<p>Bama typically enrolls more African American students, a respectable commitment, and that has a negative impact to its middle quartile scores. The nat’l avg ACT for AA students is an unfortunate 17.</p>
<p>I think the more OOS families that tour UA facilities, the more they can spread the word that Alabama is not shot gun houses, dirt roads, and actually has a lot of sophistication going on with high tech Huntsville area (Cummings Research Park), Redstone Arsenal, Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA); people that have come to Alabama from other parts of the country and the world. Tuscaloosa is 50 mi from Birmingham, a major city that hopefully has shaken off the civil rights era reputation from the 1960’s.</p>
<p>As other posters have said, UA has grown in number of students, new facilities, climbing up on reputation. We have been very pleased with what they have to offer DD in engineering and STEM MBA (5th year completion).</p>
<p>UA’s yield is 37%. Not many schools have yields over 50% (for comparison, Vandy is 41%, while Duke is 42%).</p>
<p>What I think best describes the “differences” between UA and Auburn’s students, is the % break down of the ACT (from the common data set).</p>
<p>ACT UA Auburn
30-36 30% 28%
24-29 35% 53%
18-23 35% 19%</p>
<p>The SAT is similar, with UA having more 700-800 scoring (CR,M and Writing). UA has more “high scoring” and “low scoring” students. UA average GPA is 3.60, while Auburn’s is 3.74.</p>
<p>In 2002, Auburn had 19,603 undergraduates, in 2013 they had 19,799. Which supports @threeofthree point, that Auburn has kept enrollment flat. The number of graduate students have increased from 3,673 (2002) to 5,065 (2013). Likely to support the increased research being done at Auburn (since 2002). </p>
<p>Edit: Interesting fact, at Auburn, the in-state students average higher on the ACT/SAT test scores than the OOS students. I would think that’s not the case at UA. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just grabbed the handiest figure when quoting Bama’s yield before, which was the 2011-2012 data on collegedata.com. </p>
<p>Going back several years in the CDS, we see the following for yield:</p>
<p>2007-2008, 50%
2008-2009, 46%
2009-2010, 46%
2010-2011, 51%
2011-2012, 64%
2012-2013, 45%
2013-2014, 37%</p>
<p>So it’s not right to say Bama’s yield is 64% or 37%, as those are the recent minimum and maximum. Bama’s most recent yield we have data on is 37%, and it has historically been around 50%.</p>
<p>It has also typically been notably higher than Auburn’s, for example 64% vs. 36% in 2011-2012, and 45% vs. 28% in 2012-2013. (Auburn has not posted 2013-2014 CDS, as far as I can tell.)</p>
<p>This list from USNWR shows that the colleges with high yield are an odd mix of super-elite and random others, such as Alaska-Fairbanks and Georgia Southern:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/01/30/national-universities-where-accepted-students-usually-enroll”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/01/30/national-universities-where-accepted-students-usually-enroll</a></p>
<p>Bama typically has had higher yield than Auburn, but that should not necessarily be interpreted as indicating any sort of superiority.</p>
<p>Gator88NE, if you look at <a href=“https://oira.auburn.edu/newstu_factbookFA13.pdf”>https://oira.auburn.edu/newstu_factbookFA13.pdf</a>, you will see that students at Auburn, from other states, had higher ACT scores than students at Auburn from Alabama, for 3 out of the five years listed at the link. That trend started to be reversed in 2012, and 2013 was the only year that the differential in favor of Auburn’s instate students was significant. So not sure if 2013 was a blip, or a new trend.<br>
Also, as long as UA provides greater opportunities for the higher number of higher scoring students going there, why does it matter that it accepts a larger number of lower scoring students, aside from the missed prestige that comes with higher admissions standards? The higher scoring students at UA largely take classes in small classes within the Honors Program. Its not like they suffer because of the presence on campus of a large number of lower scoring students. </p>
<p>I seriously doubt that Auburn is happy about its decreases in enrollment, even if they are small. If you look at the Oira page at Auburn’s site, you can clearly see a decline in enrollment for the last two years. Growth, in the current context of lower state funding, is the main reason UA has been able to hire so many new and well paid faculty. The salary differential between UA and Auburn is becoming quite significant. So maybe it was smart of UA to hold off on further tightening of admissions standards.</p>
<p>I tried to edit my first reply to Gator88NE, but don’t see the edit feature tonight. Anyway, I went back and relooked at the Auburn Factbook at <a href=“https://oira.auburn.edu/newstu_factbookFA13.pdf”>https://oira.auburn.edu/newstu_factbookFA13.pdf</a> and came upon something that is very interesting. In 2012, Auburn admitted 30 per cent of all applicants with an ACT of 22 or below. In 2013, it admitted over 44 per cent of those with an ACT of 22 or lower. However, for both years, its yield for these groups was a low 17 and 21 per cent respectively. I don’t know if UA has a similar breakdown in its report, but I think its likely that UA probably admits a higher percentage of these type of students, yet I think its also probable that its yield for these students is much higher, given its role as the state’s flagship, and its possession of the state’s name. By the way, Auburn’s overall yield was only around 22 or 23 per cent for each of the last two years. I think this analysis offers a new perspective on the higher percentage of both high and low scoring students enrolling at UA. </p>
