USNWR 2009: Looking at the Data XXV (Yield)

College Search & Selection
1

<p>The publication of the 2009 USNWR College Rankings provides an opportunity to compare schools based on a wide variety of data points. In this and in threads to follow, I urge the reader to think less about the absolute rankings and more about the nature and value-added of the data point being discussed. </p>

<p>Yield , National University-Privates</p>

<p>79% , Harvard
70% , Stanford
69% , Yale
69% , MIT
68% , Princeton
66% , U Penn
65% , Yeshiva
59% , Columbia
56% , Brown
56% , Notre Dame
52% , Dartmouth
47% , Cornell
47% , Georgetown
42% , Duke
39% , Vanderbilt
39% , NYU
38% , Caltech
37% , Wake Forest
36% , U Chicago
35% , USC
34% , Northwestern
34% , Wash U
33% , Johns Hopkins
33% , Rice
32% , Tufts
30% , Emory
30% , Lehigh
29% , Boston Coll
27% , Brandeis
26% , Rensselaer
23% , Carnegie Mellon
22% , U Rochester
21% , Case Western
18% , Tulane</p>

<p>Yield , National University-Publics</p>

<p>63% , U Florida
56% , U North Carolina
54% , U Texas
52% , U Virginia
46% , U Washington
45% , U Illinois
43% , U Michigan
43% , Georgia Tech
43% , U Wisconsin
41% , UC Berkeley
38% , UCLA
37% , W&M
32% , Penn State
24% , UC Davis
22% , UCSD
22% , UC Irvine
19% , UC Santa Barbara</p>

<p>Yield , LAC</p>

<p>85% , US Naval Acad
78% , US Military Acad
45% , Williams
45% , W&L
44% , Middlebury
42% , Bowdoin
41% , Wellesley
41% , Davidson
40% , Amherst
40% , Claremont McK
39% , Swarthmore
39% , Pomona
38% , Smith
37% , Vassar
37% , Bryn Mawr
36% , Haverford
35% , Carleton
35% , Wesleyan
34% , Hamilton
34% , Oberlin
34% , Bates
33% , Colgate
31% , Colby
28% , Grinnell
28% , Harvey Mudd
24% , Macalester</p>

2

<p>why do you start every thread with a reference to the USNews survey when so few of your criteria (e.g., yield) are used or recognized by them in the formulation of its survey?</p>

3

<p>^ I don't give a hoot about the US News rankings, but I do agree with hawkette that some of the raw data---even data that aren't elements in the US News ranking itself---can be quite revealing. I think it's interesting, for example, that only about 1 in 5 Harvard admits turns down the offer, while for Yale and Princeton it's closer to 1 in 3 and for Dartmouth and Cornell roughly 1 in 2. Or that while Notre Dame and Boston College are in many respects peers and rivals, Notre Dame's yield is roughly double that of BC. Or that, with the exception of the service academies (a special case), the yields of the top LACs do not come close to HYPS levels, but are comparable to Duke, Georgetown, Vanderbilt et al---all very good schools, but clearly a notch below HYPSM and the other Ivies in applicant preferences. Or that the yields of a number of top publics surpass those of some very good privates like Chicago, Northwestern, Wash U, Johns Hopkins, Rice, and Emory.</p>

<p>I also think hawkette is right to place the publics in a separate category. Many of their admits are in-staters who prefer to stay in-state either for the in-state tuition or for reasons of geographical and family preferences---or both. In short, they really do represent a separate market. (For this purpose, I think Washington & Lee should be listed among the "publics," not among LACs; and the service academies, with their highly specialized applicant pool and free tuition, belnog in a category of their own).</p>

<p>All in all, I think the yield data tell us something valuable about the actual preferences of college applicants. A school like Carnegie Mellon which lands only about 1 in 4 of its admits is clearly less a preferred destination for many of its applicants than are some other schools. We know that because the data reveal that of those given a choice, most opt to go elsewhere. Of course, we might have already surmised that from anecdotal evidence and whatnot, but the data provide useful confirmation and possibly a few surprises.</p>

4

<p>bc,
I don't understand your comment about W&L. Isn't it a private LAC comprised of mostly non-Virginians?</p>

5

<p>^ You're right. For some reason I thought it was public. It's private. I stand corrected.</p>

6

<p>"why do you start every thread with a reference to the USNews survey when so few of your criteria (e.g., yield) are used or recognized by them in the formulation of its survey?"</p>

<p>Because she's isolating some interesting data points that USN provides. Good for her!</p>

