It looks like the yield is 1722/2144=80.3%, assuming there were no waitlist admits. The official yield needs to wait till the CDS comes out.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/new-admits-finaid-032715.html
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/september/nso-starts-tuesday-091415.html
The school on the other coast has an 80.0% yield. So for the first time, S has the lowest admit rate and highest yield among the major universities.
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
“The largest contingent of first-year students – 32.9 percent – hails from California”.
Why so many students from CA? It seems to be unfair to applicants out of state, and tarnish its image as a national university.
Both MIT and Harvard do not give any preference to MA applicants.
It is probably true. Stanford only enrolls about 30s students from New Jersey per year.
Not so sure about those two MA schools’ policies accepting local people. M has a 73% yield this year, pretty impressive. Both are good schools.
I think pretty much every university, including Stanford, the Ivies and other top schools, is overweighted toward students from its home region. A majority of even the highest achieving students tend to stick close to home.
IIRC the percent of Stanford applicants from California is even higher than the 32.9% of matriculated students.
The military service academies (West Point, Annapolis, Air Force) are the only exceptions I can think of, because they have an admissions process that is specifically designed to ensure representation from all states.
All schools–including Stanford and Harvard–play games to increase their yield and decrease their admit rates. Having said this, Stanford’s performance versus Harvard is even more impressive than it might at first appear because of three things:
First, Stanford probably admitted too many students this year. This obviously affected the admit rate and probably the yield rate. This year 1,722 freshmen matriculated; last year it was 1,691. Although there have been rumors of a policy to increase the undergraduate enrollment, little has been made official. More telling is that Stanford had to re-open some closed, off-campus housing because of a higher than expected yield. This suggests they over-accepted. Harvard, in contrast, admitted 93 students from its waiting list. This means it could fine tune the number of incoming students.
Second, Harvard admitted more students (both in absolute numbers and relative to the size of the eventual class) through the early round than Stanford did. Harvard admitted 977 early. This was 16.5% of those who applied early and about 59% of those who eventually enrolled. To be sure, in contrast to most schools, at both Harvard and Stanford the early admits are not required to enroll. Yet the evidence is that most do even at these two schools. (Having said that, I know two kids who were admitted early to Harvard and both ended up going to Stanford.) Stanford admitted 742 early. This was 10.1% of those who applied early and 43% of the admitted class (assuming all early admits attend, which they don’t but most do).
Third, Harvard admitted 93 kids off of the waiting list but Stanford apparently did not admit anyone from its waiting list. This is probably the biggest of the three factors. My guess is that virtually everyone who is offered a place off of the wait list at Harvard matriculates. I say so for a few reasons. First, you have to affirmatively accept a place on the wait list. If Harvard isn’t your first choice and you are in at your first choice, why go to the wait list? I’m sure a few kids play games, but my guess it is not a lot. Second, kids and (more importantly) their schools can signal to Harvard that if admitted they will attend. Don’t doubt that the admissions staff takes notice. They want as high a yield rate and as low an admit rate as possible. Finally, when taken off of the Harvard wait list, you get a phone call in addition to an email. To be sure, you have the right to decline the offer (and I assume it counts as an offer), but how often does this happen? My guess is that in a number of cases, at Harvard and beyond, an admissions person calls the counselor and says “will Mary accept if we offer her?” The high school counselor has an incentive to tell the truth because in all likelihood, someone else will be applying from his high school to Harvard next year. Once the college receives a favorable signal–but not until then–it admits the kid off of the wait list.
@f2000sa I’m not sure Massachusetts can really be equated with California, which is much larger in both size and number of students. It would be interesting to see what Harvard’s percentage is from, say, all of New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, and Virginia, all lumped together. That would seem to be a more fair comparison. I don’t think Stanford is unfair to out-of-state students; like other top-tier schools, it seeks a diverse student body, which includes geographic diversity. In fact, at the convocation ceremony just a few days ago, one of the speakers mentioned, with chagrin, that there were no students from North Dakota in this year’s entering class.
