Outside of tippity top schools (and their applicants), in the days of 20 apps per student, I don’t think yield matters to applicants anymore. Certainly colleges try to manage (using wait-list and ED) but not applicants.
1 Like
Very good observation if OP is concerned about trends related to high acceptance rate schools if yields have been declining materially in recent periods. It may also raise red flags at lower acceptance rate schools that have seen a significant and consistent drop in yield in recent years. It then warrants a deeper dive into the finances, cuts in programs or controversies involving the school.
Agree with the above comments that increasing yields are more likely the product of the school using ED1 and ED2 to better project their matriculating class. Schools that have limited but high cost resources (facilities, faculty and staff) and are dependent on tuition, room and board are particularly sensitive to yield for budgeting purposes.
3 Likes
It would make me sad if students themselves are factoring yield into their decision-making, but I don’t see the harm in parents or counselors considering that one additional nugget of information, especially as a trendline. Using draw rate, or the yield/admit rate, is even better.
I don’t understand the idea that early decision is a way to manipulate yield. There is a lot not to like about ED from a fairness and equity standpoint, and it is certainly important to account for ED when calculating a school’s true RD acceptance rate, but the fact that a large number of students pledge to attend if accepted reinforces rather than gainsays what we believe the yield rate represents as a measure of enthusiasm, doesn’t it?
The thinking is that ED with an admissions bump lures and locks in strong students who might have had multiple acceptances to choose from. Mathematically, if you allocate 50% of admits to the ED1 and ED 2 pools, you have guaranteed a baseline yield of close to 50% unless you get a much lower yield in RD. You are then competing with your academic peers only over half the accepted pool vs the entire pool.
2 Likes
Mathematically…
50 ED admits with 100% yield → 50 matriculants
50 RD admits with 20% yield → 10 matriculants
So you get 60 matriculants out of 100 admits for 60% yield. It also means that 83% of matriculants were through ED.
A different example scenario:
50 ED admits with 100% yield → 50 matriculants
250 RD admits with 20% yield → 50 matriculants
Here, you get 100 matriculants out of 300 admits for 33% yield, while 50% of matriculants were through ED.
Yield rates are a challenge for schools not offering ED, especially when students are applying to 10+ schools (or significantly more).
2 Likes
The first example is not accurate if the premise is 50% of class are admitted ED. The second example is applicable and is a product of a lower RD yield. If we take a school that normally has a 40% yield rate, and use an example assuming the 40% yield rate applies to RD:
50 ED admits – 50 matriculants
125 RD admits with 40% yield – 50 matriculants
Total yield = 100/175 = 57% > 40%
In the second example, if we assume the historical yield rate was anywhere below 33%, it would still have a yield boost with the RD yield falling to 20%.
You can only manipulate yield so much, though. Most schools in the top 6-20 range with ED policies fill their classes in the ED pool at similar rates.
No offense taken at all! I had just seen a list of the yield rates recently and knew that one or a couple of them might be a little off. I do agree with your points overall.
2 Likes
I remember hearing 50 percent as well for NU in ED but their CDS says around 1100 students accepted in ED and that’s definitely not 50 percent of the class. Weird.
I imagine the ED pool includes recruited athletes, of which there must be a decent amount since it’s a Division I school.
For NU Class of 2024 that 1,105 accepted in ED was actually 58% of the class. CDS shows total class was 1,901 (maybe on the smaller side due to gaps/deferrals?). https://enrollment.northwestern.edu/pdf/common-data/2020-21.pdf
Ah do you include the ED kids in the total numbers at the top of that CDS section? I assumed those were just RD kids and the ED numbers below are separate. My bad!
Well you never know, lots of schools make mistakes on the CDSs!
But yes, the numbers in the top part of section C should include all applicants, from all rounds.
1 Like
So wow that’s a crazy percent in ED. Kind of hate that. What it does mean, though, is that they get the kids who are enthusiastic about being there. When I was there in the 80s, I knew a lot of kids who were vocal about how it wasn’t their first choice and that was a buzz kill!
2 Likes
To answer the OP’s questions, yes, we considered yield rate and yes, an alarm bell goes off when the yield rate is low. Was it the main factor? Of course, not. But if yield rate is low, then that is worrisome, but you have to look at many of the other factors we all consider when applying to colleges.
What’s low? Anything below 80%. 
Call me/us “foolish.” 
1 Like
This is interesting and almost makes one think there should be two yields (ED and non-ED) or simply a non-ED yield which would give a truer picture (at least for those that are applying non-binding). But then everyone’s # would be low, that’s not good for marketing, and hence no one would want to do that.
1 Like
Low yields can sometimes indicate that a school gaps. So apply- knowing that your financial aid package may be inadequate and you’ll have to turn it down for a school you like less.
Yield doesn’t always translate to “preferred”. Reality bites!
7 Likes
Definitely makes sense to look at non-ED yield rates, rather than the overall/blended rate…but not many people think of that! Similarly makes sense to look at non-ED acceptance rates too.
1 Like
That’s the real question.
Michigan’s hovers at 40% and Cal Poly’s at 33%. Excluding outliers like the service academies, Harvard, MIT and Stanford have the highest yield rate, hanging around in the 80% range.
I’m a believer that CP and Michigan are so low because in state students who get in are often strong enough to compete at the higher yield schools and don’t give their home institutions the love they deserve.
Circling back to the original question, I think the metric is very important for the institution and virtually meaningless to the applicant.
Yield does correlate to preferred, at least among the applicant pool. That’s essentially the definition of yield. I agree though, it doesn’t say anything to a prospective applicant using that measure to assess whether or not they should prefer the school.
1 Like