<p>I said what I wanna say in the title.</p>
<p>Great news! Now Emory can move forward and focus on what is important!</p>
<p>Just curious here… but what was Emory’s actual data for incoming freshman?</p>
<p>Fall 2011 Applications, Acceptances & Enrollments</p>
<p>Applicants 17,021
Female applicants 9,757
Male applicants 7,264
Applicants accepted 4,542
Female applicants accepted 2,614
Male applicants accepted 1,928
Freshman enrollment 1,342
Female freshman enrollment 722
Male freshman enrollment 620
Early decision applicants 1,400
Early decision applicants accepted 566
Early decision applicants enrolled 522
Early action applicants N/A
Early action applicants accepted N/A
Early action applicants enrolled N/A
Total enrolled incoming freshmen who were accepted under early acceptance or early action 39%
Fall 2011 Wait List</p>
<p>School has a wait list Yes
Applicants placed on wait list 5,249
Students accepting place on wait list 2,960
Students accepted from wait list 133
Fall 2011 High School Rank</p>
<p>Freshman students submitting high school class standing 41%
Class standing breakdown
Fall 2011 High School GPA</p>
<p>Freshman students submitting high school GPA 88%
Average high school GPA 3.8
High school GPA 25th-75th percentile range 3.7-4</p>
<p>Class standing breakdown
Freshmen in top 10 percent of high school class 80%
Freshmen in top 25 percent of high school class 96%</p>
<p>Fall 2011 Freshman SAT Scores</p>
<p>Freshman students submitting SAT scores 80%
SAT Critical Reading average score 664
SAT Critical Reading 25th-75th percentile range 620-710</p>
<p>Fall 2011 Freshman ACT Scores</p>
<p>Freshman students submitting ACT scores 47%
Average ACT Composite score 31
ACT Composite 25th-75th percentile range 29-32</p>
<p>Why is Emory placing like 1/3 of the applicant pool on the waiting list and accepting 133 of them? What’s the point? More students are placed on waitlist than accepted the first time around. Exactly what are they hoping for? If yield protecting, it’s a waste of effort.</p>
<p>Average high school GPA 3.8
High school GPA 25th-75th percentile range 3.7-4</p>
<p>OMG, if my high school had grade inflation like this, I would’ve had perfect stats coming out of high school.
I can’t help but laugh at it now, but a few years ago, I would’ve been pretty irked if I knew the rest of America had high grades pretty much handed to them.</p>
<p>And, I want to see the yield go up a lot. That’s the best indicator of the school’s perception among high school students.</p>
<p>The accepted someone who choose to not attend, thus they picked someone off the waitlist</p>
<p>
Sorry, but that quit being true a long time ago. That is one reason even the highly flawed USNWR dropped yield as a criteria in the rankings.</p>
<p>It used to be more valid when applications were pretty much the same across all schools and the schools marketed themselves the same way, which is to say basically not at all. So the playing field was pretty level from that point of view. But now with people applying to 10-20 schools, the common app, free apps from some schools and not others, heavy marketing by some schools and not others, etc. yield as a measure of perceptual prestige is gone.</p>
<p>I don’t see how the examples you gave support what you’re saying. The only examples I can think of are finances and athletics.</p>
<p>OK, I will spell it out for you. Some schools have purposely flooded the market with offers for free apps. Call one of them University X. So people apply to X that never would have before, because it is free and easy, given the common app. But they are reasonably confident they will get into even more selective schools. Lo and behold, they do get into X and into several schools they always preferred, and most pick one of these other schools. Therefore the yield for X goes down quite a bit, but they don’t mind because some relatively small percentage of these same students do in fact choose X because of one of several factors. And even though it is a small percentage, it represents a nice bump in incoming student quality for University X.</p>
<p>So nothing has changed about the inherent quality of University X other than, if anything, it has gotten better because of higher quality incoming freshmen. One can even see it in the stats because the average SAT scores and GPA’s are higher, as well as the percentage graduating in the top 10% of their high school class. Yet the yield has dropped significantly. It just has to do with marketing strategy and that school’s (and there are a number that are using this or similar strategies) goals.</p>
<p>Also, when the number of applications high school students submit goes up, yields have to fall. In the past one student might get accepted to 2 or 3 schools because they only applied to 5 or 6. Now those numbers might double or even triple on average. The math tells you yields have to fall unless schools accept a lot fewer students. But that can be risky for all but the most prestigious of schools.</p>
<p>Again, if yield were such a good indicator, why wouldn’t USNWR use it as a factor, if not the main factor? It just isn’t. Frankly I am having trouble figuring out what you meant by finances and athletics. It makes me wonder if we are talking about the same thing. I understand the definition of yield to be the percentage of accepted students that actually enroll at a given university.</p>
<p>It still doesn’t work. Yield and student quality are not inversely related.
