Yield Rate

<p>byerly, it obviously can't get whomever it wants, as 21% or so refuse it</p>

<p>You will note that I said "pretty much whoever it wants." A large fraction of the 400 or so admits Harvard "loses" go to schools awarding free rides or large "merit" scholarships. The Ivies, on principle, only award financial aid on the basis of need.</p>

<p>You might also want to read "Higher Education: The Ultimate Winner Take All Market?" (Frank) <a href="http://www.inequality.com/publications/working_papers/RobertFrank1.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.inequality.com/publications/working_papers/RobertFrank1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Among Ivies, Harvard wins the financial aid battle. They usually are number one for need-based aid.</p>

<p>Depends who you ask. Princeton also does very well in the financial aid department.</p>

<p>Harvard gives, from my experience, about 1.5k better than Princeton, although yes, the difference is minute.</p>

<p>Arguing with Byerly on admissions data is time poorly spent.</p>

<p>i learned that the hard way.</p>

<p>Byerly, I was agreeing with your analysis, its just that I wasn't sure how many Harvard or Yale SCEA admits are likely to apply to other schools. I realize that the percentage that I used in my earlier calculations were a gross over-estimate but it still proved that if Princeton were to adopt an EASC policy instead of an ED policy it would be detrimental in terms of yield rate.</p>

<p>However, I do disagree with your comment that Harvard has no "peer institutions." Although its cross-admit and yield rates are significantly higher than other universities in the US, surely Harvard must consider the likes of YPSM as stellar institutions and capable of rivaling Harvard in providing education to both undergraduates and graduates.</p>

<p>I was obviously kidding about the "peer institutions" thing - with reference to the classic Daily Cal column "Rivalries: Put Up or Shut Up."</p>

<p>I still think that it would, on balance, be greatly beneficial to Princeton to move to SCEA. They were just waiting to see how much of a yield hit Stanford and Yale would take, vis a vis Harvard, and evidence showed that the number of early admits who apply elsewhere is minimal. This has always been true at Harvard - even during the "open EA" days.</p>

<p>In the particular case of Princeton, the overall yield rate may even rise with the switch. Why? Because a doubling of the early pool will allow Princeton to defer a large number of SCEA applicants to the RD pool, where they are "money in the bank" so to speak - yield-rate wise - because Princeton knows in advance they are favorably disposed to the school.</p>

<p>By way of example, last year Yale filled 590 seats via SCEA, but then admitted another 249 SCEA applicants after initially deferring them. This surely helped Yale to raise its RD yield rate.</p>

<p>Yield Computation Question to Byerly</p>

<p>How is the yield computed? Is the yield computed prior to the waitlist inclusion or after including the waitlist candidates? (Estimated inclusion of the waitlisted candidates)</p>

<p>I heard the yield was around 80 percent, and with 2074 applicants receiving acceptance letters, this equates to 1659 students, and for sure, my girl friend has no chance to get in at Harvard. </p>

<p>I further read that 15 or 30 will be admitted from the waitlist. A bit confusing. </p>

<p>Any comments from Byerly or to that extent anyone else, will be appreciated.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The rankings are NOT close for a most important stat: attracting the strongest students. Harvard's clear edge has persisted here for decades, and is not likely to change soon. The College gets pretty much whoever it wants. No other school can make this claim.

[/quote]
Here's what I've been thinking about lately. Examine the statement above. To believe this you have to believe that when Harvard admissions chooses "whoever they want" they always choose the strongest students. First you have to believe that the Harvard admissions people's picture of the "strongest student" matches your personal vision. Then you have to believe that the application process fully reveals the "strongest students" in accordance with this vision. OK. Everyone can make up their own mind where they stand on that one, let's leave it aside.</p>

<p>But more importantly, to fully agree with the quoted statement, you have to believe that the concept of "strongest students" makes an experiential difference when applied to the pool of tens of thousands of students who qualify for the most elite universities. Notice I said "experiential difference." There is a measurable difference, SAT scores etc. But if you go to Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Stanford or MIT or probably several other schools - will you really notice any difference day to day? Given the extreme intelligence and levels of achievement of so many students applying to these schools from all over the world, will you really wake up in the morning at Harvard and feel like you are with smarter kids? </p>