MIT freshman class Profile:
Geography
New England 12%
Mid-Atlantic 20%
South & Puerto Rico 16%
Midwest & Plains States 12%
Southwest & Mountain 9%
West Coast, Alaska, & Hawaii 20%
Abroad 11%
Harvard:
Geographical breakdown
New England 18.1%
Middle Atlantic 20.7%
South 16.7%
Midwest 8.9%
Central 2.5%
Mountain 3.2%
Pacific 17.4%
Territories 0.4%
International 12.2%
New England is 5% of the US population and 12% of the MIT class, so NE is certainly overweighted at MIT (2.4x). California is 12% of the US population and 33% of the Stanford class (2.7x). So yes, Stanford is a bit more weighted to its home area but not by a huge amount.
It’s a bit of an apples to oranges comparison anyway because Stanford is the only top level private research university west of Chicago, so for a top high school student in the west it’s the obvious first choice IMO. Whereas a top high school student in New York, for example, can go to Princeton, Columbia or Yale, all within 90 minutes of home, and the entire Ivy League plus MIT within a few hours.
Seeing the edit adding Harvard numbers, Harvard is overweighted in its home region even more than Stanford - 18.1/5 = 3.6x versus 2.7x at Stanford.
I had a feeling that might be the case. The point is, all these schools tend to have higher percentages of students from their regions (and California is a very big region). I once asked a Princeton student who was from the Stanford area whether he thought going to school “back East” had broadened his perspective more than it might have been broadened had he attended Stanford. His response was something to the effect of, “Not really—there I’m just more likely to meet someone from Kentucky instead of Texas.”
If I recall correctly, something like 80% of students go to a school within 100 miles of where they grew up, and 90% within 500 miles. I assume those percentages are lower for top students, but even a lot of them will prefer to stick close to home in the end (and certainly many parents will prefer that).
I believe that Stanford and similar schools try pretty hard to have national student bodies (with obviously some internationals as well), but still they can only admit from among those who apply, and they get a disproportionate number of applications from their regions. It wouldn’t surprise me if yield is also higher among admits from their regions.
That 33% from California was more like high 30s only a few years ago if I recall correctly, so the trend is toward a more national student population but I imagine some degree of regional overweighting is going to continue.
Of course, at state universities it’s even more so, e.g. at the University of California, around 90% of the students are from California (with some variation across campuses).
Let’s find out.
According to
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/04/harvard-college-admits-1990/
H accepted 1990 students in April. And
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/5/15/class-2019-yield-81-percent/
said that the initial yield was around 81%, so there were Int[0.81*1990]=1611 students decided to attend before the waitlist admission.
From
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
There were1665 matriculates in total. This means that 1665-1611=54 matriculates were from the waitlist. There were 93 admitted from the waitlist, so the yield for admitting from the waitlist was 54/93=58%.
Admitting fewer in April would let the school claim a lower initial admit rate, but it would cost so much trouble to go through waitlist.
Admitting more in EA would achieve higher yield, but it could cost the school total applications.
S has been doing the right thing ~ being consistent each year.
After Leland Stanford’s only child died of typhus just short of the boy’s 16th birthday, he said “The children of California will be our children…”
Most of the schools play games with the numbers. What constitutes an applicant is even different across schools. Also what constitutes a commitment to come may differ. Some schools count as an applicant people who submit part but not the entire application. That is absurd-especially for schools that use the common app. What does these schools consider to be an applicant. What is a commitment to attend?
ewho writes above:
“There were1665 matriculates in total. This means that 1665-1611=54 matriculates were from the waitlist. There were 93 admitted from the waitlist, so the yield for admitting from the waitlist was 54/93=58%.”
I’m not sure this is correct. I find it almost inconceivable that only 58% of those offered a place off of the Harvard wait list accept the offer. The normal accept rate is 80%, and the kids who remain on the waitlist must affirmatively express an interest. Plus (as I posted earlier), most schools will contact a kid’s high school counselor before formally making an offer to gauge the probability of matriculation.