<p>Actually, given the data I found above, I don’t think it’s clear that UA is any less selective than AU when it comes to the lower scoring students. It really could just be due to huge differences in yield and greater numbers preferring to apply to UA . If AU accepted over 44 per cent of those with an ACT of 22 or less in 2013, and UA had an overall acceptance rate of around 56 per cent in 2013, then UA might actually accept a lower percentage of these students than AU. </p>
<p>@BobWallace</p>
<p>I agree that yield doesn’t indicating any sort of superiority. In UA case, it’s just reflecting how student recruitment has changed over the last several years. With UA’s focus on OOS recruitment, I don’t think past yields are predictive of future yields.</p>
<p>Using the CDS data for 2011-12 and 2013-14
2011-12
Number of Students applied: 22,136
Number of Students admitted: 9,636 (43.5%)
Number of Students enrolled: 5,728 ( 59.4%) (Yield)</p>
<p>2013-14
Number of Students applied: 30,975
Number of Students admitted: 17,515 (56.5%)
Number of Students enrolled: 6,454 ( 36.8%) (Yield)</p>
<p>If you increase the % of admitted students and have a significant increase in the number of students that applied (almost 30% more), then the yield will go down (as it did in 2013-2014). I would think this reflects admitting “better stats” OOS students, which increase the pool size of well qualified applicants (and the increase in the number of students that applied). However, OOS students are much more likely to be looking at several other universities, than in-state students, so the yield can be expected to decrease. </p>
<p>Of course, UA wants to start increasing yield (but knows it may take some time), as this would allow it be more selective. Once yield goes up, UA will be able to reduce the % admitted (to reach it’s target number of enrolled students). </p>
<p>Then again, if yield goes up, UA may then reduce OOS scholarship funding, allowing more funding for faculty and facilities. Which will lead to a decrease in planned yield. </p>
<p>@Atlanta68 </p>
<p>I think it’s interesting that Auburn’s in-state students, for the last 2 years, have a higher average ACT score. That’s counterintuitive. While Auburn isn’t as generous with OOS scholarships as UA, it’s still far more generous than it’s competitors outside of Alabama. It really makes no sense to me. Do a significant amount of low stat OOS students go to Auburn and pay OOS tuition rates ($26,364 a year)? The lowest OOS academic scholarship requires an ACT score of 29 to 30. </p>
<p>Most of Auburns OOS students come from Georgia and Florida. Perhaps this decrease has more to do with location and how selective UGA and GT (and UF/FSU) have become (or perhaps changes to hope/bright future scholarships in these states)? Whatever it is, it’s not the result I would expect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re looking at enrolled vs. application. Yield would be enrolled vs. admitted, which is about 28% for the last two years. </p>
<p>Doing some digging, it does look like part of Auburn’s “Strategic Plan” was to increase the academic quality of students, by keeping the enrollment numbers steady. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.auburn.edu/communications_marketing/strategic_plan/p1i1.html”>http://www.auburn.edu/communications_marketing/strategic_plan/p1i1.html</a></p>
<p>Completely outside of data pts, but AUburn was immediately struck from ds’s list after visiting. The meeting with the dept was unbelievably awful and definitely left a bad impression.</p>
<p>You are right about the distinction between enrolled/applied, vs. enrolled, admitted. But still, it is signficantly lower than UA’s. Also, there is little evidence of growing demand for education at Auburn, with two years in a row of small enrollment decline in both total enrollment and freshman enrollment. Just saying that I don’t think that Auburn really wants declining enrollment, at least not in the current economic climate. I noticed that the number of applications to Auburn declined signficantly as well from 2012 to 2013. That might explain why AU was willing to accept more than 44 per cent of those with ACT scores of 22 or below, whereas in 2012, they only accepted 30 per cent of that same type of student. </p>
<p>Total enrollment at Auburn
2011: 25,469
2012: 25,134
2013: 24,864</p>
<p>It’s normal for schools that are not actively seeking to grow enrollment to have fluctuations in total enrollment. Sometimes it’s due to underestimating or overestimating yield, sometimes it’s due to winning a national championship in football.</p>
<p>Increasing enrollment doesn’t seem to be a focus at Auburn. It’s more concerned with enhance student success (increase first year retention rates and 4/6 year graduation rates) and diversify enrollment.</p>
<p><a href=“Auburn University's Strategic Plan's aim is helping freshmen”>http://www.oanow.com/news/article_27e6ba96-e071-11e3-91e2-001a4bcf6878.html</a></p>
<p>If Auburn improved first year retention rates, its total enrollment would increase (without having to lower standards). Of course, they could then be more selective, which would act to reduce enrollment (and raise freshmen stats) back to the enrollment target.</p>
<p>Back to the original question! Clearly scholarships are key to UA’s strategy to grow the university, while also increasing the quality of the incoming freshmen (and hence increase the school’s ranking). Below gives a sense of UA’s financial commitment to the scholarship program. </p>
<p>A breakdown of the 2013 UA budget expenditures (by Object):
Salary and Wages: $331.8M
Employee Benefits: $117.8M
Supplies and expenses: $106M
Equipment and other Capital Assets: $14.5M
Scholarships and Fellowships: $119M
Total is around $690M
Scholarships are making about 17% of UA’s expenditures in 2013. </p>
<p>Expenditures by Function:
Instruction: $252.6M
Research: $42.5M
Public Service: $37.9M
Academic Support: $78.7M
Student Services: $34.5M
Institutional Support: $62.5M
Operations and Maintenance of Physical Plant: $61.5M
Scholarships and Fellowships: $119M
Total around $690M </p>