<p>"Up-to-date admissions data from public and private universities across the country." Includes number of applicants, percentage admitted, numbes waitlisted, etc.</p>
<p>2010</a> Admissions Tally - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com</p>
<p>The most surprising thing on this list is that Tulane’s admissions yield is only 15%.
Yikes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would be surprising if that’s all we knew about Tulane, but is largely the result of an intense marketing campaign/application fee waivers for students such that Tulane receives the most applications of ANY private school in the nation. That fact that Tulane is #1 in applications is more surprising to me. So, Tulane probably gladly accepts the 15% yield given that their number of applicants is over 43,000. As long as eventual matriculants’ average SAT, GPA, etc. keep going up, Tulane will probably continue to use the same strategy, resulting in a huge number of applications and a low yield.</p>
<p>Tulane’s yield would be even lower if it didn’t offer so much merit aid. Many of the people who apply use it as a safety, and would rather attend higher ranked schools. Merit money, however, may cause them to accept Tulane.</p>
<p>I thought it was interesting that Amherst accepted only 2 people off the waitlist and CalTech accepted only 7.</p>
<p>
Right. I think the numbers in the NYT posting are a little off, but not enough to matter. The Tulane strategy ends up having the result that % admitted goes down (my understanding was that this was closer to 24% this year, but that’s a quibble) which is considered “better”, while yield also goes down, which is considered worse. The facts of the matter are, as bluedog alludes to, that the last 3 classes that have enrolled at Tulane are the best in their history academically, and that this year they have 1650-1700 in the freshman class, way over target. Ideal would be 1500. Bit of a housing crunch, but there is a new dorm that will be finished this year, and I believe there will be another right after it.</p>
<p>It just goes to show how silly it is to blindly cite statistics (talking about the NYT, USNWR who is worse because they stupidly use these statistics to rank, not talking about you soze) without taking into account that things have changed dramatically over the last 10 years. Gone are the days when everyone pretty much did admissions the same way. Heck, the NYT has even done articles on this topic! I guess I shouldn’t fault them too much, they are just listing the stats. It is the USNWR that is much more clearly at fault for using mesurements in their methodology that are apples and oranges with different schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really (with respect to the first sentence). It is all part of a comprehensive strategy. Before they undertook this path, the number of applications was lower, the % admitted was higher, and the yield was higher. In other words, they were not trying to attract these students away from the higher ranked schools as vigorously. You are certainly right that the merit scholarships are meant as a strong incentive to look harder at Tulane, to come visit (a strong plus for Tulane in most cases), and to pick Tulane as a great value over Duke, Wash U., and Vandy for example. Most of the time it doesn’t sway the student, hence the low yield, but it does enough of the time to have raised Tulane’s average student in terms of academic stats. The fact that retention has also gone up says that most are happy with their decision, I think.</p>
<p>I’m aware of a good student admitted to Tulane and to one other school who was swayed by Tulane’s generous merit aid. She’s going to Tulane, not the other school which was really her first choice, because of the generous money. </p>
<p>At this point she’s happy with Tulane, however.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The last years at Tulane have been quite extraordinary, to say the least. Although one might see much of a “strategy” I believe that it is fair to assess the past admission cycles as an answer to those turbulent times. When compared to the enrollment strategies of schools that did not HAVE to face the dual problems of fighting for their survival and developing a new identity, Tulane seems to be a high risk, high reward “strategy” that does not have much of a safety net. </p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, this is quite inline with the city that is known for “Laissez les bon temps rouler.” The parallels to the NOLA football team are also pretty vivid. How did a bunch of known underperformers who glorified the term ineptitude on a weekly basis not only survive a very uncertain future after Katrina but ended up winning it all? It is, however, easier to bring in a dozen of talented coaches and fifty athletes than bringing in academic talent on a consistent and SUSTAINABLE basis. </p>
<p>As far as the current strategy, I think it must be a thankless job to accept the 1 out of 4 applicants whom you also expect (and hope) to turn you down 5 out of 6 times! </p>
<p>Fwiw, I expect continuing turbulence in the years to come, including a substantial correction in the application volume. That and not too many Super Bowls for the Saints!</p>
<p>NSM:</p>
<p>Not so easy to conclude. Without merit aid, Tulane’s apps would also decline, perhaps sharply.</p>
<p>I’m with my friend xiggi: why should consumers even care about yield?</p>
<p>Your assumption is quite natural, xiggi. I do know that Tulane implemented at least part of this strategy starting in 2002, however, three years before Katrina. I think it has more to do with Scott Cowen taking over in 1998, then getting a huge boost from all the publicity post Katrina. Students wanted to be part of the rebuilding of a great American city.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you about how difficult the job of Tulane admissions must be. This year, as I said, they are somewhat overenrolled. I also agree that the number of applications will stabilize and probably decrease some, although how “substantial” of a correction it will be depends on your definition of substantial, I suppose.</p>
<p>"
I’m with my friend xiggi: why should consumers even care about yield? "</p>
<p>Gives a rough idea of how well the college is regarded.</p>
<p>very rough, without detailed knowledge of the cross admits. </p>
<p>My DD’s school, RPI has only a 22% yield. Are thee folks turning down RPI doing so for its peers or near peers (Case, CMU, RIT, etc, etc) because they dont like something about RPI - are they folks who got into top 20 schools who applied to RPI as a safety - or are they folks who got into their instate flagship or public tech school, who decided RPI’s FA offer wasnt good enough to pick over a state school? </p>
<p>I dont really know.</p>
<p>
Let’s say that you invite some people to your party and only half of them show up. Well, you can say that you invite President Obama who turns you down. On the other hand, if President Obama invites people to White House for a party and only half of them show up… That might be the reason why Harvard and Stanford still care about the yield…</p>
<p>"Let’s say that you invite some people to your party and only half of them show up. Well, you can say that you invite President Obama who turns you down. On the other hand, if President Obama invites people to White House for a party and only half of them show up… That might be the reason why Harvard and Stanford still care about the yield… "</p>
<p>our yield for parties depends on what season of the year it is, how far in advance we send out invitations, and whether we skip inviting people we know dont usually want to come. Someone looking at our “party yield” without knowing those things would think our popularity fluctuated much more wildly than it in fact does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ewho, that makes absolutely no sense.</p>
<p>
I know… just don’t know how to put them in a way to make it clear to others. I take it back.</p>
<p>All I try to say is that only Harvard and Stanford still care about yield, even it is not factored in the USNWR rankings.</p>
<p>I would submit that EVERY college cares about yield, but for consumers it’s a so-what? If I want to know about how others “regard” a college, I just gotta look at the PA. I’d much rather have the survey of academics than the ‘survey’ of applicants/acceptees who may be easily swayed by marketing hype.</p>
<p>
Sound like some familiar college practice? ;)</p>
<p>I think Tulane’s admission strategy is working remarkably well. It makes perfect sense that the yield is so low given the fact that it costs nothing to apply. Of course many applicants are using it as a safety, but some of these high caliber students do choose to attend Tulane, especially after visiting. A lot of these students only visited because they were offered generous scholarships and didn’t think they would choose Tulane over higher ranked schools they were accepted at, but many do. The end result is a college whose freshman profile is comparable to NYU and many other more highly ranked colleges, for half the price.</p>