now complain about the U of C tree-killing junk mail more than the WashU tree-killing junkmail of yesteryears. So if U of C also joined the common app bandwagon this year, its hard to say what individually (probably more likely a combination of factors) contributed to the huge increase in apps. Have to wonder if the previous Director of Admissions from TU (the one who started the “personal app”) is now at U of C. Dunno. Just postulating. </p>
<p>Truth be told, TU’s “personal app” is really not much different (and really no easier) than the base part (without personal statement or essays) of the Common app. (probably also similar to the universal app- I haven’t looked) When my s applied, he started the personal app, finished the first part (the basic identifying info) sent it in, but then realized it was easier to just send them the common app, so applied that way. Still was free-- no app fee, and just the “personal statement” was required, again also requested inthe personal app, IIRC. So, while the personal app feels, well, more “personal”, it really wasnt much of a time saver.</p>
<p>While I agree that the end result for TU has been a great number of very qualified candidates, and also agree that many have looked at TU who might not have otherwise, the reality is still that only about 17 of every 100 qualified (eg accepted) candidates actually take the nod and sign on for the ride. I am just not sure thats a good enough reason to use this enrollment management strategy without a little tweaking.</p>
<p>And the $880K figure was just an example, meaning that if everyone who had applied this year had paid that amount,what the school would have gotten of they charged a token application fee. </p>
<p>While I don’t necessarily agree entirely with the need to write a bunch of essays, I do respect mongoose for his/her opinion. To some degree we get what we pay for, and the more we invest (time, energy, essays, money or whatever), the more we have invested in the outcome.</p>
<p>I do think the early notification with the early scholarship $$ is a big bonus for TU applicants. It they tweak the system- perhaps offer the personal/free app until, say a deadline of Oct 1 and promise a quick response, then charge say $25 for the personal app (if they want to keep that) until say Dec 1, then accept only the regular or universal app and maybe charge $50, they would still get the highly motivated kids at the beginning, and the bright kids who didnt get into an ED school willing to pay a fee to apply after Dec 15. Its a thought.</p>
<p>Why’d TU switch from the common app to the universal app this year?? Someone implied that it wasn’t TUs choice. Is that true?</p>
<p>From the “Applications growth” thread:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064200377-post129.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064200377-post129.html</a>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064203524-post133.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064203524-post133.html</a>
</p>
<p>Don’t know anything about the switch from common to universal app. I think the Tulane admissions person is still the same, so he didn’t go to Chicago. But these schools watch what each other does very closely, and often imitate ideas that they think fit them. If Chicago is taking Tulane’s approach, I would think that not only serves as some validation but also is quite a compliment.</p>
<p>I guess I just don’t get why having a yield of 14%, 17% or 25% makes any difference if Tulane gets a strong class of 1500 or so students. Not only have the admission stats gone up, but apparently retention and 4 year graduation rates are improving also. Is that related to the way they are doing the admissions process? I don’t know, could be lots of factors. But since the system seems to be working for Tulane, I am not sure why they would want to change it. They know they are going to get a lot of dross applications, but if they matriculate 50-100 high level students they would not have otherwise, then I think the program is a success. And I think that is exactly what is happening. Start adding essays or even fees, and Tulane will get fewer “steals” from higher ranked universities like Vandy and Emory.</p>
<p>While I appreciate what Mongoose is saying, I think we have to be realistic that Tulane is not Harvard, and students are, in fact, going to be admitted largely on the basis of test scores and GPA’s, along with recs, community service work and other EC’s. When you have a school where there are more applicants with top level stats than spaces available, then things are different. But I think a student that has years of success in the classroom and in their community is telling a school a lot about themselves already, anyway.</p>
<p>With regard to post #46, I don’t know how Chicago picks the people they offer free apps to. I know people like to speculate that it “pumps up the stats” and all, but acceptance rate is a small fraction of the ranking system IIRC and won’t help that much. I think Chicago is more likely doing it for the same reason Tulane is; they feel they will get a better incoming class in the end. Now Chicago is obviously in a different situation than Tulane regarding their ranking and the average stats of their incoming students already, but they sure aren’t doing this for no reason at all. It would take a lot to convince me it is because of USNWR because of what I already said, plus the fact that they are already rated extremely high.</p>
<p>I would also take issue that it is surrounded on all sides by ghettos and crime is way up. I was there last year and while it isn’t anything like the area Tulane is in overall, Hyde Park is obviously no slum, and it is adjacent to part of the campus. Also, when I was comparing crime reports for NOLA (Tulane area) and other schools, Chicago was one school I used. It is a bit worse than Tulane, but not dramatically so. As those of us that have been reading these posts for at least a year, there was hyperbolic language like that about Tulane and NOLA occasionally too.</p>
<p>FC,
