<p>a poster on another thread regarding uchi's low yield rate referred to swarthmore's yield as even lower at 28%. is this actually true? if yes, why is it so low? the other poster justified uchi's low yield by saying that the school was too rigorous for most of the applicants so they instead choose easier schools. if swarthmore's yield is really this low, what other schools are the admitted applicants choosing over swarthmore. in fact, does anyone have a theory why they would apply to swarthmore in the first place? is swarthmore a "safety school" for other university's? just wondering what people's thoughts are.</p>
<p>according to USNews, Swat accepted 933 kids, and 366 enrolled, for a TOTAL yield of 39%. But, Swat also has ED, and accepts 38% of its students early. If we assume a 100% yield from the ED pool, and back out 140 from both numerator and denominator, yield of RD pool is 226/793 = 28%. With Swat's ED program, it's difficult to compare yield with Chicago's, which offers EA.</p>
<p>Also, according to USNews, students who apply to Swat also apply to Amherst, Brown Harvard, Princeton & Yale.</p>
<p>The PR guidebook screwed up copying the data from the Swarthmore Common Data set. They used a figure of 1385 acceptances (they double counted the male acceptances). This caused them to publish an incorrect acceptance rate figure of 38% instead of the correct 25%. This obviously makes the yield calcuation incorrect. They published 26% instead of the correct figure of 39%.</p>
<p>USNEWS managed to accurate copy the numbers from the Swarthmore Common Data Set for fall 2004:</p>
<p>3680 applications
933 acceptances (25% acceptance rate)
366 enrolled (39% yield)</p>
<p>This data is all available in the Swarthmore Common Data Set here:</p>
<p>The acceptance rate for this year (Fall 2005) was lower (22%) because applications increased eleven percent to 4085. </p>
<p>Yield also increased to at least 42%. The yield increase (not much "summer melt") was a bit unexpected and the freshman class ended up being larger than the target.</p>
<p>To answer your other question, there are 3 main reasons that an accepted Swarthmore student would choose another school:</p>
<p>a) They got accepted to a school that is harder to get into (HYPSM) and chose to go there.</p>
<p>b) They got accepted to a school that is roughly comparable from an admissions standpoint (Amherst, Brown, etc.) and chose the other school because they felt it was a better fit.</p>
<p>c) They got a significant merit discount incentive at a school that is easier to get into, making it financially more attractive.</p>
<p>Those are all perfectly valid, logical reasons. Most students accepted to Swarthmore probably have a number of acceptance letters in their pocket.</p>
<p>BTW, I don't agree with the premise that ED is not comparable to EA from a yield standpoint. If a school is your first choice (which it darn well better be if you submit a binding ED applicantion), you are going to enroll there. I'm not sure why those students shouldn't be counted in the yield just like anyone else.</p>
<p>interesteddad: i believe that those ed students are included in the yield, that's why ed is so attractive to the schools. i think that bluebayou took ed stats out of the yield so that one could compare it more accurately to non binding ea. apples to apples type analysis. schools do count ed in their yields.</p>
<p>It seems to me that including ED admits in yield statistics is better than excluding them for the reasons given above, but less than perfect. While there might be some negative side effects that would tend to discourage a school from doing so, including ED admits does allow a school to manage their yield number by simply accepting more ED app's. Secondly, I don't think a binding ED choice is necessarily a first choice. In many, if not most cases, an ED choice is driven by a probability calculation. For instance, a very strong applicant could easily be torn between rolling the dice and using their ED at their first choice, say MIT, or spending it more prudently at their 2nd choice, say Brown or Swat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think that bluebayou took ed stats out of the yield so that one could compare it more accurately to non binding ea. apples to apples type analysis.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right. That's what he was doing. I just disagree with the logic.</p>
<p>For example, why would we want to look at UChicago's yield after we have subtracted the students who most want to enroll there? It doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>Gladdad: I disagree that the majority of ED applications are not first choice decisions. If somebody wants to go to MIT, they aren't going to apply somewhere else binding early decision.</p>
<p>dads:</p>
<p>I was just trying to remind the OP that it is not quite statistically accurate to compare yields for ED and EA programs. Yes, of course, the total yield of each school includes all applicants, both early and regular. BUT, if Swathmore went to a EA (or rolling) program, they would likely have to offer acceptances to more in the early round to yield the same number of 140 kids in Dec bcos some would be enticed by other schools -- obviously, kids that get into Swat have other great opportunities, and if they were not bound by ED, they could change their minds or be bought by someone else with merit money. </p>
