<p>"I still think neither of the two attracts top students who could aim for the Ivies and top schools like MIT, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, etc"</p>
<p>Agreed, USC and NYU are getting more popular, but not among students seeking academics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"i agree, i've heard so many of my friends, most of them girls, say, "omg it's my dream to live in SoCaL! i'm EDing for USC.""
[/quote]
</p>
<p>USC doesn't have ED (or EA).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Agreed, USC and NYU are getting more popular, but not among students seeking academics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would disagree with that, particularly for USC. USC's SAT range was 1920-2180 for incoming freshman in Fall 2006 - with 206 National Merit Scholars in the class. Sure it isn't in competition with HYP caliber schools, but it certainly is stealing some cross-admits from the schools like Cornell, Northwestern, Berkeley, etc... This is especially true in certain departments (engineering, film, communication, business). USC's yield has been increasing over the past 5 years - and that's without employing an ED program to artifically boost it.</p>
<p>In regards to NYU, many of the students in Stern had acceptances to "top schools", but choose NYU in order to study business.</p>
<p>"It had to be said."</p>
<p>Ha, ha. I just watched that movie for the first time a week ago.</p>
<p>Northeastern was very popular this year, and my class seems to really like Elon. BC has always stayed the favorite here, though. It's impossible to walk through the halls without seeing someone sporting a BC shirt or hat.</p>
<p>USC by far the most IN</p>
<p>"USC's yield has been increasing over the past 5 years - and that's without employing an ED program to artifically boost it."</p>
<p>I think USC is increasing their yield by not accepting otherwise good candidates that just don't seem that interested. At my daughter's school many kids with great stats (well above the 2006 accepted range) that were accepted to UCLA, UCB, NYU, and Tufts, were rejected by USC, while students with lower stats were accepted. The biggest difference seems to be the ones that accepted did go down and do the full day tour program, and showed a ton of interest. The others had USC on their list of safeties, and some even went down for a group tour, but not the full day program. I think it was smart of USC to look at how interested students were before accepting them. This is also a warning, if you have high stats and you want to go to USC show them you want to go to USC.</p>
<p>This is the "dream school" link on cc:</p>
<p>
[quote]
im so happy someone said that hansels so hot right now after that nyc comment. that would have festered in my mind for weeks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>thank goodness for me...for serious! <em>blue steel</em></p>
<p>There is a lot of speculation here on what is “hot” and what is not. In an attempt to separate fact from fiction, I suggest that we look at two numbers. First, what is the % yield for a college? Second, what is the year-over-year change in applications? The second number is subject to manipulation and is probably less reliable and so I will focus on yield. </p>
<p>I put together an unofficial listing of the yield for the USNWR Top 30, but could not get it for all schools (Caltech, Wash U, Notre Dame and USC) and some of these numbers may be off a little as I have substituted prior years numbers when current year was not available. I listed the publics separately as their in-state yields are likely very high while their out-of-state yields are likely much lower. Here is the full list:</p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard 70%+</li>
<li> Yale 70%</li>
<li> Princeton 68%</li>
<li> Stanford 67%</li>
<li> MIT 66%</li>
<li> U Penn 66%</li>
<li> Columbia 58%</li>
<li> Brown 58%</li>
<li> Dartmouth 49%</li>
<li>Cornell 47%</li>
<li>Georgetown 47%</li>
<li>Duke 41%</li>
<li>Northwestern 41%</li>
<li>Vanderbilt 39%</li>
<li>Wake Forest 36%</li>
<li>U Chicago 34%</li>
<li>Rice 34%</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins 32%</li>
<li>Tufts 31%</li>
<li>Emory 30%</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon 22%</li>
</ol>
<p>State Universities
1. U North Carolina 56%
2. U Virginia 51%
3. U Michigan 44%
4. UC Berkeley 42%
5. UCLA 39%</p>
<p>Need data for Caltech, Wash U, Notre Dame and USC. </p>
<p>It would also be helpful to compare the year-over-year change in yields, but I was only able to get this information on 15 of the 30 schools. Only 2 of those 15 saw a change of more than 2% (Columbia was +3.7% and Wake Forest was -2.9%).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think USC is increasing their yield by not accepting otherwise good candidates that just don't seem that interested. At my daughter's school many kids with great stats (well above the 2006 accepted range) that were accepted to UCLA, UCB, NYU, and Tufts, were rejected by USC, while students with lower stats were accepted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most private schools (USC included) factor a students level of demonstrated interest into their admission decision. This practice hasn't changed signifigantly at USC over the past 5-10 years, so I don't think it has had any impact on the school's yield. </p>
<p>Furthermore, it's not at all uncommon anymore for CA students to get into UCLA or UCB and get rejected from USC. USC has higher SAT averages than either UCLA or UCB (or NYU, since you mentioned it). In addition, USC is looking for a more geographically diverse student body than any of the UCs. Tufts does has higher averages than USC, but there really isn't alot of overlap between applicant pools for the two schools. Only 10% of students at Tufts are from the West coast. </p>
