So my basic understanding of what Pitt is doing is it is targeting a certain sort of enrolled class, which will have a variety of different characteristics, including net tuition (tuition minus any grants being paid), a balance of in-state and OOS students, and anything else Pitt considers desirable.
The problem that Pitt, and many other colleges, faces is that just because they admit someone, doesnât mean they will enroll. And different types of people will enroll at different rates.
So one thing they can do is admit people based on some sort of yield model. But they can then also get proactive by offering things like merit, guaranteed admissions programs, and so on. Logically, those sorts of additional inducements may improve yield.
When it comes to merit, though, any merit they offer reduces net tuition if accepted. So they have to watch how much merit they offer to get more students to yield, such that the yield model does not show they wonât satisfy their net tuition target once people actually enroll.
OK, so given all this, they might well have some sort of sophisticated tool that is helping them determine who should be offered what in merit so as to best achieve their overall goals once they actually enroll a class. And given how complex this is, the outputs of that model might not always have an obvious intuitive explanation. Like, purely hypothetically, their model may end up creating a pattern where OOS people from one state or region get more merit than another. Why? Well, the immediate explanation might be just the model says that will help optimize the enrolled class. But why that? It could be some complicated set of interacting factors involving the distribution of probabilities over possible in-state alternatives, private alternatives, academic interestsâwho knows?
OK, so I was hypothesizing here that if it is true OOS Swanson admits were more likely to get the $20K, it could be because of a yield model. Why? Because the model says that will help optimize the enrolled class. But why that? Could be any sort of complicated set of interacting factors.
But I doubt it is as simple as high stats kids getting less, or yield protection per se (I donât think Pitt has any reason to yield protect per se). I think it is more likely that the question of where a big award is most likely to pay off in other ways can depend on a lot of complex interacting factors, not just the individualâs academic qualifications.
