<p>When I was visiting schools, Duke was the only one that said they did not take demonstrated interest into account. If that’s true, which is might not be, one would expect a slightly lower yield at Duke than at comparable schools who do take demonstrated interest into account.</p>
<p>happymedstudent - Duke will lose most of the cross-admit battles with the ivies because, as I said above, most of the cross admits hail from the east coast, and the ivies have significant home field advantage in new england and the mid-atlantic. </p>
<p>My main point was that yield or revealed preference may actually not show the desirability or prestige of the school, but rather shows the inertia that sets in for top talent on the east coast. Most east coast kids stay on the east coast for college, rather than traveling down to the south or heading to the midwest or whatever. </p>
<p>So if you look at yield, cross-admit battles, etc., they don’t really show that Dartmouth is more desirable than Duke or whatever, just that home field advantage means something in the student recruitment game. Again, if most of the top high school talent hailed from the southeast rather than the northeast, Duke would fare much better. Similarly, if the midwest had the highest concentration of top hs talent, NU and Chicago would do much better. </p>
<p>All that yield stats and cross-admit battles show is that there is a locational preference by east coast kids. These stats might be more interesting if they broke down cross admit battles by region, but again, I suspect this would just show that the vast majority of schools are more regional rather than truly national. Overall, the only true takeaway points from all of this are: 1.) HYPSM are the truly national schools, everyone else is somewhat regional, and 2.) the east coast has the highest concentration of top talent that elite colleges want.</p>
<p>Happymedstudent - with regard to accept rate, it’s actually quite easy to manipulate this statistic. By using ED, by playing the “big numbers” admissions game and just trying to drum up more applications, or by accepting only those students that you know will come, you can decrease the accept rate. </p>
<p>Duke, Penn, especially Wash U, Chicago of late, etc. all play this game. </p>
<p>All the admissions stats are highly manipulable. It’s why I think numbers such as a school’s finances or endowment or success in raising capital say more about the school, because these numbers are harder to manipulate.</p>
<p>
EVERY elite school that has some form of early admission “play[s] this game,” as you put it. Indeed, you can count on the fingers of one hand the schools that currently don’t (Harvard, Princeton . . .). And there’s nothing nefarious or “manipulative” about a school’s administration wanting to ensure that a significant portion of its undergraduate population is comprised of kids for whom the school was a solid first choice, and who really want to be there. As common sense would dictate, it has a DRAMATIC effect on the quality of undergraduate life in terms of EC participation, overall student (and alumni) enthusiasm and good will for the school, etc. Moreover, it’s a bit naive to assume that not every single school (including Harvard and Princeton) desires and attempts to admit applicants whom it believes will ultimately select IT.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I’ve always thought that discounting ED admissions as somehow less indicative of yield is a bit silly. Especially with binding ED, the fact is that those applicants have merely made their choices earlier in the process, to the point that they’re willing to make a binding commitment that other applicants are not yet willing to make. Yet for some reason, their early and enthusiastic selection of THEIR first-choice schools is minimized in many discussions of yield. And I know that with Penn, for example, the average stats (SATs, GPAs, etc.) of its ED admits are now as good as or better than those of its RD admits. Additionally, even a cursory review of the ED-acceptance threads in the Penn forum reveals that a substantial number of ED applicants with scores and GPAs significantly higher than the accepted average are deferred or rejected, again undercutting the notion that it’s all about yield protection or manipulation.</p>
<p>The fact is that Penn fills about 48% of its class through ED because it CAN–it has one of the largest ED applicant pools in the country, and is able to admit this many applicants through ED without any sacrifice in the overall quality of the entering class. Additionally, Penn’s entering class of 2400 is the largest of any elite, except Cornell, and its RD yield of about 50%–for an effective RD entering class size of 1200-1300 students–compares quite favorably to the RD yields of all but 3 or 4 of the other elites.</p>
<p>So perhaps we should be a bit more nuanced and bit less glib when discounting the overall yields of schools like Penn because of their use of ED. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those may be the ones who could not afford Penn and try to get finaid by using their decent records. I know several of them like that, and they were rejected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope–again, a review of the threads reveals otherwise. Also, Penn–like the other Ivies and elites–has need-blind admissions (admissions and finaid are handled by two completely separate offices). And Penn has been significantly ramping up its finaid in the last couple of years (even with the current economy), not dialing it down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difference in % of the student body that are ED is just over 3%. Fail.</p>
