<p>They do mean something, but USNEWS's formulas for selectivity no longer contains yield as a factor.</p>
<p>I guess you just don't understand it, do you? Schools (1) flog ED in order to (2) raise their yield rate, in order to (3) lower their admit rate, in order to (4) appear more "selective."</p>
<p>As usual Byerly is correct, as USNEWS does factor selectivity into the mix, and selectivity is the inverse of yield so to speak...</p>
<p>Nope, Byerly is not correct. Selectivity according to USNEWS is only based on three factors: top 10% of HS class, SAT scores, and admission rate. Nowhere does it say it takes yield into account.</p>
<p>For example, Wash U has a yield of about 25% and yet its selectivity is ranked 6th. what does that tell you?</p>
<p>Yield used to be part of the USNEWS ranking, but they removed it.</p>
<p>EDIT: Yield does indirectly affect admission rate to some extent - you're right about that. But its effect is not that large and admiision rate is only one of 3 factors in USNEWS's selectivtiy.</p>
<p>Yeah, even logically, I still can't see how selectivity and yield are related.</p>
<p>Logically, there is a small indirect relation, since schools with higher yields can afford to admit fewer students without fear of not filling the class - thus lowering admit rates.</p>
<p>But this effect on the "selectivity" rank on USNEWS is very small. As shown, Wash U with a yield below 30% is more selective than Stanford with a yield of about 67%.</p>
<p>Yield is THE key to selectivity. Its VERY "direct"! The most selective school is the one which needs to admit a relatively smaller number of its applicants in order to fill the available seats - even assuming matriculants of equal quality.</p>
<p>The only more precise measure of selectivity (and a highly sensitive measure indeed!) are the cross-admit numbers.</p>
<p>To get some idea of the cross admit pecking order see the newest (December, 2005) "Revealed Preference" rankings.
<a href="http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf</a></p>
<p>And don't tell me I'm "not correct" either!</p>
<p>Oh, Byrley, I kind of get what you are saying...so U of Chicago isn't very selective I guess with a 50% acceptence rate...and here I thought it was a good school, but I'm wrong</p>
<p>The new December, 2005 version is now online</p>
<p>About 20% longer than the earlier version, at 52 pages, there is greater analysis of the impact of ED programs, and a breakdown by intended majors in addition to the overall ranking. They now show separate rankings for those interested in the sciences and the humanities respectively.</p>
<p>I think the authors are trying to box USNews etc into incorporating some of their findings and measures, which, it is argued, would counteract the manipulation of "selectivity" numbers via excessive use of ED programs, and "strategic admissions" practices, in order to affect USNews rankings, etc.</p>