<p>I think there are two real reasons why USC's yield has increased (FYI, it was 36% for the fall 2007 incoming freshman class):
1) USC has become more generous with Financial Aid, and more importantly, is offering more merit scholarships to the top students. Merit scholarships really have been effective in helping USC steal cross admits from the very top schools.<br>
2) USC has simply become a more desirable school, with a better academic reputation. Many factors have contributed, including the strength of the alumni network, the visibility of the football program, new construction on campus, a safer surrounding neighborhood, and higher academic rankings.</p>
<p>Daily Trojan article on increase in yield (+4%) for incoming freshman class:
<a href="http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/05/23/News/Usc-Yield.Rate.Climbs-2906727.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/05/23/News/Usc-Yield.Rate.Climbs-2906727.shtml</a></p>
<p>Dartmouth's yield was 53% this year...</p>
<p>I would say Northwestern, USC, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth Penn, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton are HOT right now</p>
<p>I would say a place like Duke is not so hot right now</p>
<p>If Northwestern were the size of Princeton, and did a few things with its ED pool, the two schools would have pretty much the same yield. Yield is a pretty crappy piece of information to use to decide how good/hot a college is; it can be manipulated VERY easily.</p>
<p>Thanks for the help on USC and Dartmouth but I am only using data from the most recently released CDS so that I can standardize somewhat the comparisons that I am making. </p>
<p>As for the schools mentioned by Columbiahopeful, I have CDS data for the last two years for Columbia and Dartmouth (CDS for 2005-06 and 2006-07). Columbia has gone from 54% to 58% in the CDS for 2006-07. Dartmouth was flat year over year at 49% yield.</p>
<p>kk19131,
I concur that ED can have a large impact on overall yield, but I don't think it can be manipulated as much as you might think, particularly for RD. What would you suggest as another way to measure how "hot" a school is?</p>
<p>“but I don't think it can be manipulated as much as you might think, particularly for RD.”</p>
<p>Sure it can….. Like I noted in a thread a few months ago, Northwestern and Princeton get about the same number of applicants. If Northwestern cut its class size by like 40%, it would have the same yield as Princeton; yields are much more a function of class size than how 'hot' a school is. </p>
<p>"What would you suggest as another way to measure how "hot" a school is?"</p>
<p>-I'd say that looking only at year-to-year changes in total applicant numbers would be a good measure; this represents the total number of students in a given year who want to attend a university, and, looking at yearly changes can tell us how 'hot' a school has become in relation to previous years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Northwestern and Princeton get about the same number of applicants. If Northwestern cut its class size by like 40%, it would have the same yield as Princeton; yields are much more a function of class size than how 'hot' a school is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i don't think this is true, yield is created by how high a school is on the "revealed preference" list. some of the schools at the top of that list are really small, some really big.</p>
<p>I don't want to go through the numbers again, but it is quite true. With the same yield Northwestern has now, and by accepting a larger number of people ED (100% yield) the two schools would have the same yield.... I also don't think that little bit about the RP is true, but if you would like to look into the numbers and prove me wrong, so be it. :)</p>
<p>From 2005, here is a list of how many applicants per spot available schools received:</p>
<ol>
<li>Yale 14.9</li>
<li>Princeton 14.2</li>
<li>Washington University 14.1</li>
<li>Harvard 13.7</li>
<li>Columbia 13.1</li>
<li>Tufts University 12.6</li>
<li>Dartmouth 12.5</li>
<li>Caltech 12.3</li>
<li>Stanford 12</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon 11.8</li>
<li>Brown 11.8</li>
<li>Duke 11.5</li>
<li>Rice 10.9</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins 10.2</li>
<li>MIT 10.2</li>
<li>Georgetown 9</li>
<li>Northwestern 8.3</li>
<li>Chicago 8.2</li>
<li>Pennsylvania 7.7</li>
<li>Emory 7.6</li>
<li>Vanderbilt 7.2</li>
<li>Cornell 7.2</li>
<li><p>Notre Dame 5.4</p></li>
<li><p>Amherst 15.3</p></li>
<li><p>Pomona 13</p></li>
<li><p>Williams 11.8</p></li>
<li><p>Colgate 11.4</p></li>
<li><p>Swarthmore 11.2</p></li>
<li><p>Carleton 10.6</p></li>
<li><p>Trinity 10.5</p></li>
<li><p>Vassar 10.2</p></li>
<li><p>Wesleyan 10.1</p></li>
<li><p>Middlebury 8.9</p></li>
<li><p>Wellesley 7.7</p></li>
</ol>
<p>By this logic (and I want to stress that), Amherst is the most 'demanded' elite school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
With the same yield Northwestern has now, and by accepting a larger number of people ED (100% yield)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yeah but this will hurt the quality of the class. you can accept people with 25 ACT scores and 2.7s and you're right, they would probably all come to northwestern, but it's a matter of maintaining class integrity.</p>
<p>I don't disagree with this. All I'm saying is that yield alone is a pretty crappy measurement of school strength or of how 'hot' a school is, as: many elite schools could very easily give a trade off for a higher yield and relatively weaker class. On the other hand, a lower yield doesn't = a worse school- take Chicago, Rice, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Duke, and Vanderbilt for examples...</p>
<p>I live in an area with a large Catholic population. Ever year, Notre Dame is very in (for some reason that I have yet to determine)</p>