If the student who applied because of aggressive marketing decided to attend School X, then the student quality would still be increasing (It’s reasonable to assume that the student would increase school quality since he did, after all, get into more selective schools) and the yield would overall be better. So a student doesn’t have to attend somewhere other than School X the majority of time (or even some of the time) for the student quality of School X to be increasing.
- yield doesnt imply + student quality. Or vice versa. You can have more yield and a better student quality both.</p>
<p>I’m hoping one day, students will choose Emory over other schools they got into. It doesn’t matter if they applied to 5 schools or 15… when they’re picking Emory more often, teh yield is increasing and you can reasonably be sure that it’s a consequence of them holding the school in a higher regard. I don’t think a rise in the number of applications for each student means yield has to fall.</p>
<p>Like I said, Emory needs to reach a point where roughly half of the students who get in decide to matriculate. And, out of the half that didn’t, it should mainly be because of the opportunity to play sports at a different school or because of the inability to pay for Emory. That’s when you know Emory’s perception among it’s peers is high.</p>
<p>To get yield to increase, the school would have to accept significantly less students. This has become the trend among a lot of our peers who have decent yield (beyond say 35% or even 40%). The actual number (not only percent) of acceptees decreases so yield, if they have the same incoming class size, increases. If Emory really wants a higher yield, it should get on board with the other institutions and accept less people. Instead Emory accepts nearly the exact same amount each year. Our admission rate, for example, is almost purely dependent on how many people apply given that the number of students accepted is darn near constant compared to peers. Emory should simply accept less students if this is a concern. But given it’s relative lack of effective marketing, it certainly doesn’t want to take this risk (perhaps it should try shaving off 500 acceptances one year and see if the incoming student quality increases and base their future admission schemes off of that result. Instead Emory seems fearful to change its admissions scheme even though the reality is, many of the most qualified students will be denied admissions to peers, so could consider us . Given this fact, I really doubt taking this risk could do too much harm as the peers are now extremely selective on paper. We could pick off these students instead of waitlisting or denying them). </p>
<p>By the way, some schools have solid yield, but I would certainly not argue that they are of better quality than some of the lower yielding peers. Such a school could be winning a popularity contest among a niche group of students usually affiliated with the school. Whereas many places like Emory essentially attract students looking for nothing in particular but a “good school”. For example, I believe Duke doesn’t have the most amazing yield (may 30s?), but it is an excellent school. The prestige moreso than the quality of its peers puts it at a disadvantage here. To get yield, you pretty much need to stand out in some way to either attract a niche crowd or attract stereotypical students interested in a different experience. It’s hard to do. Emory would have to become “more unique” as opposed to being an “awesome school that is not an Ivy”.</p>
<p>Aluminum - Wow, I am sorry but you just don’t get what I am saying. I never said yield and quality were inversely related inherently, but with the aggressive marketing they would be. If 10 of those better students attend but 90 don’t, and none of them would have applied but for the aggressive marketing, the quality goes up and the yield goes down. I am not making this up, it is what is happening at various schools. It is a bit like as if you were selling a product and rather than targeting highly likely customers, you just mass marketed it to everyone. Your sales per person reached would go way down, most likely, but your overall sales would most likely go up. Of course, that type of campaign also costs more, so one has to decide if the strategy actually pays off.</p>
<p>As far as your next statement, if students apply to 15 instead of 5 and get into more schools as a result, the yield doesn’t have to fall at Emory, but it does at the other schools they get into if they choose Emory. Your scenario is highly implausible. Not that many students play sports compared to those who don’t, and if Emory isn’t competitive in financial aid their yield will certainly suffer. I don’t think you understand the process.</p>
<p>Emory needs a fancy football team, a engineering school, a great commercial development department, and a fantastic dining hall…</p>
<p>Mgfam - LOL. You know, last I looked Emory was doing just fine. I am not sure why anyone would be complaining about a process that has worked awfully well for the school. Sure it can be tweaked and slightly improved, but it is a pretty darn good school with very high recognition for quality.</p>
<p>Worrying about yield is just silly. Emory gets the class size it wants filled with some of the highest caliber students in the country. Who cares if this is achieved by a 20% yield or a 40% yield or whatever. That is just a ridiculous game.</p>
<p>Sometimes it darn near overfills its class… Sophomore housing improvements and additions need to be planned or else there will be a huge mess.</p>
<p>Exactly. So unless Emory finds a magic way of knowing who is going to get accepted elsewhere and not choose Emory, it is very hard to find that “sweet spot” of largely accepting the students that will pick Emory over the others. When a school competes against Duke, WUSTL, Vandy, etc. for many of the same students (not to mention those that will, indeed, end up with financial incentives at less selective schools that will be too good to pass up) it is always a concern whether the class will end up too large (strains facilities) or too small (lost revenue). I am amazed admissions succeeds as well as it does at all these schools. The models must work pretty well.</p>
<p>Well to add my two cents, and this is some what related. I am happy that Emory admits off the wait list to fill the class. I would rather have them fall a little short in acceptances and then admit off the wait list. I would not want Emory to increase their acceptances and have too many students matriculate. Lots of problems with larger classes, more difficult to register, and housing is pressured. </p>
<p>Last year, Tulane had something like over 500 more students accept than planned. Hmmmm…maybe this had something to do with the free app, option for early action and Tulane gives lot of merit money that students do not need to apply for.</p>
<p>I think if Emory wants more students to choose Emory over the the ivy leagues, they need to hand out more merit scholarships, without the major application, and during the regular decision process. I think just giving merit scholarship to a few that apply in October/November limits Emory’s ability to attract the better students…if that in fact is one of their goals. </p>
<p>How much will Emory’s ranking improve if Emory increases its enrolled students standardized test, gpa and class standings? </p>
<p>For those great CC Emory advisors:
Do we really care, if Emory’s stats/rankings are at competitive levels now?
