<p>artloversplus,
Why didnt Uof C report the number offered WL spots and the # who accepted?</p>
<p>What is absoultely mindblowing is the accuracy with which the Boston U Admissions Committee did its math. Though they accepted an unprecedented 22,143 students, everything worked out perfectly. They got a perfect 19% yield and took 8 off of the waitlist. I have no idea how numbers work so consistently for them.</p>
<p>Has the numbers on only Early Decision/Early Action students been posted yet? </p>
<p>How many students applied ED/EA, how many got in?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>@jym</p>
<p>I have no idea why UOC does not report WL stats. I can only venture to guess that they want to wait for the last moment until the recindes or recalles are cleared.</p>
<p>Why do consumers care about “yield”? If you are applying, it gives you a rough idea of your chances. Hopefully, you will NOT use the number as a guide to how “good” the college is.</p>
<p>For instance, Case Western (not on the list) has a pretty high yield, as I recall, but it’s a very good school with a high-caliber student body. All the yield # means is that a smaller, self-selected group (smart students who don’t mind wintering in Cleveland) apply and a good percentage of them are accepted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you are confusing yield with acceptance rate? Granted that they are related, but the admission rate is all you really need to know. In Case’s case, the admit rate is 70%. It’s 17% yield is meaningless to an applicant. Now, an acceptee might think hard about the fact that less than 1 in 5 actually matriculate to Cleveland…</p>
<p>They might, but I hope they don’t, lol. I think bluebayou is correct, you are confusing acceptance rate (# of applicants accepted/# of applications)<em>100 with yield (# of accepted students that matriculate/# of applicants accepted)</em>100. So in the example above (for example), 7000 applicants are accepted out of 10,000 that apply, and 1190 of them decide to enroll. The actual numbers are probably larger, I didn’t look them up.</p>
<p>It used to be that students applied to fewer schools, and the schools themselves didn’t market like they do now. In today’s world though, both those things occur and certain schools that are quite good become popular “safeties” for kids looking at the next level. I suspect Case falls into that category. Tulane does, they market heavily to kids that are Ivy quality and therefore have a low yield, although they also have a low acceptance rate. But they got 44,000 applications this year so it all works out. Anyway, my point is to pay more attention as to whether a school seems like a great fit, not what others are doing, which is what yield pretty much indicates, but for many different reasons potentially.</p>
<p>You are correct, of course. ^^</p>
<p>The main reason I can think of for a consumer to want to know yield, is for strategy. If a school has a low yield, they MAY be more interested in demonstrated interest than some others, and so it may be worth focusing your expressions of interest on them. OTOH there are probably more direct ways to find out which schools value expressions of interest.</p>
<p>b-dad:</p>
<p>But the same strategy will work at a college if the only data point you have is the (high) acceptance rate. (The reason it is high is bcos of the college’s low yield. The point is that yield is not necessary for the applicant bcos the same info is available from acceptance rate, IMO.)</p>
<p>a college can have a high acceptance rate because it is simply less selective, yet its the first choice of most applying.</p>
<p>University of Southern North Slobovia, lets say. 5000 places. There arent many qualified kids from southern NS (lets say for the illustrative purposes) and no one outside southern ND wants to go to USNS. So they get 6000 applicants. And a very high acceptance ratio. But since the folks from southern ND almost never apply anywhere else (not even to UNorth Slobovia for the most part) the yield is very, very high. Close to 100% say.</p>
<p>OTOH Univ of Ivy Inferiority Syndrome, has 2000 places. Half the IvyHopes in the region apply so they get 40,000 applicants. now they know their yield is going to be only 20%, so they have to accept 10,000. But thats still a 25% acceptance rate, which aint Harvard, buts its a lot lower than USND.</p>
<p>Now maybe you are gonna say its easy to tell Univ of Ivy Inf Syndrome from University of Cardinal Direction, with other indicators. Yes, at the extremes. But clearly there is a midrange, USNWR from 30 to 100 or so, where it can get tricky. Some colleges in that range are much more likely to be used as safeties than others. And its not always easy to tell how much acceptance rate is due to differences in selectivity (since selectivity is opaque, given the opaqueness of GPA numbers/class ranking across high schools) vs to the need to offset yield.</p>
<p>Rather than deal in hypotheticals, look at the University of Nebraska. Accepts most that apply, and also sky high yield.</p>
<p>My opinion, based on doing this for some time, is that yield is one of the least informative factors, and anything you might learn from it can be discerned better in other ways.</p>