<p>Penn: 47.4% ED
Columbia: 44.5% ED
Brown: 44.2% ED</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why did Princeton’s yield drop over 10% when it discontinued ED? Was that just a yearly fluctuation? ED locks in kids for whom Penn may not *necessarily *be their first choice but a school that they would be very happy to attend. You see the threads with people deciding between ED’s to two different schools. They want to maximize their chances of getting into a school they desire, not necessarily the school they desire most. That being said, I haven’t seen any reason to believe that the other non-HYP ivies use ED significantly less than Penn. That is to say, they all use it too much.</p>
<p>^ Whether they use it “too much” is a subjective value judgment. Penn still admits 2700-2800 applicants through RD. How many RD applicants do Stanford and the non-ED Ivies each admit?</p>
<p>Except for Harvard and Princeton, I actually don’t know, and personally don’t really care. ED locks in kids. Early action doesn’t. Close to half of a class is filled by 17-18 year olds who bound themselves on November 1st? There are better ways of securing a class that is not only academically strong but also wants to come to your school.</p>
<p>^ Really? You think that decisions made under time pressure in April in the midst of the school year, and based on dog-and-pony-show admitted-students weekends (for those fortunate enough to be able to attend) are necessarily better than those made over the summer or in early fall after careful investigation and consideration? I don’t think so. Not that either is necessarily superior (depends on the kid and the circumstances), but I think we should be careful about generalizations regarding ED and RD applications and decisions.</p>
<p>Going back a few previous posts, the much noted “revealed preference” report shows that Cornell wins a slight majority of the head to head battles over Duke, I don’t know why everyone keeps on saying that Duke loses to everyone but Cornell, they lose to Cornell</p>
<p>45 percenter - Early Decision is a self-serving process for an institution. It’s difficult to argue how a program that severely restricts student choice in the marketplace benefits students in any way. </p>
<p>I agree that all colleges now “play the game” but you have to realize that this occurs because colleges - just like participants in any market - are self-interested actors, and they make decisions to maximize their own health, and not necessarily the livelihoods of the applicants. </p>
<p>This becomes a touchy issue because in the US, we hold education to be a key component to positive change, and want our educational process to be as equitable and meritocratic as possible. </p>
<p>There is no evidence, however, that limiting a student’s choice and binding that student by November is the most equitable or meritocratic approach to admissions at top colleges. In fact, all the evidence points to ED being a system that advantages the advantaged (a quote from Princeton’s President), and limits - rather than expands - opportunities for high-achieving students.</p>
<p>For more info on ED, you can read Princeton’s statement on abolishing its ED program, available here:</p>
<p>[Princeton</a> University - Princeton to end early admission](<a href=“Princeton to end early admission”>Princeton to end early admission)</p>
<p>For a more detailed view of just how ED programs greatly benefit a school but hurt the applicants, check out Chapter 17 of Jerome Karabel’s excellent work, “The Chosen: The Hidden history of Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.” </p>
<p>Also, I can’t find it online, but check out a working paper by 3 Harvard economists, entitled, “What Worms for the Early Bird: Early Admissions at Elite Colleges,” by Christopher Avery et al. </p>
<p>These studies and works find that, even with extremely generous financial aid programs, “Early Decision was discouraging students with financial need and that it was tending to bias a selection against those students.” (Karabel 522). </p>
<p>Moreover, in looking at the history of ED, scholars assert that, “Recognizing that the [early action] system did not serve [Yale and Princeton’s] interests in an increasingly competitive marketplace in which Harvard controlled the largest share, they determined that they no longer could afford the luxury of giving applicants early admission, to only have them decline later. So Yale and Princeton moved to a system of early decision.” </p>
<p>The background to this program reveals that it was not made with an eye to what was best for aspiring young applicants. On the contrary, this was a rational move by schools looking to create a system that gives them more of a competitive advantage in the marketplace. </p>
<p>In many ways I consider Penn (and maybe Wash U) to be a pioneer in the new reality of self-serving, institutionally-focused game of admissions. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, have always been leaders on this front, but Penn and a couple others have also been at the forefront of using shrewd admissions strategies to maximize their position in the marketplace and increase their status as institutions.</p>