With 44K applicants, surely there are plenty more students with top level apps than space. I think TU uses the quick response and scholarships as their way to “snag” the students from higher ranked schools (worked for us), but I am still not so convinced that the “lets get as many top applicants to apply as possible and not worry that many are not really all that serious” type thinking (I made that up just for discussion - dont mean they really think that) is the best approach, but then again, no one asked me 
Remember, they got a very very strong class 2 yrs ago with 34k applications. 10,000 more applications isnt really bringing up the quality of the students significantly. So if a modest fee or shorter window of time to do the free app nets only 34K applications, that is still pulling some darned fine students.</p>
<p>And I recall our HS college counselor, who is quite up on this stuff, mentioning in around 2006 or 7, I believe, that the adm director at TU (or the person who had spearheaded the personal app) was leaving. Cant recall exactly when that was, but I remember having that conversation with her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh sure, there are. But since Tulane knows many will go elsewhere, it is a numbers game to squeeze out a few more that choose Tulane over those other schools. It will be interesting to see what the stats for this class turn out to be. I could definitely see there being a plateau effect based on external factors.</p>
<p>^^^ Thats my point. IMO, TU might do well to focus more, now that the numbers are up, on getting those applicants to WANT to come to TU. This has nothing to do (at least for my opinion) with USNew rankings-- its about getting more students to want TU as their top choice, and not see it as a throwaway application. Its about perspective and attitude.</p>
<p>Now I am gotta try to get to finish reading the Renee Zillweger thread before having another response to read!! FC, you type fast, LOL!!</p>
<p>Couldn’t agree with you more about the focus jym. One thing I have advocated in some other posts is to copy what WUSTL does, which is to pay for the very top students to visit. It was very effective with my D. Frankly if WUSTL had offered her the same scholarship as Tulane, it would have been a very tough choice for her. They did a great job impressing her once she was there, and like I said they paid for her to get there and for her meals when she was there. I know they only do this for the top few percent of people they want to enroll, based on stats. Given how often students come away from a visit to Tulane extremely impressed, it seems like a winner to me. Your proposal to raise a few hundred thousand dollars from applications could pay for the whole program. Wow, Tulane on pay-go!</p>
<p>Chicago waives fees for lower income students. They used to do it for children of Alumni, but no longer. All schools are pulling out all stops for marketing to students. S2 received a lot of mail from Harvard and an application in the mail, though he showed absolutely no interest in the school. </p>
<p>Tulane’s yield will likely increase only as it rises in the USNWR rankings. It is sad, but likely true. They could also manipulate their wait list to increase yield as well, but it risks losing top students who are wait listed and do not accept a position on the list because of other admission offers. Tulane is doing a pretty good job in my opinion. It has a better SAT mid 50% spread than many higher ranked schools. That is a sign of admissions success.</p>
<p>^^Yep, my point exactly. It is interesting that Tulane ranks #50 in USNWR but #30 or 31 in average SAT scores. In should also be pointed out that at 1500-1550 freshman class enrollment, Tulane cannot actually afford much more yield right now. True, if as jym suggests they reduce the number of apps by charging something and improve the yield by focusing on attracting top students, they could end up in the same place numbers wise, but an approximately 100 point rise in average SAt scores over the last 10-12 years seems like a pretty successful current strategy. I do agree with jym though that to break through to the next level and attract even more top students to matriculate, not just apply, they will have to add some more targeted focus on the recruitment process, even if they keep the “numbers” strategy. I have suggested a couple of things they could do, and I am sure there are many more ideas out there.</p>
<p>The typical goal is not to reduce apps, but lower acceptance rate as yield increases. A yield in the 30 - 35% range would actually be quite good. That would result in a low teen acceptance rate. But more importantly, and more likely, a greater the number of higher end students enrolling, while maintaining the current yield, is perhaps the more attainable objective.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think those kinds of percentages are a long ways off for Tulane. The current acceptance rate in the mid-20’s is equal to or better than schools like Wash U and (before this year) Chicago, but obviously the yield is nowhere close to theirs. What a game they play, eh?</p>
<p>During the recent Tulane president “chat”, he mentioned that this year’s acceptance rate would be about 20%. That is a very low rate. Without a breakdown of the applicant profile, one doesn’t know if the low rate is an overall increase in apps across categories, or that more students who are unlikely admits are applying as a reach, or more higher end students are looking at it as a match/safety. It would be interesting to see the mix.</p>
<p>It would indeed. Just off the cuff, if the yield was the same as last year, then it would mean 44,000 apps x 0.20 (acceptance rate) x .145 (yield) = 1276 matriculated. That’s too low, so they must be counting on about 17.5% yield (1540 matriculated). Interesting. I will be anxious to see the final stats.</p>
<p>BTW, have they posted his latest chat yet? I can’t find it.</p>
<p>I don’t know, I read it “live.” Did they over enroll last year? Transfer and wait list could make up the difference in bodies, but housing is a different matter.</p>