<p>Duke's Undergraduate admissions yield for the Class of 2018 increased by over two percent (to 47.7 percent), the highest in recent decades. I believe this a quite significant because Duke's -- which has never practiced "yield protection" -- admissions selectivity and statistics have recently improved rather substantially (e.g., 33K annual applicants with about 11 percent accepted), however yield has been slower to demonstrate such major enhancements. </p>
<p>Great news!</p>
<p>Yes it is, and we should also remember that this is a 5+ percent yield gain in the last two undergraduate admissions cycles. </p>
<p>However, as the Dean notes, “The uptick is due to more students admitted via early decision—a record 47 percent of the class—as well as a slight increase in regular decision yield, Guttentag said.”</p>
<p>So the increase in number of students accepted early is somewhat of “yield protection.” The yield for regular decision was only slight.</p>
<p>^ ^ ^ ^
With respect, cba, I wholeheartedly disagree.</p>
<p>“Yield protection” is generally defined as accepting modestly less qualified applicants, who will be so gratified to have been admitted that they are almost certain to matriculate. However, ED is VERY different. Crucially, Duke’s ED and RD candidate pools are fundamentally equal in aggregate qualifications, but Duke knowingly prefers to accept those who have made a tangible commitment to the University (as substantiated by ED’s binding nature). In essence – and CRITICALLY – Duke’s ED selectees are no less accomplished than their RD peers.</p>
<p>Therefore, I agree with Christoph that ED is largely responsible for Duke’s recent yield increases. However, I differ with you that this is any sort of “yield protection,” because no “less qualified” applicants have been admitted. </p>
<p>Top Tier - Yield protection is not defined as accepting less qualified applicants - consider “Tufts Syndrome” - that is yield protection by rejecting over-qualified applicants that universities assume will not attend. Yield protection simply refers to ways to boost or preserve yield. One way of doing that is by accepting more students ED. The more students that are accepted ED, the higher the yield. That’s not saying that these students aren’t qualified.</p>
<p>If Duke has close to 100% yield for 47% of its class, that means that the RD yield is closer to 25%.</p>
<p>CBA is correct. ED is a way to control yield.</p>
<p>Obviously, I understand what you’re suggesting; however, to me “yield protection” has a negative connotation, which indicates acceptance of (marginally) less qualified candidates to enhance yield, To illustrate, I read that some years ago Franklin and Marshall denied applicants – who were likely “over qualified” and who had probably applied to F&M as a “safety school” – thereby creating spaces for some individuals who were not as accomplished and who were delighted to matriculate. IMHO, that’s “yield protection.”</p>
<p>On the other hand, Duke clearly improves yield through ED, but it fundamentally does NOT reduce its qualitative standards. There is nothing wrong or underhanded about institutional-commitment being a consequential “plus,” whereas I believe strategic acceptance of less well qualified applicants – while policy-rejecting others who have superior qualifications to enhance yield – is somewhat unethical.</p>
<p>By the way, Wikipedia – admittedly not the most erudite source – recognizes both definitions of “yield protection:” <a href=“Yield protection - Wikipedia”>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_protection</a>. </p>
<p>Cancelled comment.</p>
<p>TopTier - so people would argue that there is something wrong or unfair about accepting such a large portion of the class early. Some of the top colleges had significantly increased their ED acceptances and yield. However, filling close to 1/2 the class through ED is unfair to students who need to be able to compare financial aid packages and therefore cannot afford to apply early. </p>
<p>Also, I would not characterize a two percent increase in yield by admitting more ED students as “zooming.” When Duke can show its RD yield increasing by a few percentage points, that would be more impressive. But as of yet, that is not happening.</p>
<p>This really isn’t worthy of further debate and I appreciate your points, however:
- No one is compelled to opt for ED and – at Duke – any accepted ED candidate, who accurately and comprehensively completes the financial assistance questionnaire, and who does not receive at least the grant that was specified, can be released from his commitment. Therefore, I believe your first paragraph offers a somewhat specious argument.
- Further, from MY individual perspective, if 100 percent of a Duke undergraduate class were filled only with ED applicants – with quality, diversity and potential continuing to increase substantially, as they have with each class for many years – that would be just fine. After all, there is absolutely nothing wrong or unethical if both the individual and institution commit to each other a few months before 31 March. If a potential Duke applicant doesn’t – for whatever reason(s) – want to accept ED’s stipulations, he is obviously free to apply for RD (with full recognition of the relevant advantages and the disadvantages).
- Finally, given the glacially slow changes that generally are applicable to top LACs’ and national universities’ undergraduate admission trends, a 5+ percent yield increase in only two years is excellent (IMHO). Frankly, the genesis of the yield-gain – RD or ED – is inconsequential to the various germane rankings and surveys.</p>
<p>TopTier - I agree to disagree with you. Please realize though that while a student is not bound to an ED contract if the finances don’t work, that doesn’t necessarily help students who need to be able to compare financial aid packages. One of the reasons that HYP did away with ED was specifically for this reason - it placed students who needed to be able to see all financial aid packages at a disadvantage. Students are counseled that if they need to compare packages and go with the university that offers the most money, then they should not apply ED. HYPS switched to nonbonding restrictive early action (or at first dropped ED altogether (HP) so that all students could apply and not be bound and could then compare aid awards. I know that many students who are not full pay would content that this is far from a specious argument. </p>