<p>Don’t think for a second, though, that any school makes these decisions based on the best-interests of the applicant, or because for some reason a school with ED rather than EA is a “happier” place. Schools behave like rational actors and make decisions based on their own priorities - and this occurs often at the DETRIMENT of the young applicants.</p>
<p>“…I don’t know why everyone keeps on saying that Duke loses to everyone but Cornell,…”</p>
<p>There was discussion of this someplace else on CC, IIRC, someone at Duke made some comment, which did not actually say this but has been willfully misinterpreted as such by its advocates. Someone might post link, Ive not the energy.</p>
<p>
So elite institutions shouldn’t try to improve and maintain their prestige as elite institutions? Good luck with that one! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No question about it, it definitely is superior. Admitted student days travel costs are paid for at all of these places. The only way you won’t be fortunate enough to attend is if you have something pressing to do those days. Furthermore, it’s not as if kids weren’t thinking about which schools they like more prior to acceptance. Since at the end of the day each student has a choice, and the savvy students will be able to ask the questions, that’s definitely better than locking them in. Also, the dog and pony show won’t fool many people, especially since every school does it. ED locks in kids and never allows them to compare. I don’t think it’s a generalization in the least to say that having choices is better than only having one choice, especially for the smart ones (of which nearly all these cross admits are).</p>
<p>^ That may have been your personal experience, but I know of many, many kids who did their investigation, thinking, and deciding before applying ED in November, and who would NEVER trade their ED experience for the craziness of April. Don’t assume that one size fits all–it rarely does.</p>
<p>Wait so you are saying that if they had the opportunity to gain admission at the end of March to lets say their next best school, or the school they were considering the most when they thought ED would shut them out of, they would turn down that opportunity because they were so happy with their ED school before they even attended it as a full time student? Is that your contention? Or is it that they felt really happy that they were admitted ED and didn’t have to worry about being nervous for the RD results? There’s a difference there.</p>
<p>And of course, there’s no need to mention that ED favors the fortunate more than any other scheme that early action using schools employ.</p>
<p>^ What I’m saying is that NO applicant truly understands what it will be like to attend a school for 4 years until he or she has actually DONE it, and that the knowledge kids have about prospective schools is not much greater–if it’s even greater, at all–in April than it was for kids who focussed on a school before deciding to apply ED in November. Some kids prefer to make their decision–and attempt to avoid the craziness of multiple applications and acceptances–in the fall, while others prefer to take their chances and see what the spring will bring. As I said before, thousands of kids get to apply and be accepted to Penn RD–in fact, more are accepted RD to Penn than are accepted RD to almost any of its peers (except Cornell). In the context of an admissions program like Penn’s, to maintain that ED is wrong for all kids and that RD is the only right way to go is, quite frankly, a bit presumptous.</p>
<p>45 percenter - sure, schools should try to maximize their level of prestige and their status, but should they do this at the expense of creating a more truly meritocratic system for applicants? I don’t think so, but who knows, maybe you care more about the status of a certain school rather than the benefits of the system overall.</p>
<p>What I mainly want to get across, however, is this: don’t mask Penn’s intention behind false rhetoric. When you talk about Penn’s choice to rely on ED heavily, you talk about how this decision leads to a “happier” campus because it’s filled with students that “really” want to go to UPenn.This is a garbage statement - Penn heavily uses ED because it maximizes its level of prestige and status, often at the expense of the financially disadvantaged. By heavily using ED, Penn then gives preference to the advantaged, and makes the following claim: our status as an institution is more important than trying to promote more equity and meritocracy at the top-college level. Penn, through heavy use of ED, has more or less decided to continue promoting advantage at the expense of applicants generally. </p>
<p>Of course, UPenn is not alone on this front - a lot of schools do this. Moreover, I apologize if this comes across at scathing, I’m just disappointed generally in the decisions top schools make wrt admissions. It’s a remarkably self-serving and neurotic process for the institutions themselves, and has very little to do with promoting education or serving any broader societal goals. </p>
<p>If you like Penn’s approach to ED, that’s fine, but don’t couch it in any flowery language or take away from the bottomline: it’s a decision that adversely affects college hopefuls, all for the sake of maximizing the prestige of an institution. From a student’s perspective, there’s no way to justify it. If you care mainly about Penn’s status though, at the expense of your fellow students, then sure, stand by it by all means.</p>