<p>In any event, the 933 denominator goes up, yield goes down. By how much, I'll leave that to the enrollment management experts. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
BUT, if Swathmore went to a EA (or rolling) program, they would likely have to offer acceptances to more in the early round to yield the same number of 140 kids in Dec
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No doubt.</p>
<p>What would happen is that the college would lose the ability to identify the students who are most committed to Swarthmore. The number of early apps would go through the roof, a large chunk of them little more than a fishing expedition to see if they could get in.</p>
<p>The students who know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Swarthmore is their first choice school would be the big losers in a switch to non-binding EA because there is little incentive for the college from such a program.</p>
<p>Specifically, the big loser would be the solid mid-pack ED applicant who gets a boost from an explicit statement of committed interest in the school.</p>
<p>By and large, I don't even understand the point of a non-binding EA program. There's nothing in it for the college and, therefore, not much basis for a win-win transaction.</p>
<p>I-dad:</p>
<p>Definitely concur. For those who know "beyond a shadow of a doubt," showing committment thru ED can be a plus factor, particularly for bwrk's.</p>
<p>"nothing in it for the college..." an adcom at one school (lower down the food chain) said that EA gives them a chance to continue to sell their school, and, when kids come, he believes that they make a better decision bcos they have ruled out thier other options by May 1.</p>
<p>Makes sense, but possibly spin?</p>
<p>Yes. EA gives a college a chance to continue "selling" their school. However, there are a lot of cases where students don't even get down to the brass tacks of figuring out their realistic options until they have wasted all fall on a wild-hair EA fishing expedition at an extreme reach. </p>
<p>I think that the sooner a student can focus in on a realistic range of schools, the better. Falling in love with extreme reach colleges is counter-productive to the college selection process, IMO. A lot of applicants get hurt by it because they aren't in a frame of mind to truly fall in love with schools where they can get admitted.</p>
<p>BTW, I think UChicago is nuts to not have binding ED. The school is so distinctive that it would be really beneficial, I think, to identify perfect matches early in the proceedings and sign 'em up.</p>
<p>Could someone offer a comparision between the two schools being debated? I am applying to both and would like some opinions on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each school (i.e LAC vs. university, kinds of professors, strength of different programs mostly math and science, etc.) I know the question is rather broad, but these two schools seem so similar.</p>
<p>Try looking at old threads. There had been several threads comparing the two.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Try looking at old threads. There had been several threads comparing the two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. Some of us are kind of worn out on that one. We had a transfer student here last summer accepted to both who went around and around and around and around and around and around on it for months.</p>
<p>I think the similarity between UChicago and Swarthmore is that they are both very academically-oriented schools with demanding expectations of their students. Because of that, many of the same applicants are attracted to both.</p>
<p>Beyond that, I don"t see much similarity at all. It seems that a visit to both schools usually produces a strong preference -- for reasons that relate to size, location, and/or campus culture.</p>
<p>You've been to Swarthmore. While it is certainly demanding academically, it's also a very comfortable, beautiful place that has a warmth and friendliness and unusually strong community. I think that many students who chose Swarthmore do so because they sense those qualities from a visit, often on a sub-concious level. Many Swarthmore students explain their choice by simply saying, "I just knew."</p>
<p>My experience, looking at it as a parent, is that those qualities are even stronger than suspected.</p>
<p>that old conversation was back in June on the Swarthmore site.</p>
<p>UChicago vs Swarthmore</p>
<p>started by escape</p>
<p>Yes, but the name is ecape (not escape). You can find those by searching for the threads started by her. I think she had threads on both Swarthmore and UChicago forums.</p>
<p>One of the differences is that Chicago has the core curiculum.
The difference in location (urban Chicago vs. suberban Phila) is very significant.</p>
<p>size can also be important.</p>
<p>UChicago ~4,800 undergrad + grad/professional schools
Swathmore ~1,500 undergrads</p>
<p>Don't forget politics. Swarthmore is one of the most left-wing of the elite schools, and Chicago by far the most conservative.</p>
<p>Where di you hear the Chicago is one of the more conservative universities, and what is your basis for thinking that way? From what I hear, Chicago is qmore so apathetic than affiliated with oen school of thought.</p>