I wonder if it would improve the yield rate at some of the more selective schools (such as my alma mater, UofMich) if they added some questions to the common app such as:
Have you run the Net Price Calculator for this school?
If you do not qualify for financial aid, can you afford this school?
Or something like this. I’m sure you all can come up with 1 or 2 better questions than I can. So, then the school can make more informed decisions. If the applicant has not run the NPC, then maybe they would be lower on the admit queue, assuming they may be less informed of the financial resources necessary to attend.
I’ve not yet actually looked at the CA yet, so maybe they have something similar in place? Maybe these could be supplements at different schools? It seems like this may also help to reduce the postings on CC from kids who get accepted, and all of a sudden determine a school is unaffordable.
UM is famous for being expensive OOS. I’m a UM grad too and even back in the olden days everyone knew if was brutal. It’s hard to believe OOS kids are applying and don’t realize it’s going to cost $55k or more.
Then you have the scholarship issue. If you look at the UM or USC threads, you see all these kids that are applying and assume they are going to get some merit aid because they are so awesome and because the schools market those scholarships. Then everyone realizes that it’s only a very tiny fraction of the incoming class that gets anything. I think a lot of kids will continue to take a shot at these schools knowing they can’t go unless they get offered something. It’s probably less of a problem for schools like the UCs that just flat out tell everyone ahead of time that if you are OOS, you aren’t getting anything.
Totally agree. And, it’s made worse by high schools such as my daughter’s, who tell their kids to ‘just apply! No one pays list price!’. OK, but even $10K of list price is still unaffordable to the majority of her classmates.
I think your discussion has some major logical flaws.
If someone says no, they can’t afford it, then I believe you’re saying that the school should not offer admission, therefore increasing yield. After a one year increase to yield, students stop applying when the NPC says you can’t afford it. Yield returns to prior levels, but in an unintended consequence to drive yield, you’ve reduced selectivity. You see, a lot of kids didn’t apply because it was so expensive. The school then had to increase acceptance rates to ensure they had enough students to pay for the expenses of the school.
I’ll ignore the lost revenue on the applications because it’s pretty small, but the other major missing component in all of this is the forced timing of college decisions. Students have to apply, collect options, and then decide. Not being able to afford a school is a decision often. Loans, aid, work study, and scholarships all play a role. If another school offers better terms, you’re going to lose yield. If students don’t get into other schools, they may stretch to get in.
You also have to consider the potential mis-information on yield by the inclusion of ED students.
In the end, acceptance rate and yield are difficult factors to manage. If you want to improve them, reputation improvements need to come first.
Students from wealthy families who KNOW their parents CAN afford to send them to a college should NOT be penalized if they do not run the NPC, dontcha think?
@menloparkmom Absolutely. That’s why I added the caveat about ‘better’ questions. I was just trying to get a point across. There is also the question about ‘can you afford this school’ without FA. They would select ‘Yes’, dontcha think?
Hmmmm. @EyeVeee I’m trying to do the math. I don’t think that ‘not offering’ admission will increase yield (it won’t). The increase in yield I am imagining comes from the fact that of those whom you DO admit (same number as before) now have been vetted to some extent. A greater number of them might actually enroll since they can afford it. You’re right, though, I believe this would negatively affect selectivity (which as you can see is a BS number anyway).
I wasn’t aware there was a problem with Michigan’s yield.
They estimate what it’ll be based on predictors and admit accordingly. Or are you suggesting it’s a number to be finessed in order to appear more prestigious – closer to yield king, Harvard? Why assume Mich wants to jump into that lane of the rat race?
No problem I’m aware of, either. Could be any school, I just happened to mention of UofM after talking to a family yesterday who’s kid applied, was accepted, and were then shocked at the cost and will be unable to attend. Seems like a waste of everybody’s time, and a (perhaps slight) drag on yield. Just my poor-man’s analysis.
My paranoid side thinks there are lot more admissions consultants and algorithms involved in the admit/deny decision that we think. There must be a lot of triggers within an application that let the university know the likelihood of attendance.
My naive side says UM probably doesn’t care what the actual yield number is. But they do care very much about the consistency of the yield so they can plan classes accordingly. It doesn’t really matter to them if yield is 25% or 50% as long as it doesn’t move a whole lot year from year. And judging from the incredible consistency most schools show in yield, they must be pretty good at this already. I think some of the extreme ends of the spectrum might really sweat their yield so they can claim to be the best but most probably aren’t than concerned.