7

<p>does this include early decision or just regular?</p>

8

<p>What does yield indicate? Part of it is appeal but there are a lot of other factors. </p>

<p>Special interest schools like the military academies have a high yield. Students don't apply unless they plan to attend. Same with religious schools.</p>

<p>Yield is not the same as selectivity. Caltech has the highest SATs but not the highest yield.</p>

<p>Yield is a function of the competitiveness of overlap schools, schools with high numbers of cross-admits. A school's market niche makes a difference.</p>

<p>Among the individual colleges within Cornell, the yield varies from 37% to 79%.</p>

9

<p>Let's face it -- the yield rank simply boils down to a preference ranking by those who have the luxury of choice.</p>

<p>If you have the choice between taking a subway to school or getting dropped off in a limo, most people (granted not all) -- but most people would choose the private mode of transportation (again, all things being equal and you have the luxury of choice). If a student faces a choice between accepting Harvard or Tufts, most of the times that student chooses Harvard.</p>

<p>The fact that HYPSM takes the top 5 spots should come as no surprise then -- it is HYPSM for a reason. The next 5 spots, however, confirm what I have always said (or belie these annual rankings). Taking out the niche school Yeshiva, you've got:</p>

<ul>
<li>UPenn</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
</ul>

<p>In other words, the Ivies + MIT and Stanford = the gold standard when it comes to schools that students really want to attend (if they had the luxury of choice). Other schools that punch above their "USNWR rank" weight are Notre Dame and Georgetown.</p>

<p>Basically, schools like Brown, Notre Dame and Georgetown are way underrated and schools like WashU, Northwestern, UChicago (and to a certain extent Duke) are overrated in relation to their USNWR rankings:</p>

<p>Here is a simple side by side comparison Yield Rank vs. USNWR Rank:</p>

<p>Brown 9 vs. 16 (+7 differential)
Notre Dame 10 vs. 18 (+8 differential)
Georgetown 12 vs. 23 (+11 differential)</p>

<p>WashU 21 vs. 12 (-9 differential)
Northwestern 21 vs. 12 (tied with WashU) (-9 differential)
UChicago 19 vs. 9 (-10 differential)
Duke 14 vs. 8 (-6 differential)</p>

10

<p>Having a yield rank that outperforms an actual rank does not by itself suggest that a school is underrated. Notre Dame is a good example. Notre Dame is no more underrated than Yeshiva, which likely pull disproportionate yields for similar reasons, namely a targeted ethnic religious base that is the predominant demographic of their respective student bodies. This encourages self-selection by dissuading students who don't fit the predominant demographic of the school from applying. Self-selection in these instances also positively influences yield rate. </p>

<p>Furthermore, your assumption that students with choice will choose the best education for them is not self-evident. This may be true at the top of the scale, but cannot be sustained as a measure after what you describe as the clear top 5. Beyond those schools, yield is little more than a popularity contest than a measure of quality. No one would argue that Brown is a more serious educational environment than UChicago, but it's yield rate suggests that it is, were we to assume a correlation between yield rate and quality.</p>

11

<p>I think that when we compare yields, in addition to school reputation, we also need to take into consideration other factors such as SAT scores. For example, Stanford's SAT scores are lower than those of Princeton and Yale and therefore it has a higher yield because those low scoring students don't have a chance at YP. The same can be said about Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn and Brown. Any of these schools with a higher score range willl compete directly with HYP, and hence lower its yield.</p>

12

<p>^
I agree.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
This may be true at the top of the scale, but cannot be sustained as a measure after what you describe as the clear top 5.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It holds for HYPSM, but then somehow it doesn't work after HYPSM? Please explain that logic. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Beyond those schools, yield is little more than a popularity contest than a measure of quality. No one would argue that Brown is a more serious educational environment than UChicago, but it's yield rate suggests that it is, were we to assume a correlation between yield rate and quality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course the fatal flaw in your logic above is that the USNWR is some kind of legitimate standard in determining "academic quality".</p>

<p>Frankly, your Chicago vs. Brown is a very poor example on your behalf. Because those two schools are top academic institutions, any arguments otherwise will clearly reveal a bias / agenda. So then a student looks at other things such as the intangibles -- things like reputation, location, quality of life. Brown consistently ranks near or at the top in categories such as "happiest students" (ranked no. 2 this year by Princeton Review) alongside perennial happiest students at Princeton and Stanford -- Brown also ranks no. 19 for "lots of race / class interaction". Chicago, conversely, ranks no. 9 for "students that study the most" and no. 14 for "intercollegiate sports are unpopular" and no. 9 for best library.</p>