Does Emory want to go to the next level to compete with the Ivy Leagues?
What would it take to move up a couple ranking points?</p>
<p>Maybe Emory’s new admissions director from John Hopkins will have the answer and Emory will move up to #13!We can do it!</p>
<p>PS…Right now I am just hoping my S makes it though biology, chem and calculus! Hope we will not regret turning down that big scholarship from Tulane!</p>
<p>Collegemother2 - just to keep the facts straight, Tulane ended up with about 1700 in this freshman class, while the target was 1500. So not quite as far off, but you are right it is a big class, the third one significantly over target in a row, though the previous 2 years were not as dramatic. Not that important, just saying.</p>
<p>Because you are exactly right that the more selective a school is, the easier it is for them to get students that will accept a wait list offer without sacrificing quality. Harvard being the most extreme example, the admissions office there has said at various times they could throw out the entire accepted class, take the next 2000 off the wait list, and class quality would be the same. The further down you go in the list of selectivity of a school, the harder that is to pull off. But again, Emory gets outstanding students and is a great place to get a first-rate education. Even if your comment about being #13 was tongue-in-cheek, it would be a misguided goal. I really wonder how USNWR became God in this process? Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, people!</p>
<p>Finally, merit scholarships do indeed work much of the time to attract students of higher caliber than would otherwise attend, but obviously not always since it did not for your son. WishIng him the best of luck, btw. But remember, the stats of the students only account for part of the ranking equation, and relatively small changes in those stats (and Emory cannot really go up much higher) will not move the needle that significantly. Other big factors like peer assessment and long term graduation rates are slow to change. But again, who cares?!? Or more correctly, why should anyone care?</p>
<p>Yes Emory should of course accept off a waitlist, but should it really waitlist 5200+ students and only accept 133 off of it. That’s ridiculous. Cut the size of the waitlist and send denial letters. Don’t give students false hope. Really? 133/5200? That’s all I’m saying. </p>
<p>Collegemother: Emory needs to better compete with the peers you mention on an academic front, not incoming stats. front or even rankings. There are many liberal arts colleges or even lower ranking top research universities that are actually comparable academically in terms of rigor and focus on liberal arts education. You don’t need to have a very high rank or students w/perfect incoming stats. to provide this. Reed, for example, is not really Harvard caliber (though pretty high) in terms of these things but no one argues that it has amazing academics. JHU is a good example of a top 20 research school that doesn’t rank as well as the top 10 nor has the exact same incoming stats. yet is known for the non-cookie cutter education it provides (it is not merely a country club w/good professors). If Emory wants to compete in a legit manner, it must increase the caliber of the education provided. We already have quality. We just need to trust students w/a higher standard and more provocative coursework and content Georgia Tech, for example has similar stats. to Emory, but does this, and it ensures that students come out stronger than when they entered. Not to mention, employers trust the potential of a student getting through Tech in tact. Similar thing w/students at places like JHU and Reed.</p>
<p>In addition, the student body needs to be encouraged to take more intellectual and academic risks. This is a common theme at the schools you mentioned that isn’t as dominant at Emory and I now kind of realize that the pre-professionalism is hardly an excuse as those Ivies are hugely pre-prof. as well. The question is, do the pre-profs. here have an academic (as we know Emory students, like those elsewhere are definitely very involved in extracurriculars) passion other than getting into prof. school. If so, encourage them to pursue it even it seems outside of what they believe to be their current comfort zone and encourage them to take more challenging courses, and things like that. Students here play it too safe all too often and thus miss out on what Emory offers in my opinion. They get the social part of the experience but hardly no intellectual fulfillment.</p>