@nrtlax33 I get your point. By the same method it is hard to consider the reported yields of SCEA schools as real. Maybe only schools that use RD and/or EA. In the list from 2016 MIT and that particular Midwest school fit that description.
But it is game theory. With 200-some variables that Harvard is quoted as considering, “building a class” is a difficult optimization problem. There is plenty of room for the human component, including human emotions. In this context, “holistic” is just a euphemism; “dating” (which I like!) is just another.
@nrtlax33 I believe US News & World Report (and therefore the CDS) now provide the yield with and without consideration of the ED or EA applicants. But of course while you can adjust the data statistically ED is still taking a huge number of students out of the equation for all schools. (something that impacts other schools differentially which mucks up the entire yield equates preference notion)
Yield %:
National Universities
-
Stanford–82%
-
Harvard–79%
-
MIT–73.5%
-
Yale–69%
-
Princeton–68.3%
-
UPenn–68%
-
Chicago–67.7%
-
Columbia–62.3%
-
Nebraska–57.7%
-
Notre Dame–56%
-
Brown–55.8%
-
Northwestern–53%
-
Cornell–52.3%
-
Duke–50.2%
Notable LAC Yields:
Pomona College–53.7%
Claremont McKenna College–53.6%
Barnard College–51%
Publisher-is that with or without ED students?
jym626 I believe the article I’ve linked is the one you refer to.
It’s even more complicated than Publisher indicates (thanks Publisher for your list) because EA, while not obligating students, can take students out of the pool for other schools they’d have applied to if not for the fact that they got into their top choice of school. So for MIT, for example, 707 students were admitted EA. A certain portion of those students have MIT as their top choice. They won’t apply elsewhere. They would have lowered the yield of other schools had they applied to them. So EA can increase yield for other schools by taking those students out of the pool. Thus what is really captured by the yield numbers is very unclear.
“With 200-some variables that Harvard is quoted as considering…” Those aren’t a checklist. They’re adjectives that have been used.
“How many of those 2329 RD admits are eager to fill those 1110 RD seats? 1110/2329=47.65%”
Think not. In theory, they only need 1110 more to finish the class (not every Early admit will enroll.) You don’t know how eager the RD admits are to enroll.
But who really cares? Your kid either gets in or not. If she has choices, she can only matriculate at one.
Agreed that ED distorts yield in ways that REA/SCEA do not.
But, I doubt many of the 707 EA accepted MIT students did not apply anywhere else by Dec 15 (EA notification date). That would be too risky with such low admit rates and also could lead to a very strong applicant missing out on significant merit dollars at other institutions. Where one matriculates still comes down to finances for many students.
The yield percentages do include ED/EA/SCEA admits. This list is from the article cited in the original post in this thread. I engaged in slight rounding as, for example, Stanford’s actual yield was reported as 82.1%, not 82% as I listed.
Amazed that Duke’s yield isn’t higher & amazed that Barnard College & Notre Dame don’t have a higher yields.
Worth noting: University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
The proximity in yield rankings of Northwestern, Cornell & Duke just seems right to me. The world makes sense.
Mwfan1921, there are many parents reading your post, laughing at themselves/kid and wishing you were right. That’s because students and parents are in different time zones. For a student, the two week period between 12/15 and January 1st is the same as our months and months as in, “stop rushing me-no hassle-they’ll be plenty of time-I know what I’m going to write already-no reason to waste time until I know-Dad, I’ve got this. Stop bugging me”). 500 of those 707 were saying that to their parents on January 13th as were most of the other 8893. If you noticed a parent who suddenly went gray (or worse) and didn’t show to your New Year’s party, their kid was among the 8893.
“But, I doubt many of the 707 EA accepted MIT students did not apply anywhere else by Dec 15 (EA notification date).”
Maybe for those chasing merit at some places, or for the occasional place like the UCs with an earlier deadline, but with many RD deadlines in January it’s at least equally likely that students hadn’t hit “send” yet on other applications even if having them all ready to go, given the fees for application + scores + CSS costs per application. Why spend that until you know you need to?
And if MIT was number one choice, then it’s equally/more likely any other submitted applications would have been withdrawn after accepting MIT, which has the same effective outcome.
Agreed, but almost all ED admits at Penn chose to attend.
[quote]
1,332 students had previously been admitted through the Early Decision program, filling up 54.6 percent of the incoming class./quote
compared with
[quote]
Of the 5,762 students who applied, 1,335 received an acceptance at 3:00 p.m. today, via an online admissions decision. /quote
1335-1332=3
UPenn only lost three ED admits.
Here is actual raw data as published by Ivy Wise for each Ivy for class of 20022 as follows :
School-Enrolled-Accepted-Yield
Brown 1665-2566-64.9%
Columbia 1390-2214-62.8%
Cornell 3275-5288-61.9%
Dartmouth 1159-1925-59.7%
Harvard 1665-1962-84.9%
Penn 2445-3731-65.5%
Princeton 1296-1921-67.5%
Yale 1782-2229-79.9%
All include ED
Can’t speak to accuracy
^ Yale class of 2022’s size: 1578 and yield: 72.4%
https://news.yale.edu/2018/08/23/incoming-class-2022-sets-record-socio-economic-diversity-and-yield
In all honesty, those numbers are no more than inter-university oneupmanship. Of course they’re cooked up, and it doesn’t matter. When you’re cooking up numbers to change ranking, or graduation rates, it’s a problem, because students make decisions based on those numbers. However, I do not think that there are any students who looked at those numbers, and decided to go with Harvard instead of Yale because of a higher yield. Let the Harvard and Yale administrators wave these numbers in each other’s faces at fancy cocktail parties for Rich School admins. Who cares? In fact, it’s better for the students, since it pushes those schools to offer all sorts of incentives so that accepted students enroll there.
True mWolf. But they do when deciding between Hamilton and Colgate-and the numbers impact on all kinds of other things that ultimately impact on the schools’ finances.
someone should explain the game theory of why schools like Brown, Cornell, Williams , Amherst don’t have an ED2 ?
No idea about “game theory”, but ED2 at these schools might adversely affect their ED1 numbers.
“Think not. In theory, they only need 1110 more to finish the class (not every Early admit will enroll.) You don’t know how eager the RD admits are to enroll.”
Penn definitely has an idea how eager their RD admits are to enroll, that’s why they accept all those kids for the remaining spots. They use enrollment consultants on this too who have analyzed Penn’s historical RD yield and are advising how many to take.