<p>whats wrong with trying to boost your yield rate anyway?</p>
<p>yes what is wrong in attracting top talent? and why are you so possesed with all these? I did follow your exchanges with a dartmouth likely.</p>
<p>There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to improve yield, and certainly nothing wrong with romancing uncommitted admits with birthday cards, magnets, bumper stickers, etc, etc.</p>
<p>I do, however, have a problem with "likely letters", "early writes" etc, which are tools designed to get around common admit dates in order, hopefully, to gain an edge over "rivals" who are obeying that common admit date.</p>
<p>The "rivals" cannot be expected to stand idly by forever while those seeking an edge sneak away from the starting line early.</p>
<p>The eventual result will be some kind of rolling admissions process that will benefit few schools and fewer applicants.</p>
<p>"I do, however, have a problem with "likely letters", "early writes" etc, which are tools designed to get around common admit dates in order, hopefully, to gain an edge over "rivals" who are obeying that common admit date."</p>
<p>I didn't know that common admit date was the law of of the land. </p>
<p>The 'raivals' are watching closely and they will come up with their own gizmos. I predict that in the next few years even the lower ivies would start 'buying' students by offering merit $.</p>
<p>But why should any one worry?</p>
<p>ivy schools are not allowed to offer merit aid.</p>
<p>and as for "likely letters" increasing yield? i got a "likely" email from columbia, and it hasnt changed my impression of the school with respect to other schools. in fact, because supposedly only the top 25% of accepted students get likelies, I feel like maybe columbia isnt as great as i thought it was. <em>shrug</em> im a stanfordwannab3.</p>
<p>The author (in 2002) foresaw a move towards more merit aid by elites to "buy" students. We have seen this come to pass, though not yet at the Ivies. The response at the Ivies to date (Harvard, Princeton and now Yale) has been to expand their recruiting among lower income groups - where their ability to award "need-based" aid allows them to compete - dollar for dollar - with the schools offering "merit aid" and so-called "athletic scholarships".</p>
<p>Because I am so cynical, I suspect that a great deal of the pressure for these moves has come from coaches who are dismayed at losing recruits to Stanford, Duke, Florida, Michigan etc where they are getting "athletic scholarships". The only way to fight back is to step up recruiting of more POOR students who have sufficient athletic talent and sufficient brains - and who, not incidentally, qualify for "need-based" aid.</p>
<p><a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066353%5B/url%5D">http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066353</a></p>
<p>I was offered a $600 scholarship at Cornell...</p>