<p>Admit as many as possible ED - yield 99%</p>
<p>Admit as many as possible waitlisted - yield either 100% or, if one is particularly imaginative, one gets an admit without an offer.</p>
<p>Tufts strategy - in the RD round, turn down students whose numbers indicate that they will also be admitted to schools that my school loses when cross-admitted.</p>
<p>Yield is not really that important to college rankings any more. USNews doesn't use the yield stat in it's rankings, and I don't think the average person on the street really cares. I think colleges want to be able to predict and control how many acceptees enroll primarily because it affects the quality of life for the class. Too full, and you're in trouble. Too few, and you've lost your opportunity to create the class you want.
I think far too much has been made of the "Tuft's syndrome" at Tufts and at other schools. Schools do want kids who want to be there, and they want good applicants. All schools want the best class they can generate. If it makes kids feel better to think that they didn't get into a college because they were "too good", fine, but I don't think that's very often the case.</p>
<p>Byerly thinks even Princeton has a case of "Tufts syndrome".</p>
<p>It's not Byerly who thinks so. It's the authors of the Revealed Preference Study--they have a graph that suggests Tufts syndrome on the part of Princeton, namely a dip in the admit rate of students whose SAT scores are in the 93-98 percentile.</p>
<p>Interesting, especially considering that Princeton scores significantly lower in the "preference" study than Harvard & Yale (which are basically tied at the top). The study pretty clearly shows they are losing a lot of top talent to the top two, and my guess is they are probably trying to stop that.</p>
<p>The data they are using is from several years ago - before Dean Rapelye became dean of admissions. While her predecessor, Fred Hargadon, was known to be notorious for seeking out the "Princeton type," arguably at the expense of getting the top students, even Byerly admits that Rapelye is much more comitted to getting top students that break the mold.</p>
<p>Additionally, all the RP study found was the Princeton seemed to be accepting fewer students with SAT scores in the (I believe) 93 - 98 % range, presumably to increase yield. However, depending on how much value you place on SATs, that may have been good strategy that increased yield without decreasing student body quality. A 1510 isn't all that different from a 1540 - except the higher scorer has a statistically higher chance of getting into Princeton's competitor school. So, Princeton may have gone with the 1510 and gotten an equally qualified student.</p>
<p>Quote: "So, Princeton may have gone with the 1510 and gotten an equally qualified student."</p>
<p>Maybe so, but doing so is still "Tufts Syndrome" no matter how you slice it. And while the study only was able to demonstrate EVIDENCE of that approach using SAT scores, it doesn't mean SAT's were the only basis for Princeton's determination of likely matriculants.</p>
<p>Here is the revealed preference study, a highly precise study of what 18 year-olds think.
<a href="http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf</a></p>
<p>Also, admit students with a demonstrated enthusiasm for your school.</p>
<p>Admit students that have a vested interest in your school - e.g., that need/want your curriculum.</p>
<p>Give preference to legacies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admit students that have a vested interest in your school - e.g., that need/want your curriculum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cynical, aren't we? Should a LAC admit a student who wants to pursue a major not offered by the school, such as say, engineering? Heaven forbid that a LAC prefer to admit a student who expresses a wish for a liberal arts education to avoid the appearance of "gaming the yield." </p>
<p>Shouldn't a school admit students who have an interest in that school and are therefore likely to be happy and do well? No, of course, let's admit students whom we suspect would be happier being elsewhere (big city when we're in a small isolated place, a great sports team when we know ours hasn't won a game in the last 40 seasons). Heaven forbid we should be accused of gaming the yield!</p>
<p>Legacies: There are reasons to admit legacies that have nothing to do with yield. Such as keeping donations flowing; such as maybe that legacies have gotten the educational benefits of their parents own previous attendance at such school. How is that gaming the yield, pray tell?</p>
<p>Until I become THE dean (who works with constituents), I admit the best and hope they accept us back. Yield protection (F&M/Tufts practice) and these "gaming" ideas don't enter my mind.</p>
<p>ASAP hit on something, though. We're reluctantly concerned with our US News rankings because our constituents are. No matter how many times we talk about the methodology behind that ranking, we constantly get judged based on our placement. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, admission components only make up around 15% of the ranking (emphasis on around...I can't remember the exact figure), so we don't have much control over how we place. The rest of the factors deal with academic characteristics like class size, faculty salaries, and spending per student. If a school wants to massage their US News ranking, they won't look to the admission office. They'll pour more money into the academic side of the house.</p>
<p>You forgot one important factor in the low admit%/high yield game: Encourage as many applications as possible, including applicants that you know have no chance in hades of being admitted. You get the added benefit of sending out that early press release touting the amazing increase in applications this year.... oh my, we are such a popular school, everybody wants to come here!! :)</p>
<p>The President of Emory has been quite honest about one of the difficuties his school faces - alumni giving. It seems that a majority of Emory students wanted another school, settled for Emory, and never got over it. He often talks about the problem of trying to discern which students really WANTED Emory.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>As you noted, legacy acceptances keep donations flowing. A growing endowment is a good thing. However, you can kill 2 birds with one stone. The yield rate for legacies is higher than for students who are not legacies.</p>
<p>Some schools put a limit on the definition of legacies (parents only) and how to use the "benefit" (UPenn requires an ED application). It would be interesting to see the yield rate of legacies using these different mechanisms.</p>
<p>The schools like these early acceptees because the application shows interest in their school . . . especially at ED schools. Further, ED dramatically increases the overall yield rate because there is almost 100% yield on those students. Combine that with an ED cohort that makes up almost 50% of the incoming class (i.e. Princeton). You almost guarantee a yield rate over 50%.</p>
<p>When you do the math on all of this the acceptance rate of early acceptees is 3-4 times that of applying RD. At the end of the day I think Byerly has it about right. Apply to a school, any school, early. You will dramatically increase your odds of acceptance. </p>
<p>As an aside, Byerly also argues for keeping yield as a measure. He suggests changing it to RD yield to take out the gamesmanship of ED/SCEA/EA, etc.</p>
<p>That comment was made by the president following the USNWR ranking which indicated that alumni giving at Emory sucks. However, since then, Emory realized that they have been reporting this statistic incorrectly, and in fact, alumni giving at Emory is about 16th best in the nation. <a href="http://www.emorywheel.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=1899ae06-412a-49ce-89b9-7a7de9f0399f%5B/url%5D">http://www.emorywheel.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=1899ae06-412a-49ce-89b9-7a7de9f0399f</a></p>
<p>For schools, yield is very very important. It helps them plan how many admit letters to send out. Too many, and too many acceptances, and you have a housing problem on your hands. Too few, and you have empty slots.</p>
<p>Legacies are a bit difficult to disentangle from very strong students. For example, at one school, S had hooks. At another he did not. He got accepted to both. He decided to attend the school where he had hooks. Should he be counted as "admitted as a legacy" or "admitted on his own merits?" Whatever the case, S clearly benefitted from having parents with Ph.D.s. who value education and could help him with his studies and his educational choices.</p>