I find discussion like these very interesting yet truly scary.
@JHS while we’re on the topic of how admission statistics are calculated by colleges, do you think that matriculation rates factor in the number of binding-ED applicants? For example, Wharton reported in the past that it had an 80% matriculation rate (which is one of the highest in the nation, on par with Harvard). Even with Wharton’s prestige, I find this hard to believe. Could it just mean that Wharton accepts a large number of ED applicants?
What you are referring to is usually called “yield.” And, yes, ED increases yield substantially.
Yield is really the key independent variable in college admissions. Freshman class size is effectively a constant, at least at the level of selective colleges. The number of admission offers the college gives out is that constant divided by yield. The admission rate will be whatever that number is, divided by however many applications get submitted.
The more ED admissions a college makes, the fewer overall admissions it will need, since yield from ED admissions is always close to 100%, and yield from RD admissions is never close to 100%.
Overall, in recent years Penn seems to have accepted slightly more than 50% of its class ED. If that’s the case with Wharton, then an 80% overall yield means that it gets a 50% yield on students accepted RD. Which is great, by the way, for a school with ED. Sure, Harvard and Stanford get 80%+ yields without ED, but they have lots of applicants who would have been happy to apply ED if they could. The same would be true of Wharton. If all their ED acceptees were accepted RD instead, Wharton wouldn’t get 100% of them to enroll, but it would probably get more than the 50% rate it gets from applicants who didn’t apply ED.
Meanwhile, Harvard and Stanford likely get much higher yields from their SCEA acceptees – although not 100% – than they do from their RD acceptees. They don’t fill half of their classes from SCEA, either. They probably have something like a 90% SCEA yield and a 75% RD yield.
Thank you JHS for another perfect answer
Not sure that what JHS is saying about z-listers is accurate. When Harvard accepts 50-100 z-listers they become members of the following year’s class so no effect on the current year’s admissions rate. The 50-100 z-listers that were accepted from the previous year’s applicant pool somehow get mixed into the current year’s stats. Since they are 100% committed to attend, one could say they actually bolster the yield.
Deferred does not mean Rejected. You should read “Hey, Mom! I Got into Harvard!”
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/hear-our-students/student-blog/hey-mom-i-got-harvard
I would be interested to know what fraction of deferred applicants are accepted. I absolutely think Harvard should opt for a more Stanford-like system in which deferral likely means a higher chance of acceptance than the average RD’er. Then again, as long as people are aware that almost all deferred applicants are rejected, I suppose there isn’t an enormous issue. But even if people intellectually know that, the deferral keeps hope alive, ultimately resulting in a more crushing blow to the applicants who were strung along. I wish I knew why they did this - seems unnecessary and even a bit cruel.