<p>You will certainly feel like you are with other kids who most wanted to go to Harvard. You will feel like you are the ones chosen by the most often first choice university in the country. You will feel that you are with kids who wanted to be in Cambridge. You will feel like you have made your family and yourself really proud. But I wonder if any difference in strength of students really registers in these high high realms of academics. Surely there are more than enough brilliant kids to go around. </p>

<p>So in the end, when it comes to what matters, i.e. whether the kids going to these schools can enjoy the fruits of their hard work and native intelligence in the company of other kids who make that fruit sweeter, does that fact that Harvard has the higher yield rate really matter?</p>

<p><em>anticipating the reaction she responds pro-actively</em></p>

<p>And no, I do not mean all students in all universities everywhere are the same. Please do not extend my comments into absurdity. Just imagine Venn diagrams of overlapping ovals where Harvard maybe has one bit of kids who don't overlap with the next most selective school which has one bit of kids who don't overlap with next most selective school etc. These are some pretty damn close ovals with a huge overlap and I doubt inside some of these ovals feels too much different on a "strongest students" criteria than any other oval. At some point on the chain there is a difference but I sure don't know where myself.</p>

<p>I agree with Alumother. Anyone who has followed this thread has read about countless students with phenomenal stats and accomplishments who did not get into Harvard. Likewise, there are other students, who are not URM's, recruited athletes or legacies, and who, by there own descriptions, were shocked that they got into Harvard because they didn't have the super profile. We also often hear of accepted Harvard students being rejected by Yale and/or Princeton, and vise versa. So, the concept of the "strongest student" is clearly in the eye of the beholder. All that being said, it does seem true that Harvard has the best chance of getting the students it wants.</p>

<p>There is "projected" yield, "final yield" and there are various intermediate snapshots.</p>

<p>Schools estimate yield when sending out initial admit letters, and that is what I call "projected yield." They need to come as close as they can to filling the class without the risk of over-enrolling. Thus, "projected" yield is almost always higher than "final" yield.</p>

<p>When Harvard - or any other school - announces yield in May, that is not "final" yield, either, but just the initial result based on acceptances of April 1 admit letters.</p>

<p>For example, Harvard admitted 2,074 and 1,627 of the initial admits accepted. (A few more may yet sneak into the tent.) The "projected" yield was about 79% based on a target class size of 1,640.</p>

<p>In meeting the eventual class size, which this year may be - say - 1,642, you would initially think that would mean taking a straight 15 from the waitlist. But there are other factors at play. </p>

<p>First, there will be about 10 members of the class who were admitted last year but decided to take a "gap year" before beginning. This group may vary in size from the number of current admits who similarly decide to take a "gap year."</p>

<p>Second, there are always some who drop by the wayside for a range of reasons, including illness, change of family circumstances and even (horrors!) choosing another school when taken off its waitlist.</p>

<p>Third, the 1,640 class size is only a target: it has ranged from 1,630 to 1,650 in recent years.</p>

<p>The next "round" concludes at the end of June when all the musical chairs related to waitlist hopping concludes, and another yield rate snapshot can be taken. For most schools, yield is lower at this point; sometimes it rises at Harvard, since it seldom loses anyone to the waitlist at other schools, and its own waitlist admits - if any - come in at a satisfying 100% yield rate. (Waitlist admits have a 100% yield at most schools, since they are sounded out informally before an admit letter is sent,)</p>

<p>Of course less extensive churning continues in July and August ("summer melt") before the final number of admits/matriculants can be established when classes begin in late August or September.</p>

<p>At every school, the "final" yield in September will be lower than any intermediate number projected, or claimed, earlier, and current estimates of the numbers of waitlist admits - if any - can only be that: an estimate.</p>

<p>fdsfdsfdsafdsfdsafdsaa</p>

<p>Might I suggest this paper:
<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think it's relevant to any discussion on yield, as the matriculation rate of cross-admits is often the most informative statistic.</p>

<p>The so-called "Revealed Preference" study:</p>

<p><a href="http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Thank you Byerly, I had no idea they had updated.</p>

<p>A lot of facinating new insights added in the December, 2005 update</p>

<p>Among the fascinating details in the 2005 study is that both Yale and Stanford are ranked above Harvard among students who intend to major in the humanities.</p>