<p>They are going to assume you applied Early Action to Yale and reject you at a much higher rate than average, despite all your qualifications.</p>
<p>Then you probably should leave that info off yr application.</p>
<p>It would definitely be considered lying on your application if your parent went to Yale and you left it blank (implying that you are a first-generation college student). Would they find out? Who knows. If your guidance counselor knows anything about your parents, it probably would not be a wise decision.</p>
<p>No that wouldn't apply to me, as neither of my parents went there...But it wouldn't imply first generation if youy just put that they had a BA, without telling the school. .</p>
<p>
[quote]
But it wouldn't imply first generation if youy just put that they had a BA, without telling the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm...awkward, since the application asks "College (if any)," with a blank to fill in the name of each parent's college. It's not an optional question. </p>
<p>Just tell the truth, people. These little games are unseemly and won't work anyway.</p>
<p>The problem is that the college play little games; if they see that mommy went to princeton, harvard rejects you to protect byerly's precious cross-admit fetish.</p>
<p>Absolutely right, mensa. The most qualified applicants should be accepted without regard to gamesmanship, and yield shouldn't be obsessed over. Harvard was the original "yield obsessor" and now it appears to have spread to all the Ivies. The yield at Yale in the 1990s was around 1/2 and now it is 2/3. A similar change has occurred at every Ivy (the biggest changes occurring at Penn and Columbia).</p>
<p>Yale.edu, it seems to me the villian behind this was USNews. But haven't they stopped using yield?</p>
<p>Yeah, I don't think they use yield anymore... but for some reason, most universities are still obsessed with this number just as much as they are with acceptance rates. They should be worried about enrolling the best candidates possible, and not about relatively insignificant statistics.</p>
<p>To Yale's and Harvard's credit, at least they have Early Action and not Early Decision. This helps assure that they aren't as totally obsessed with these statistics as some others.</p>
<p>The "gamesmenship" in re yield rates is tied directly to the adoption of ED programs. When Yale, Princeton and Stanford adopted binding ED at the same time in 1996-7, their yield rates all jumped by a more-or-less uniform 5%.</p>
<p>USNews dropped yield as a "selectivity" measure because they were getting political heat for encouraging the spread of ED programs, which came under heavy attack a couple of years ago, from Congress and elsewhere.</p>
<p>I think they should have substituted RD yield as a selectivity measure; its much harder to manipulate yield if you remove the distortions cause by ED and EA programs.</p>
<p>In any event, whether USNews relies on it or not, most schools see yield as the "real" measure of their selectivity. There are enormous costs associated with - say - having to admit three people to fill every spot, or, as is the case with some "safeties", five people for every spot. Diversity goals are hellish to meet when your yield rate is low.</p>
<p>You can see why "Tufts Syndrome" in its vaious permutations came into vogue as a "yield raising" tool at some addresses.</p>
<p>The really surprising thing was that when Yale and Stanford moved from Early Decision to Single-Choice Early Action in 2003, Stanford's yield decreased by 3 points, but Yale's yield actually increased by 1 point.</p>
<p>Do you have a link to support that claim? It is my impression that the Yale yield rate actually declined a hair for 2008, to 66.6% (1,958 admits, and 1,305 matriculants.)</p>
<p>At Stanford, the yield rate for the Class of 2008 was 66.98% (1665 matriculants from 2,486 admits.)</p>
<p>Yes... here you go. Newsweek reports that Yale's yield increased to 68.5%.</p>
<p>The switch made both schools much more popular among top students. Both said their early applications soared and that the pool grew more racially and economically diverse. "We do believe the optimal system would be no early programs, but we don't think that's ever going to happen, so as an alternative we will keep this," says Yale Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Richard Shaw. "We're extremely happy with it." Both Yale and Stanford expected their overall yieldthe percentage of all admitted students who end up attendingto drop significantly. **Instead Yale's yield rose, from 67.9 to 68.5 percent, while Stanford's fell by three percentage points.* "We thought it would drop even more," says Stanford's Dean of Undergraduate Admission Robin Mamlet.*</p>
<p>Those percentages are incorrect in both cases, being based on May press releases that were never corrected after summer melt and resort (albeit modest) to waitlists.</p>
<p>Check official post-September numbers, which, for Yale, are currently available only from the Alumni Interviewer's site, (with which you are familiar), and which, for Stanford, is reported HERE:</p>
<p>In each case, I expect that the Numbers I have provided - or something close to them - will be in the schools' respective CDS forms for 2004-5.</p>
<p>Likewise, the Harvard yield number, reported at "close to" 80% in May, wound up "closer to" 78% in September.</p>
<p>What link are you talking about at the alumni interviewers site?</p>
<p>I'm not sure why I'm responding in a helpful manner to a person who has shown himself to be as personally offensive as you have, but as a fervid Yale junky, I can't imagine you are ignorant of this site:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.yale.edu/asc/%5B/url%5D">http://www.yale.edu/asc/</a></p>
<p>(Read the old newsletters and you can piece information together about gross app numbers, net app numbers, admits, waitlist action and net matriculant numbers. Remember that pinning down exact numbers is difficult - but is easier in October than in May or even August.</p>
<p>Well it's just that you have a habit of spouting out statistics without any source, and in the past you have been caught making them up and/or altering them. It's not you personally that offends people, it's your dishonesty. Just a word of advice.</p>
<p>Why do you insist on being an insolent jerk? Is it really necessary? What offends me about you is your nastiness. I have never - EVER - "altered" anything.</p>
<p>You're the one calling names... I never said you were a jerk, I said you were dishonest (and this is not an observation, but a proven fact here). And feel free to spare the board what offends you, because I don't think that many people are too interested. So just calm down and try to compete on logic if you would.</p>
<p>I have never - EVER - "altered" anything.</p>
<p>You're lying. Again. See posts #17 and #18 in this very thread.
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=31884&page=1%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=31884&page=1</a></p>
<p>Yes indeed. I am calling you an insolent jerk. I think the name fits you well. And I am not the only poster to whom you respond in a nasty manner at times. Just stop it. I am hardly "competing" with the likes of you.</p>
<p>Hehehe... you think that people respect you more if you lie and call names, but it is really not as effective as you must believe it is. Think about your actions and you will find a more appropriate way to act. I honestly hope you find your way.</p>