The reason I don’t think deferring an ‘over-qualified’ candidate is yield protection is because what @1NJParent is describing is in fact yield management/enrollment management.
Schools know many ‘over-qualified’ candidates will not end up enrolling. They are predicting which ones they think will enroll, and also, which ones they want most out of the list of those they doubt will enroll.
Colleges use algorithms based on prior years’ data to determine who is most likely to enroll. As we have seen on this very thread, for the most part they seem to be getting it right - all of the posters who talked about applicants getting deferred by a school also have acknowledge their child received more desirable (to them) admits and would not have enrolled at the schools they were deferred/denied even if they had been accepted.
This ultimately seems to be more about feeling insulted/hurt that a school deemed by the applicant/family to be basically a sure thing said, “Actually, no we aren’t.” And to be clear, we are talking about schools with acceptance rates in the 25% range…when 3/4 of applicants are getting denied, getting a deferral during EA seems to be a result that should be at least imagined by applicants - no matter how qualified.
Like with anything else- you don’t like a college’s practices for whatever reason- don’t apply there. Seems simple to me. I know from the “buzz” in my neighborhood that there are several Catholic colleges which give preference to kids who come out of parochial schools or have a recommendation from someone important in their parish. But hey- there are Catholic colleges that don’t do that- so apply there. There are colleges where being male is a tip factor- all things being equal- in order to maintain some semblance of gender parity. You don’t like that? Don’t apply. Athletic scholarships, same deal.
I know kids who don’t want to apply to “old colleges” in New England because the dorms aren’t air conditioned. Hey- your money, your choice. It’s not as though there aren’t plenty of colleges in Arizona, Florida, Texas, all of which have AC EVERYWHERE.
THAT’s what the folks like me are pushing back on. Whatever you call it- if you don’t approve, don’t apply.
I have a lot of libertarian sensibilities myself, but we tend to be less libertarian when it directly affects us, in college admissions or anything else. Then we think that those other people that are exercising their freedoms are not being fair, colleges in this case …
For example, preferring good looking people for hospitality jobs. Arguably bad looking people are not a protected class under the constitution :-).
They think or they suspect? Based on “overqualification”? If “overqualification” is a sin, how do you expect students to get into their “reaches”, or even “matches”?
They are predicting based upon the knowledge they have of what kind of applicants who are ‘over-qualified’ end up enrolling and who they most want.
In every case of concerns of ‘yield protection’ there are other ‘over-qualified’ applicants that are, in fact, accepted during EA and RD. It isn’t that every ‘over-qualified’ applicant gets deferred, the most desirable* ones do get accepted.
*Most desirable in this case being ones who most closely match the institutional priorities.
I’m talking about applicants who “closely match the institutional priorities” of the college. They’re only “disqualified” because the college suspects they may also “match the institutional priorities” of some other more “desirable” colleges.
I get it when people are upset about the admissions policies at West Point, Naval Academy, etc. Not only are those institutions 100% supported by our tax dollars, they shape the leadership cohort of the military for an entire generation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff of 2055 are going to be comprised of students now graduating from the service academies. Whatever warfare looks like in 15 years is being shaped today by a course now in session on Ethics and Responsibility. Even the levels of military spending, the ratios of hardware vs. personnel… these decisions impact all of us for decades and the people who make those decisions are usually graduates of the academies. Etc.
But honestly- Case? Northeastern? This is what gets folks riled up??? Their societal impact is so significant?
People are protesting a general pattern of behavior. These institutions should be thrilled that we are taking them as exemplars of a class for the discussion.
There are still more high stats students who may seem to match the institutional priorities of the schools-which-have-been-tagged-as-yield-protectors than these schools can admit. Note that institutional priorities at a given school do change from year to year as well.
I’m sure most realize I am in the much ado about nothing camp. With that said, it seems to me that CWRU, NEU and some others aren’t even doing a great job ‘protecting yield’ because, well, their yields are below average. So…are they really yield protecting and doing a bad job at it, or not yield protecting at all?
Most recent aggregate yield data from NACAC’s state of college admissions report (which is only a subset of 4 year colleges) is from 2017, where average yield was 33.7%. In 2017-18 (to match up time periods) CWRU’s yield was 15.5%, NEU’s 20.9%.
In 2019-20 (looking at pre-covid numbers, because the last two years of data is skewed), CWRU’s yield was 17.2% and NEU’s 26.6%…both likely still below average. I wonder for how many students ‘yield protection’ is even a concern, when clearly these two schools aren’t many applicants’ top choice.
I do agree that these schools that are less predictable in their admissions can make it more difficult for high stats students to have balanced lists. But…applicants don’t have to put these schools on their list.
I also support the EA schools who have moved to post-New-Year decision dates, because I understand why they wouldn’t want to admit a student who gets admitted to their ED school (yield protection concern). It can be more difficult for the students to wait longer for decisions, but IME the EA decisions of the later schools can seem more predictable. Another reason students should have at least one rolling admission school on their list.
I think CWRE’s yield will rise 20+ points if it just picked itself up and transplanted directly 500 miles south as the crow flies. It is just too cold out there.
Whether you call it “yield management” or “yield protection”, schools have two concerns. First, they have a finite number of dorm rooms and seats in classes and they need to manage how many students matriculate into a host of majors. Second - whether we like it or not - colleges value and protect their rankings and reputations, and having a low yield rate reflects poorly on the school.
You should see the efforts UChicago goes to to keep its yield where it is. It was sending either an email or a physical piece of mail literally every other day a few cycles ago. I was surprised why they were so insistent.
That was (only) half in jest about CWRE. You can’t deny that the cold plays some role. I think the issue with CWRE is that it is known as an engg school, and traditional engg is less in vogue now than new fangled stuff like data science etc. Not that they don’t offer the new fangled stuff, but they don’t market themselves that way. I don’t know what their rep is among poli sci, creative writing and other majors that comprise the other three quarters of a school’s student body.
There’s value in identifying collges that may practice more objectionable forms of yield “protection” for the benefits of future applicants. Rather than ignoring such practices, applicants should pay greater attention to this issue if they intend to apply to one of these colleges. No one has said that colleges can’t do what they want in this regard, but if you’re an applicant whose chance of admission may be affected by such practices, you want to know about it.
Kids are very attuned to this behavior by UChicago. Even though it is ranked whereever it is on the US News rankings, it is usually kids that are at the 75th percentile or so at out school that would ED1 into Chicago. We place 3-4 kids a year.
For example, knowing whether it is (more) unlikely to be worth applying to a college for regular decision, or whether or how to play the level of interest game for a particular college.
Since NEU’s yield protection seems to be point of contention I checked out last year’s results from our school (MA public). It appears kids get in at a much higher rate than their published acceptance rate - I estimate around 50-60% acceptance (I eyeballed it). Acceptance rates much higher for ED (100%) and EA than RD. Most top kids got in (guess around 75%) with a few deferrals/rejections in there. If they are practicing yield protection they aren’t doing it very aggressively at our school - can’t speak to others. Since majors aren’t identified I can’t tell if those deferrals and rejections among high stats kids were in impacted majors like CS and engineering.