Harvard is being opaque when it writes that “93 were admitted” off the waitlist. I think most people would take this to mean that 93 members of the incoming class came off of the waitlist. My guess is that is either correct or they admitted 93 and the vast majority accepted. I’m not sure if we will ever know for sure.
There is a very long waitlist thread for Harvard. There is absolutely no mention of someone being offered and turning down the offer.
There is always admissions “melt.” Kids who formally accept and then decide not to attend for whatever reason. You do not take this into account in your math.
ewho also writes:
“Admitting more in EA would achieve higher yield, but it could cost the school total applications.”
I don’t follow this. Harvard (and many other schools) admits a ton of kids early but then defers almost all of the rest. (Stanford is one of the few schools not to defer most of the early applicants.) I’m not sure this deters kids from applying on the regular round. I think it could be the other way around: If Harvard outright rejected a kid early, someone else from the same high school (either that year or a following year) would think" “Mary applied early to Harvard and was outright rejected. She’s better than me, so I won’t even bother to apply.” I know this is the thinking of several people in the college counseling “industry.”
Finally, ewho writes:
“Admitting fewer in April would let the school claim a lower initial admit rate, but it would cost so much trouble to go through waitlist.”
I’m not sure about this either. Once the admission letters go out, there’s not much for the admissions staff to do for several months. What’s the cost of establishing a waitlisting. See how your class is shaping up. And then sort the waitlist by the characteristics you find lacking in the tentative class. Say, too few kids from the midwest have accepted your offer. See what kids from the midwest are on the waitlist who have expressed a strong desire to be/stay on the waitlist. Call up the high school counselor of that kid and ask whether he is really still interested in Harvard. If the counselor says, “he’s into Yale and I think he is happy” then you don’t offer the kid. But if the counselor says, “Harvard is his dream school. If you accept him, he will attend.” You then feel pretty safe that the kid will accept and your yield rate will increase accordingly.
All the staff has to do is to make about a hundred calls like this. Given the size of these staffs and that they have little else to do, where is the cost? Maybe I am missing something.
I do agree with ewho that Stanford handles the early applicants correctly: Alone among the elite schools, Stanford defers very few. And if they defer a kid early, they will not waitlist that kid. I agree with both policies.
H admitted 2081 from total 37307 applicants, and admitted 93 from the waitlist. My understanding of admitting from the waitlist is to take students from the waitlist, not the matriculates, as in the in CDS.
The waitlist admission was only in a few weeks in May~June. The summer melt could affect the numbers if a lot decided not to go to H, which signals another problem for H if that is true.
In any event, the actual number of waitlist matriculates should not be too far from 58.
imagine H accepts everyone in EA ~ there would be nobody to apply in RD, and hence to reduce the total # of applications.
H’s initial admit rate was 1990/37307=5.3%, final admit rate with waitlist admit was 2081/37307=5.6%. While the initial admit rate was reported in many news medias, the actual admit rate (final) has not been mentioned anywhere.
With regards to the yield of the waitlist, some of the accepted students may have been offered a place on the z-list, so they might not show up in this year’s matriculation numbers. Also a number of students will also defer their places and take a gap year, so they again might now show up in this year’s matriculation numbers.
Thank you, sansculottes. I suspected that could be the case, but the z-list admits should be counted as next year’s stats, like last year’s z-list admits were counted as this year’s admits.
The question is if the total waitlist admit number includes the z-list. If H puts the waitlist number on their site, they may want to seperate this H’s own practice from the common known waitlist admission.
H has been missing the CDS reports recently. So, we could not tell what the “common” practice is at H.
On paper, H has 80% in yield this year. The lower yield compared with the year before may be due to fewer admits in EA.
As I discussed somewhere else, H needs to be consistent like what S did. Yield and admit rate are conflict of interests. The ratio of yield to admit rate will be higher when both are moving in the favorable directions to the school. Arbitrarily manipulate one of them would affect the other and hence the ratio may not be improving.