<p>So, yeah, if you want to go to a top school and lock yourself in a library for 4 years Chicago is probably a better bet than Brown. If you want to go to a top school and have an opportunity to experience a diverse, rich academic and social experience, maybe just maybe you might be better off at Brown than Chicago. A school with smart people who know how to have fun vs. a school where fun goes to die. Hmmm. Tough choice. But don't trust me. Just look at the choices that the students are making. Brown > Chicago, and its not really close.</p>

14

<p>Any discussion of yield without exploring how schools use early decision policies to influence their admissions numbers is without merit. </p>

<p>For instance, I'm not certain that Penn's 66% yield vis-a-vis Duke's 42% yield provides any level comparison without first acknowledging that Penn admits a far greater percentage of its enterring class ED than Duke.</p>

15

<p>all i'm saying is that yield is not dispositive. the evidence you use to counter my example about brown and chicago in fact supports the claim that there is no standard measure between these two schools for quality. that you would rather be at a school that ranks high on happiness, diversity, and popularity does little for a student who cares about the size of a library and, perhaps, the depth and opportunity of the economics department but is indifferent to diversity. yield is popularity, and not much more; alone it is less a measure of quality, in my opinion, than many other criteria that are criticized as yardsticks such as SAT score and alumni giving. claiming that a wide difference between a school's yield rank and actual rank illustrates an under- or over-ranking remains unsupported, and assumes that yield alone commands priority as a measure against a ranking system that weighs a variety of important measures.</p>

16

<p>pb2002,</p>

<p>i understand your point. just as you don't give it ANY weight, i think its weight isn't worth ZERO. the truth, as is in most cases, lies somewhere in the middle.</p>

<p>btw, Brown > Chicago in Alumni Giving (Brown's 2009 ranking is no. 6 at 40% vs. Chicago's ranking no. 17 at 32%) -- you'd think that being stuck together in a library for four years would engender some kind of solidarity akin to the Stockholm Syndrome or something.</p>

17

<p>i should also say that i do not assume usnews to be, necessarily, a standard of measurement, although i will admit that it's far more thorough a standard than yield rate. moreover my logic does not depend upon that assumption. instead, it depends upon the assumption that reasonable people would struggle to come to unanimity about which school between brown and uchicago offers a superior quality education. i do not think a student's choice about which school to attend (yield rate) answers that question. also, considering professor101's contribution, yield rates of different schools with different peer groups make comparisons of rates cosmetic and not terribly meaningful.</p>

<p>at root, i believe our disagreement turns upon what, exactly, a rank should measure. and until that is resolved, we won't agree about the value of yield rate.</p>

18

<p>pb2002, your reasoning makes sense in a world that measures things in absolutes and only absolutes.</p>

<p>Nothing is absolute. No ranking is perfect. Take some of these things for what its worth. No one ranking is going to be a neat simple "fit all" solution for all of the qualifications you are talking about. It's a ranking about preferences. Is it a PERFECT ranking? No. Are there things to consider for specific schools and situations? Absolutely.</p>

<p>But the 30,000 foot picture is pretty clear IMO. Those school in the top 10-15 are a pretty accurate reflection of not only student desirability for enrollment -- its a pretty decent list of the best schools in the nation.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
A school like Carnegie Mellon which lands only about 1 in 4 of its admits is clearly less a preferred destination for many of its applicants than are some other schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think in CMU's case (as is probably the same for many others on the list), there's a bunch of factors contributing to their yield statistics. I know that a ton of their applicants also apply to other top tech schools; CMU is often seen as a bit of a safety for MIT/Caltech/etc applicants. It also allows people to choose a bunch of colleges to choose from within the university to apply to, so it's actually considerably easier to get in, though you might not actually get into the college within the university you want to. We're also known for our rather poor financial aid (though if they really want you, they'll cough up the money to make you come).</p>

<p>I mean, I see Lehigh and RPI ranked higher than CMU, but I'm sure that if you look at the cross-admits, CMU will come out well ahead.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
For example, Stanford's SAT scores are lower than those of Princeton and Yale and therefore it has a higher yield because those low scoring students don't have a chance at YP.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Prof101, are you sure your example is pertinent to a discussion about yield --which is a ratio between enrolled and ... admitted students? The yield would have no impact on "lower scoring students" inability to be accepted at YP. </p>

<p>Fwiw, yield data provide an interesting insight but are mostly helpful for college enrollment specialists. While a high yield provides bragging rights to the college administrators, it is of little use to college applicants because this number does NOT involve decisions made regarding their status by the ... schools. The yield is totally driven by the decisions of students.</p>