<p>agree with fc. (I was going to edit my post #70 to specify private colleges, but was timed out.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having repeated the same argument ad nauseam, all I can add in staying with the ;atin theme, is … A M E N!</p>
<p>I think yield is actually quite informative about some things. It adds to our understanding of the shape of the market for higher education. Based on admit rate alone, one might be misled into thinking a school like Tulane (26%) is a much sought-after school. But Tulane’s astonishingly low yield of 16% tells us it’s in fact the second- or third- or Nth choice of most of those who apply and are admitted, the vast majority of whom end up going elsewhere. Its low admit rate, it turns out, is an artifact of an inflated applicant pool that Tulane gets by aggressive marketing, fee-free applications, “instant approvals,” and a bunch of other gimmicks. Yes, even without the yield you probably could have made that inference from the size of the applicant pool and the number of acceptances relative to the size of the entering class—i.e., in effect by calculating or estimating yield, even if you aren’t given the exact figure. But yield completes the picture.</p>
<p>Some other schools in a similar position, if not quite as extreme: BU (19% yield), American (21%), RPI (22%), BC (25%), U Rochester (25%), Wake Forest (29%), Carnegie Mellon (30%), Wash U (31%), Emory (31%), Lehigh (32%), Northwestern (33%), NYU (35%), Tufts (36%), most LACs below the AWS level (generally in the 20s and 30s while AWS are 40+%), and most public universities in the Northeast (e.g., U Vermont 16%, SUNY Binghamton 20%, SUNY Stony Brook 24%, UConn 27%, U Del 27%, Penn State 28%). </p>
<p>In contrast, top publics in the Midwest (Wisconsin 43%), West (UC Berkeley 41%, U Washington 44%), and South (UVA 46%, UNC Chapel Hill 54%, U Florida 56%) are much more likely to be “destination schools,” with a higher fraction of admits electing to enroll.</p>
<p>To my mind, that tells us something valuable about who applies, and how much applicants want to be there. Now undoubtedly even some of the 16% of admitted applicants who ended up at Tulane had it as their first choice; and some of the 56% who ended up at Florida are there because they didn’t get into their first-choice school. But the odds are Tulane landed some pretty good students who fell through the cracks at more prestigious institutions, while U Florida had some of those, but also enrolled a lot of kids who really, really wanted to be Gators and are thrilled to be there. And maybe we already could have surmised that from anecdotes and such; but I think the yield data confirm or reveal some things about the shape of the market that otherwise may not be so clear.</p>
<p>Clinton, perhaps there is a different way to look at it. </p>
<p>Consider your explanation. Doesn’t it convey that there is some value in “analyzing” the yield to uncover what the number means, but only within the context of that school? </p>
<p>But does that not also confirm that the number in itself is either pointless or misleading? For instance, how does want compare the numbers of Nebraska and Princeton? Or the numbers of Pomona and Mount Holyoke? Is it possible to form an educated opinion about the yield without engaging in a more … detailed analysis. </p>
<p>In a nutshell, that is the problem with the yield. Without access to additional data, it does not mean anything! Compare that to the admission numbers … those are clear. There is no confusion possible about what a 20% admission means. A yield number can, however, show that extremely competitive students DO select the school they clearly see as the best, or it can show that a high number of non-competitive students simply have no better choices available. Those scenarios are both omnipresent and variable in an universe of more than 4,000 schools. </p>
<p>In conclusion, yield is extremely important to a school because it relates DIRECTLY to the school itself and because it offers an insight how the school competes with its direct competitors. For instance, Dean Shaw of Stanford is keenly interested how his school performs in contrast to his former employers’. Although the yield numbers might obsess the enrollment managers at HYPS and captivate the alumni, they remain irrelevant to the students and their familes. Unless, they also plan to play the bond markets that follow the schools’ “paper.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except, that you forgot Davidson which, as a southern school, has both a higher yield (41%) and a lower selectivity rate (30%) than most of the northern LACs with which it competes. This, to me, illustrates one of the perversities of using yield as a measurement of anything meaningful: the more crowded the field (in the sense of, number of cross-admits with other selective schools) of course, the lower everyone’s yield becomes.</p>
<p>“There is no confusion possible about what a 20% admission means.”</p>
<p>No? Carnegie Mellon 33% Fashion Insitute of Technology 31% Bucknell 31% GW 31%</p>
<p>What, pray tell, does THAT mean? </p>
<p>That all are about equally selective, but CMU slightly less so?</p>
<p>Do you not need other information to “context” addmission rate?</p>
<p>Do you REALLY want me to answer that question?</p>
<p>what do you think I want you to do?</p>